Page 1 of Help with Copyright Issue

I wonder if anyone can answer this question for me.

I was considering putting some reviews of films I`ve got up on a website. I was going to grab some screen shots from the DVD`s to place on the review page.

Are there any copyright issues with doing this. Do you need to get the studios permission first.

Thanks

Technically, its a violation of copyright: unauthorized replication of copyrighted material. However, the net is swarming with such violations and I have only ever heard of unathorized movie sites (eg Saving Private Ryan, Fight Club) being attacked for such behaviour. In other words, I suspect you would be left well alone. Legally, you dont really have many options, you could contact the distributors or the marketing firms responsible for the individual films, but you are liable to be ignored or denied. My suggestion would be to simply go ahead. If there are problems, its not like you will be sued outright, you would simply be asked to remove the material. But as I say, this is extremely rare.

--Mike

Also due to the free publicity they get, the term `turns a blind eye` springs to mind.

True, although much of it is, deservedly, negative publicity. Although in Hollywood, a negative is generally regarded as a positive. And vice versa.

--Mike

Thanks for the advice guys. From the amount of sites I`ve seen with screenshots I guessed that would be the answer.

Someone asked me this very question last week I think, and my reply was that the images of course remain the copyright of the original holders, but unless they assert this copyright there is no legal infringement.

Of course once they do assert their copyrights, if you do not remove them as soon as is reasonably possible, then you are breaking the law.

Hmm, that`s a bit like the old adage: a crime is only a crime if you get caught.

:)

--Mike

Below is from the 1998 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, I`ve capitalised the key sentence which I think is relevant in this situation. I think you would be hard pressed to say a screenshot is a substantial part of a film:

16 The acts restricted by copyright in a work

(1) The owner of the copyright in a work has, in accordance with the following provisions of this Chapter, the exclusive right to do the following acts in the United Kingdom—
(a) to copy the work (see section 17);
(b) to issue copies of the work to the public (see section 18);
[(ba) to rent or lend the work to the public (see section 18A);]
(c) to perform, show or play the work in public (see section 19);
(d) to broadcast the work or include it in a cable programme service (see section 20);
(e) to make an adaptation of the work or do any of the above in relation to an adaptation (see section 21);

and those acts are referred to in this Part as the "acts restricted by the copyright".

(2) Copyright in a work is infringed by a person who without the licence of the copyright owner does, or authorises another to do, any of the acts restricted by the copyright.

(3) References in this Part to the doing of an act restricted by the copyright in a work are to the doing of it—
(a) IN RELATION TO THE WORK AS A WHOLE OR ANY SUBSTANTIAL PART OF IT, and
(b) either directly or indirectly;

and it is immaterial whether any intervening acts themselves infringe copyright.

Well, I suspect you could argue either way, the legislation being as vague as it is.

--Mike

This is probably covered by the same rules that allow a reviewer to quote passages from books. Its probably legal as long as you don`t put too many shots up. Don`t think its ever been tested in court though.

This item was edited on Monday, 24th July 2000, 09:55