Jump to content


This site uses cookies. By using this site, you agree to accept cookies, unless you've opted out. (US government web page with instructions to opt out: http://www.usa.gov/optout-instructions.shtml)

Legaciesqui custodiet ipsos custodes?


  • Please log in to reply
21 replies to this topic

#16 TenduTV

TenduTV

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 77 posts

Posted 12 July 2010 - 01:41 PM

My question about You Tube broadcasts is more to the question as to when extraneous elements -- the shaky photography, extremely oblique angles, the occlusionary shadows -- add a value and signature, albeit unintended, that creates a new original. Juan Gris repainted several of Cezanne's paintings, faithfully following the original compositions, but his own style flattens some aspects of the original and gives an very un-Cezannean elegance to others and creates a new work of art. Ann Barzel's films certainly bear her signature. It seems that at some point that such "degraded" videos are no threat to the owner or trustee of the original choreography.

You've perhaps answered this in your example about removing the scratches (though here it's the equivalent of generating them).


Actually, I haven't. What you're talking about is the transformational aspect of the use, which is the first test of fair use (http://fairuse.stanf...apter9/9-b.html). The big case study these days is the famous Shepard Fairey Obama "Hope" poster, which was based on a photo from the AP. Although a verdict wasn't/hasn't been issued, it wasn't looking good for Fairey.

#17 Quiggin

Quiggin

    Gold Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 852 posts

Posted 12 July 2010 - 09:06 PM

It's unfortunate that Shepard Fairey is the big case in that he pretty blatantly borrows original material from lots of artists and adds little more. The Obama Hope poster not only borrows the photograph, but also the concept, layout and typeface from a 1988 John Carpenter sci-fi film "They Live" -- as pointed out by A S Hamrah at N+1 magazine.

#18 Mel Johnson

Mel Johnson

    Diamonds Circle

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,311 posts

Posted 13 July 2010 - 05:42 PM

It's a little tough to interpret the history of copyright, as it has its beginnings only in the 17th and 18th centuries in English law, which tradition America largely inherited. The Monopoly Act of 1624 was the first English law that acknowledged, positively, that monopoly in any form had a right to exist. The Copyright Act of 1709 (aka the Statute of Queen Anne) positively established that a creator/inventor possessed some kinds of rights over what he had created/invented. Before that, it was pretty much all in the hands of printer-publishers, known collectively as "booksellers". The 1709 act had the effect of affording the creator of a work the exclusive right (a monopoly) to profit from its use for a stated period. When those first copyrights came up for renewal, there was a considerable scuffle among the booksellers who considered "monopoly in perpetuity" to be "odious", in which sentiment I join them.

#19 Helene

Helene

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,463 posts

Posted 26 July 2010 - 10:29 AM

Are ballet videos subject to digital locks? If so, are they considered motion pictures, apart from ballet videos that are marketed like motion pictures, like the NYCB's and PNB's "Nutcracker" movies?

The Library of Congress has ruled that there on exemptions to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DCMA) for six types of use that bypass the standard DRM (Digital Rights Management) rules/laws. One of these is:

(1) Motion pictures on DVDs that are lawfully made and acquired and that are protected by the Content Scrambling System when circumvention is accomplished solely in order to accomplish the incorporation of short portions of motion pictures into new works for the purpose of criticism or comment, and where the person engaging in circumvention believes and has reasonable grounds for believing that circumvention is necessary to fulfill the purpose of the use in the following instances:

(i) Educational uses by college and university professors and by college and university film and media studies students; (ii) Documentary filmmaking; (iii) Noncommercial videos.



http://arstechnica.c...re-fair-use.ars

I'm wondering if this means that short portions of commercial ballet videos may be used in compilations on YouTube, for example, or if documentary film makers can bypass getting the rights from, for example, choreographers' trusts and original publishers for use in documentaries, even if they are commercial.

#20 4mrdncr

4mrdncr

    Silver Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 670 posts

Posted 01 August 2010 - 06:55 PM

:o OMG! You mean now I won't have to pay zillions for the rights from PBS, WNET, Ms. Kinberg, Mr. Diamond, Mr. Bhargava (sp apologies), the OCPAC, and all their technicians, orchestra, music publishers, not to mention Ms. Holmes and ABT's significant people for that 15 second clip of Angel in "Le Corsair"?!

PS. Thanks TenduTV for explaining matters to fellow BT members. I could only shake my head in frustration, but you actually used it, and your experience to elucidate a complicated topic that few not directly involved understand.

#21 Helene

Helene

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,463 posts

Posted 01 August 2010 - 07:15 PM

It sounds like you won't be violating copyright. The question is whether there are other things, like license or other issues to overcome, or whether there will be a general concession.

#22 4mrdncr

4mrdncr

    Silver Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 670 posts

Posted 01 August 2010 - 07:32 PM

Sorry, I'm not a lawyer, but isn't there a difference between a license for a product (ie. and/or its distribution) or trademark usage, and payment to the copyright owners for their copyrighted work (ie. the creators/ion of the work/product)?

But either way, thanks for the notice about the DCMA and DRM rights. I've been somewhat remiss lately in my legal research and will now proceed to reading the above more closely. And if allowances are really made for docs--besides Fair Use and the Dance Heritage findings already noted above by others--then hooray et merci Helene for informing BT (and me).


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


Help support Ballet Alert! and Ballet Talk for Dancers year round by using this search box for your amazon.com purchases (adblockers may block display):