I've just posted the following to IAC private, but as some here don't read
that here is a repost as I think it poses an interesting problem....what
do you think?
My wife recently filmed me marching past the camera so that I could then
use this marching image as the basis for rotoscoping a matchstick figure
which I wished to march across the screen.
The live action footage of me was then discarded, just leaving the matchstick
marching.
Now if I film, say a dancer, use the image to rotoscope a matchstick figure
dancing, then scrap the live action footage
just leaving the matchstick, is that a breach of the dancer's movement's?
Can a person's *movements* be subject to copyright, even if the person is
never seen again??????
Say, for arguements sake, one took Fred Astaire's dancing images and used
these as the basis for a matchstick dancer would that be infringement of
FA's movements, even if FA was never shown?
Albert.....still marching along.
Interesting copyright problem
Re: Interesting copyright problem
For a long discussion of this in a fairly human readable style try:Can a person's *movements* be subject to copyright, even if the person is
never seen again??????
http://www.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/copyrigh.html
where Julie Van Camp (sic) discusses a copyright case involving a Balanchine
ballet. The references are all specific to the USA but might be a general
guideline.
By analogy with the field of music where use of a single phrase may be enough
to constitute a breach of copyright if that musical phrase is sufficiently
distinctive ... if you used a set of movements which were distinctive you
could be in trouble.
Theoretically.
The other view is that if you modify the original enough to "make it your
own" it becomes a fresh work of art. (e.g. Warhol's painting of Campbell's
soup can.)
My personal view (and I am no lawyer) is that if the actions were sufficiently
recognisable for a fan to say "that's Astaire's xxx sequence from 'Top Hat'"
you would be risking a breach. There might be some room for "fair usage"
if it were very brief.
In practice I doubt anyone would care what an amateur moviemaker did along
the lines Albert is suggesting.
Dave McTwistedBriefs
Re: Interesting copyright problem
"Dave Watterson" <big.dave@silly.net> wrote:
these days without the www? It's getting to be an essential of life.
That site is a lawyer's paradise. I wonder if a lawyer has ever sued another
for breach of copyright of his gobbledegook?
I was not considering 'matchsticking' Fred Astaire by the way, just using
him as an example......so now my own matchstick figure marching is fully
copyrighted, and I shall sue if I see another one marching about looking
like me!
Thanks Dave for that site and your summary of it...where would we all beCan a person's *movements* be subject to copyright, even if the person
is
never seen again??????
For a long discussion of this in a fairly human readable style try:
http://www.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/copyrigh.html
where Julie Van Camp (sic) discusses a copyright case involving a Balanchine
ballet. The references are all specific to the USA but might be a general
guideline.
these days without the www? It's getting to be an essential of life.
That site is a lawyer's paradise. I wonder if a lawyer has ever sued another
for breach of copyright of his gobbledegook?
I was not considering 'matchsticking' Fred Astaire by the way, just using
him as an example......so now my own matchstick figure marching is fully
copyrighted, and I shall sue if I see another one marching about looking
like me!
Albert...brace yourselves as I'm belting up now for a bit.Dave McTwistedBriefs
Wearing braces instead of a belt helps with this painful condition.