You are not addressing my point. I did not say "reject" statute law. My point is that we cannot add interpretations to statute law except based on case law. Many if not most questions about copyright, like this one, are not specifically addressed in statute law. It is rather case law that is interpreting what "published" means, what "product" means, what "derivative" means, and so on.
So we cannot address the question of whether trailers are the same or a different product, since this is not addressed directly in statute law, but only addressed or partially addressed in case law.
In that case, I would lean toward adding no additional interpretations on our part, and letting the case law determine the situation.
In a message dated 9/8/2008 11:30:23 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, geniice@gmail.com writes:
Most life+whatever laws have not technically been tested so rejecting statute law until we have some case law isn't practical.
**************Psssst...Have you heard the news? There's a new fashion blog, plus the latest fall trends and hair styles at StyleList.com. (http://www.stylelist.com/trends?ncid=aolsty00050000000014)
2008/9/8 WJhonson@aol.com:
You are not addressing my point. I did not say "reject" statute law. My point is that we cannot add interpretations to statute law except based on case law.
How much say Freedom of panorama caselaw do you think there actually is?
Many if not most questions about copyright, like this one, are not specifically addressed in statute law. It is rather case law that is interpreting what "published" means, what "product" means, what "derivative" means, and so on.
No because the way that trailers are distributed fits an established method of publishing (mostly you would hit issues with trailers only shown at festivals but that isn't relevant for the stuff we are talking about) derivative isn't relevant because the trailers were not made by a third party (if they were there are potential issues but otherwise we fall in line with Letter Edged in Black Press, Inc. v. Public Building Commission of Chicago). "product" isn't a legal term relevant to the issue.
So we cannot address the question of whether trailers are the same or a different product, since this is not addressed directly in statute law, but only addressed or partially addressed in case law.
In that case, I would lean toward adding no additional interpretations on our part, and letting the case law determine the situation.
There is no additional interpretation. As statute law is written screen shots of trailers published before their respective films without copyright notices are PD. There are some possible exceptions but given what we use them for we are unlikely to trigger them (say a copyrighted painting appeared in the trailer).
geni wrote:
So we cannot address the question of whether trailers are the same or a different product, since this is not addressed directly in statute law, but only addressed or partially addressed in case law.
In that case, I would lean toward adding no additional interpretations on our part, and letting the case law determine the situation
There is no additional interpretation. As statute law is written screen shots of trailers published before their respective films without copyright notices are PD. There are some possible exceptions but given what we use them for we are unlikely to trigger them (say a copyrighted painting appeared in the trailer).
Except for time-expired copyrights, I doubt that the trailers are PD, but they clearly come under fair use. If one considers that they were published in the first place for free distribution, showing them does not diminish the producer's revenue within the meaning of the fourth factor of fair use. Their purpose was a marketting one to encourage the public to see the whole film.
Ec
2008/10/2 Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net:
Except for time-expired copyrights, I doubt that the trailers are PD,
Why?
geni wrote:
2008/10/2 Ray Saintonge :
Except for time-expired copyrights, I doubt that the trailers are PD,
Why?
Since registration is not required, the legal presumption is that a published work falling within statutory definitions is copyright. PD is an absence of valid copyright, and that can be established in a number of ways, the most important of which are very easy arguments. The plaintiff still needs to establish a right of action, but owning the copyright would not be enough to overcome the clear fair use claim.
Ec
2008/10/8 Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net:
geni wrote: Since registration is not required, the legal presumption is that a published work falling within statutory definitions is copyright.
Wrong tense. We are talking about events in the past so the correct tense would be " registration was not required" which in the US isn't true. US law has also in the past required copyright notices.
PD is an absence of valid copyright, and that can be established in a number of ways, the most important of which are very easy arguments. The plaintiff still needs to establish a right of action, but owning the copyright would not be enough to overcome the clear fair use claim.
There is no evidence that they own the copyright within the US. Please provide an argument by which they could do so.
geni wrote:
2008/10/8 Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net:
Since registration is not required, the legal presumption is that a published work falling within statutory definitions is copyright.
Wrong tense. We are talking about events in the past so the correct tense would be " registration was not required" which in the US isn't true. US law has also in the past required copyright notices.
Not the wrong tense at all. If copyright is being disputed in the courts it's about whether the copyright prevails at times relevant to the court action, not some time in the distant past. For a trailer it's about the time when it is shown. The failure to register at some past time, or the failure to post a copyright notice can easily rebut the presumption of protection, but unless these defences are raised the presumption stands.
PD is an absence of valid copyright, and that can be established in a number of ways, the most important of which are very easy arguments. The plaintiff still needs to establish a right of action, but owning the copyright would not be enough to overcome the clear fair use claim.
There is no evidence that they own the copyright within the US. Please provide an argument by which they could do so.
Who are you talking about? If someone has a legitimate foreign copyright, it would normally apply in the USA by virtue of international treaties, unless you want to argue that some U. S. idiosyncrasy applies.
Ec
2008/10/10 Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net:
Not the wrong tense at all. If copyright is being disputed in the courts it's about whether the copyright prevails at times relevant to the court action, not some time in the distant past. For a trailer it's about the time when it is shown. The failure to register at some past time, or the failure to post a copyright notice can easily rebut the presumption of protection, but unless these defences are raised the presumption stands.
Evidences? Please show that protection is presumed until a counter is found.
Who are you talking about? If someone has a legitimate foreign copyright, it would normally apply in the USA by virtue of international treaties, unless you want to argue that some U. S. idiosyncrasy applies.
The makers of the trailers this is fairly obvious from the context. Since they were published in the US during the time period in question foreign copyrights do not impact their US copyright status.
geni wrote:
2008/10/10 Ray Saintonge:
Not the wrong tense at all. If copyright is being disputed in the courts it's about whether the copyright prevails at times relevant to the court action, not some time in the distant past. For a trailer it's about the time when it is shown. The failure to register at some past time, or the failure to post a copyright notice can easily rebut the presumption of protection, but unless these defences are raised the presumption stands.
Evidences? Please show that protection is presumed until a counter is found.
Such an eristic demand for evidence does not merit a response.
There is no evidence that they own the copyright within the US. Please provide an argument by which they could do so.
Who are you talking about? If someone has a legitimate foreign copyright, it would normally apply in the USA by virtue of international treaties, unless you want to argue that some U. S. idiosyncrasy applies.
The makers of the trailers this is fairly obvious from the context. Since they were published in the US during the time period in question foreign copyrights do not impact their US copyright status.
I've added back those of your comments to which I was replying since it so obviously suggested foreign owners seeking copyright coverage of the trailers within the US. Now you want to change your mind and say that you were talking about US owners anyway. Is there any reason to believe that the owners of the trailers are any different from the owners of the film being advertised by that trailer?
Ec
geniice@gmail.com writes:
Most life+whatever laws have not technically been tested so rejecting statute law until we have some case law isn't practical.
"Life + whatever" is clear enough that it is less likely to be challenged directly, but there are any number of conceivable bases for an indirect challenge: * Does the plaintiff have a right of action as a direct heir of the author's rights? * Do the laws of a different country with a different "whatever" come in to play? * Does fair use apply? * Did a joint author already act to license the work or put it into the public domain? * etc.
Ec