Image licensing

[John Roberts]

Hello to everyone

Can anyone supply me with a quick (and hopefully complete) answer regarding the licensing of an image. My next project will feature a large image, fleetingly, as part of the storyline. I've contacted the copyright holders and they have requested a small fee for licensing of the image, which will give me unlimited use of the image within my film - that is, I'll have unrestricted use for competitions, public viewing etc.

I would like clarification of this licensing with regards to IAC competitions and the like - is the payment of a fee for the image acceptable in much the same way that a music licensing fee is? I would hate to fall foul of any 'money was paid to a professional body' interpretation of the licence!

John

[col lamb]

John

This is a total minefield, whilst we have the various music licenses available to us via the IAC things operate differently with video and images.

For images each image is the copyright of the person taking it unless he is working for a specific organization where he has signed his rights away to the organization, there again it may well be that he gets a small fee each time it is used or sold on. Each company has their own sales and licensing system with applicable restrictions.

Stock images such as those available via gettyimages.com have different licences applied to them depending upon the source.

That is not all, if the image has any logo or trade mark then the owner of that logo or trade mark or name badge on a car/truck/van will own the copyright and hence they too will in theory be due a fee and a signed license would be required.

There are royalty paid/free images available just like music, there is also a group known as creative commons where images may be easier to obtain and use.

As you have a specific image in mind I'd ask them for a copy of their license, if you are happy with it pay the fee but do bear in mind what I have said about logo's trade marks etc.

So finally in answer to your question, unfortunately there is no quick and easy answer it is all if and buts and totally depended upon the owner of the image.

[John Roberts]

Hi Col, thanks for the reply

I have been in discussion with the copyright owner of the image - the sole licenser of everything contained on that image i.e. the artists work, defunct logos etc - and they have agreed that I can use the image for my next film upon payment of a licence fee. As far as I am concerned the complete and proper use of that image in my film is covered by that licence. I was probably more concerned, in these heady days of discussions about who paid for what and to whom that I wouldn't be accused of paying for 'professional help' by paying the fee for the licence.

My apologies if I didn't make that clear in my original post

[Michael Slowe]

In my recent film, which those going to BIAFF might see, I have used some archive footage originating from the BBC. It took me about nine months but I have finally concluded a Licence with their people for worldwide use of the material "for festival use". I had to pay what they regard as a nominal amount of £300. As regards the large number of press cuttings and photographs used in the film I haven't bothered to do anything as they are mostly over thirty years old and I would have thought, untraceable. As far as some of the music used from recordings, Deutsche Grammophon gave me rights in perpetuity gratis. I think that you have to take a sensible view on what permissions need to be obtained but in this case I had no doubt I had to stubbornly progress the matter. As has been said on this forum many times, copyright issues are a minefield.

Many organisations are very sympathetic to requests of this nature provided a film maker shows good faith and has no intention of gaining any financial advantage. I know producers of quite ambitious productions which have had wide circulation, where permissions to use well known material have been freely granted.

[Dave Watterson]

Just back from a week which included a film festival in Germany ... so forgive the brevity.
John - no problem. IAC and most other najor competitions require you to have cleared the copyrights on all content in your film. Paying for those rights does not disqualify you at all ... nor would paying for the recording medium or your lens-cloths!

Dave

[John Roberts]

Hi Dave - I hope you had a great time

Thank you for the reply and for clarifying what I thought - just a quick question though, what about at club level? I have seen many films where images or footage have obviously been 'lifted' from TV or a DVD, even if it's a few seconds worth, and no credit has been given or permission sought. One film that recently won an award had substantial footage ripped from a commercial DVD and the film-maker claimed he didn't need permission to use it because he had 'significantly effected' the original footage with effects.

I understand the need for copyright clearance for major competitions, but no-one seems to be bothered about it at club level. Sorry if this has already been covered on another thread

John

[Dave Watterson]

For many years I had a book 5 inches thick on my shelf all about the laws of Copyright ... never managed to read it! The whole question is a nightmare of detail as Col touched on in his earlier posting.

At home and club level many amateurs pay no attention to copyright issues. What they do is wrong, but most of the time no one knows or cares about it. From the copyright holder's point of view they are hardly worth suing. But when it comes to wider showings ... club open nights or community shows ... regional and national festivals ... then we all need to be careful.

It is very much like the pirate-music-tracks issue-on-your-mp3-player ... it is wrong, but for purely home use there is little chance of any trouble.

The notion of amending a work and thus making it new started with still images - think of all those Andy Warhol soup cans - but I have never heard it applied to video. I think it would be hard to claim that any changes made were sufficient to justify calling a clip a new work of art. The courts would have to decide that.

I wish we had the USA's concept of "fair usage" which seems to permit the sort of use we non-commercial/amateurs make of copyright material.

On a purely practical note: do not be tempted to "borrow" any music or images from Disney ... the company is fiercely protective of its output.

As for the holiday ... yes, thanks we had a wonderful time. We spent a few days in Dresden before moving on to Senftenberg for their festival. The theme this year was Discover Asia which produced a very, very high standard of films ... and have them an excuse to have three separate demos of bellydancing in the live entertainments.

Dave

PS It often amuses me that amateur film makers mark their own films with the copyright symbol and would get rightly upset if they found someone had used chunks from them in other movies ... yet have a casual attitude to their own bending of the rules.

[TimStannard]

PS It often amuses me that amateur film makers mark their own films with the copyright symbol and would get rightly upset if they found someone had used chunks from them in other movies ... yet have a casual attitude to their own bending of the rules.

Bingo, Dave! Although rather than amuse me, it's likely to have me going on the attack towards the film maker. I really don't know where my aggressive defence of intellectual property rights stems from. I've never created anything I'd want to defend or that anyone else would want. Having said that, I'll happily break the law for a family only video, so I'm a hypocrite really.

I do however believe that the copyright laws are no longer fit for purpose (although I wouldn't have a clue as to how a new model would work). But I don't believe that the way to change them is to flout them.

John, beware that many competitions also have a rule about the maximum amount of "professionally shot footage/images" your entry may contain (usually expressed as a percentage of total running time). This can be a problem when making films that require a lot of archive footage or where it is clearly unreasonable for the maker to obtain footage (in outer space for example).

[John Roberts]

Thanks for the replies, Dave and Tim

I like to think of myself as being careful when I put a film together and don't use footage or images from another source unless I have permission. However I do see an awful lot of footage in other films that has blatantly been 'lifted' from other sources, or reams of still images obviously filmed from a guidebook or leaflet, usually because the film-maker doesn't have access to a particular location in which to film. No-one seems to be bothered about copyright issues at club level, only the duration of copyright infringement within a particular film. I can't remember the last time I saw 'reproduced with kind permission of...' at the end of a film.

We have a 10% rule, which I think is about right for most circumstances. In fact I keep my own films to within the 10% rule in respect of any footage or images I haven't personally taken, regardless of whether the additional footage I have permission to use is professional or not. I like to think of the 'bigger picture' - after all, you never know where your film is going to end up!

John

[Dave Watterson]

I wonder if the lack of credits for the use of other people's work stems from the rules of the IAC Music Copyright Scheme which forbids giving credits for music used under those licences. (My guess is that the music industry thought it better not to be seen to be connected to the use of the tracks concerned.)

In many other countries the music industry agreements insist on proper credit being given.

Some film library sources, such as the Imperial War Museum, insist on credit being given.

There has to be a limit somewhere ... or tv shows would be 60 seconds of drama and 29 minutes of credits for all the cornflake packets, book jackets, bars of music from background radio / public address systems, glimpses of tv screens and so on. My rule of thumb is that if a product or copyrighted object is the focus of the film then the rights should be cleared if possible. Thus a glimpse of a CD cover as a character puts on music is not worth worrying about, but a film devoted to analysing the artwork of that cover would need an OK from the rights holder.

Which opens up a new can of worms ... the rights holder/s may not be immediately obvious. Musicians often sell their copyrights to their publisher or record company. They in turn may licence them to other firms in different countries. A small firm making traditional sweets may have created their own logo, but the firm then got swallowed up in a huge conglomerate ... that is why there are specialist researchers working for broadcasters to find out who owns rights. It is also why you occasionally see a statement in a book to the effect that the publisher has failed to trace the rights owners but will respond if anyone claims the rights concerned.

[John Roberts]

I wonder if the lack of credits for the use of other people's work stems from the rules of the IAC Music Copyright Scheme which forbids giving credits for music used under those licences. (My guess is that the music industry thought it better not to be seen to be connected to the use of the tracks concerned.)

Yes, that's something I've never understood - I would've expected the situation to have been reversed! For instance, if someone used the greater part of one of my songs for their closing credits or during the film, I would be somewhat peeved not to be given a credit for it, or at least for the film to state somewhere "music used under xyz license" which I've also never seen. So I have to take it on trust that the film-maker has actually acquired the necessary license, either through their own efforts or via the IAC etc, and not just randomly ripped or downloaded a song from the internet without due respect to copyright issues.

I agree that a modicum of common sense is required regarding images on screen. My current film uses a brief close-up shot of a car pulling in front of the camera - I can imagine the letters being sent out... "Dear car manufacturer, can I please use a glimpse of the front lower quarter of your model abc for my non-commercial film..." "Dear tyre manufacturer, I think I might've captured a couple of frames of part of the raised lettering surrounding your tyre..." etc ad infinitum! Every frame of footage would have to be analysed for billboards in the distance and accidental 'product placement' - it would be a complete minefield!

Personally I try and keep credits to the absolute minimum, but if I have help then I like to thank those people, and if I have used images or footage from another source with permission then I add this to the credits, which also helps to avoid awkward questions and potential accusations at the end of a competition

[TimStannard]

I wonder if the lack of credits for the use of other people's work stems from the rules of the IAC Music Copyright Scheme which forbids giving credits for music used under those licences. (My guess is that the music industry thought it better not to be seen to be connected to the use of the tracks concerned.)

Yes, that's something I've never understood -

I've always assumed it's for the reasons Dave has hinted at - connection or rather association. And it's absolutely right.

Suppose someone made a film which basically extolls the tremendous success of the Thatcher years and adds some music by someone who is definitely not a Thatcher fan (although this is not generally known). Crediting them could well be taken as an endorsement by the musician/songwriter of Thatcher.

Interestingly this isn't such an issue if the musician's political stance is well known. Anyone using Billy Braggg's music would be assumed to be using it ironically or to show an opposing viewpoint. Ditto using Queen music in a pro badger culling film.

The other thing is it prevents you advertising the film as:

Tim Watches Paint Dry
featuring the music of
Pink Floyd
and
The Rolling Stones
BIAFF
one star
Award Winning Movie

[John Roberts]

Ah yes - I think I'm getting it now, my brain must've skipped over the word 'use' in Dave's post. Of course any major motion picture (where credits are given) must presumably have received permission from the copyright owners/publishers directly, therefore Billy Bragg/Queen can say 'absolutely no way!' whereas under the IAC license the same owners/publishers have no control over the use of the music, therefore credits are forbidden, implying that the songwriter might not even be aware of the way in which their music is used...?