IAC DISCUSSION FORUMS

All this talk of copyright is remindind me of a question I've often wondered
about.
In computor terms I recall some years ago that a law was passed making it
so that anything produced, recorded or stored in a computor would be instantly
copyrighted to it's creator, i.e. the person operating the system.
Now is there a similar position with photography, cinematography and videography
givin that when the camera is operated an entirely new image has been created
by the operator.
Or is it that we have to go through some means or another to claim copyright.

"Cinema For Thurso Group" <forums@theiac.org.uk> wrote:

All this talk of copyright is remindind me of a question I've often wondered
about.
In computor terms I recall some years ago that a law was passed making it
so that anything produced, recorded or stored in a computor would be instantly
copyrighted to it's creator, i.e. the person operating the system.
Now is there a similar position with photography, cinematography and videography
givin that when the camera is operated an entirely new image has been created
by the operator.
Or is it that we have to go through some means or another to claim copyright.

As I understand it, if a cameraman is working for a studio then every image
he creates is automatically the copyright property of that studio...without
having to register it or patent it in any way. If the cameraman is working
for himself then all the images he creates are his, even if he sells on his
work to a third party. (although there maybe an agreement, otherwise, between
them)
One doesn't have to make any claim or registration, whether it
be writing,photography,film images,painting or a piece of music.
The patent office will only give copyright to inventions...
...a photograph/film/music are not inventions, but a new type of camera for
example, will be.

The law will come into it if someone else uses your work. At that point
you would have to proove that you were the original creator, not always an
easy thing to do.
I daresay Dave will know of a web site where all is made clear, it's a minefield,
is copyright.

Albert....crater creator.

It is the originality that is the copyright-able entity. The fact that you
film someone else's image does not change the originality of that other person's
work, and if he/she went through a lot of expense to get it, and it is a
brilliant idea, they'll probably chase you all the way to Fort Knox to get
some return on their investment whether it is cash or just intellectual.

I would imagine that the same thing would apply to computers,despite the
judgement you feel you have read somewhere. Typing someone else's made up
story into your PC and calling it your's doesn't change the fact that your
are plagiarising the other guy's work. You are in effect stealing his creativity
and passing it off as your own.

I was reading an obit the other day about Philip Yordan who wrote over a
hundred top Hollywood movies, and even won an Oscar. It seems he was a fast
talking crook who ran the equivalent of a sweat shop, especially during
the McCarthy years and his "best" work was done by others that he ripped
off. When the McCarthy era ended his star went into severe decline, because,er,
he didn't have either many ideas, or much of a writing style either! Some
of the credit titles on major movies were re-worked to get his name off,
and the real creator's names instated. Just shows you!

Reg L.
8607


"Cinema For Thurso Group" <forums@theiac.org.uk> wrote:

All this talk of copyright is remindind me of a question I've often wondered
about.
In computor terms I recall some years ago that a law was passed making it
so that anything produced, recorded or stored in a computor would be instantly
copyrighted to it's creator, i.e. the person operating the system.
Now is there a similar position with photography, cinematography and videography
givin that when the camera is operated an entirely new image has been created
by the operator.
Or is it that we have to go through some means or another to claim copyright.

I was for a time accidentally on the mailing list of some scientific and technical
publishers who occasionally sent books for review. One was Scone-James on
Copyright - about 6 inches thick and tiny print.

I once attended a lecture which began with a chap holding up an LP sleeve
and starting to list the various copyrights involved - it was a long list.

Those experiences make me very wary of pronouncing with any certainty on
the copyright issue.

CinemaForThurso may have a point - writers in UK enjoy copyright in whatever
they write without having to register it or put funny symbols on the page
etc etc. I guess it is the same for other arts. (In the US and other lands
different conventions apply.)

HOWEVER I reckon Reg Lancaster's main point is the heart of the matter ...
make your own work original as far as possible. In this area the one cardinal
sin, of course, is attempting to pass off someone else's work as your own.

McDave

P.S. Does anyone else know the funny Edinburgh poem "They're playing at Peevers
in Parliament Square?" The connection is that it is one work which tempted
me to wield a camera and make a movie version of the tale. I resisted temptation!

Thanks chaps, that's what I hoped and thought was the case, now it seems there's
a few no-it-alls in my area who want their back ends booted for pronouncing
supposed wisdom on copyroght matters because they think they are music industry
moguls.
However, before I set to them with a hefty broom handle to their ears, enlighten
me please on Intelectual copyrights. For example I had created music and
show event of a wholey original nature with a title all it's own, wrote it
up on the computor,and printed it out for the view of appropriate parties.
I'm presuming that in the manner of originality and having been constructed
within a PC, that the intelectual copyright would be mine. Am I right or
wrong?

CinemaForThurso wrote:
"...enlighten me please on Intelectual copyrights."

Usually intellectual copyright is taken to mean the copyright on ideas themselves.
Ideas are VERY hard to copyright. There is a thriving section of complaints
in every writer's magazine about editors who "stole my idea without paying
a penny". The answer is almost always that the same ideas often arrive in
bunches ... so who can claim it was theirs?

Also witness the phenomenon of movies arriving in pairs: two comets strike
earth movies, two versions of La Ronde, two animated ants tales ... ideas
seem to have their own ways of surfacing in many places at the same time.

The trick is to record the idea in some form. The traditional way was to
write it down. I do not see that writing it into a computer is any different.
Possibly it would be safer to cut it to a CD-ROM or print it onto paper rather
than depend solely on magnetic memory.

Having a hard copy (paper or CD) lets you use another trick for establishing
your rights ... seal a copy in an envelope and post it to yourself. Keep
the unopened envelope with the postmark acting as a formal date-stamp. To
be really safe send it to yourself by Registered Post - that gets round smeared
postmarks..

As CfT "... printed it out for the view of appropriate parties" I reckon
that establishes it as his/her property.

Two caveats:
1. I am NOT a lawyer and have only a layman's understanding
2. It must be original work and not just re-typing someone else's works.

McDave

Cheers Dave, That seems to say what I thought would be the case. It's the
one thing we all understand about copyright law- it is vastly complicated
but the simple measures you have mentioned are ones that I have employed
and will continue with. Fortunately my event idea was handled as a publication
by a local printer who holds recorded credit for transcription and acknowledges
copyright as my property so that (theoretically) puts it in the bag for me.
Cheers again.

I agree with McDave about how difficult it is to copyright an idea. The publishing
world is littered with protestations about young upstart writers who have
submitted outlines for stories to publishers, and have found their theme,
when original, turning up churned out by a faster, slicker writer who got
to hear of it.

On that inventorsa programme recently a mum who kept spilling milk when knocking
over the feeding bottle set about inventing a spill proof valve device to
solve the problem. Looking for finance, she showed it to a major company
who turned her down and promptly ripped her off, marketting exactly the same
valve everywhere. She remortgaged her house to fight them, won, and now sells
millions of the gadgets under her own name and company.

Another area where copyright theft can take place is in publishing something
thousands of miles away, or much later in time terms, banking on something
not being recognised. I took a pretty spectacular picture of Bryan Robson
the England captain openiing the scoring v France at the 1982 World Cup finals
at Bilbao. He scored in 25 seconds. Some years later I arrived in Copenhagen
with the England team and went to the offices of the local paper, only to
find a six foot high version of this picture (which had been wired via the
AP) plugging the papers wonderful sports photographic team's work!
"Good Picture, one of your's?" I asked and was assured that one of their
guys had done it at Wembley! Could I see the print? It was dug out and I
pointed out that the caption, typed by my own fair hand, said quite clearly,
"Exclusive to Daily Express Only.Reg Lancs pic one, June 3 1982,Bilbao."
Red faces all round, but wonderful darkroom and wiring service on the night
of the Denmark England game!

And didn't we recently see a certain Nul Points outfit trying to justify
its plan for action, come up with new evidence to justify it, except that
the work turned out ot have been done 11 or 12 years earlier as a student
project? Ooops! The public aren't supposed to have memory retentive brain
cells, apparently.

As McDave says, beware trying to pass off someone else's originality as your
own, that's when you can expect the full weight of the law to come clattering
down around your shoulders.

Reg Lancs
8607



"Dave Watterson" <dave.movies@virgin.net> wrote:

CinemaForThurso wrote:
"...enlighten me please on Intelectual copyrights."

Usually intellectual copyright is taken to mean the copyright on ideas themselves.
Ideas are VERY hard to copyright. There is a thriving section of complaints
in every writer's magazine about editors who "stole my idea without paying
a penny". The answer is almost always that the same ideas often arrive
in
bunches ... so who can claim it was theirs?

Also witness the phenomenon of movies arriving in pairs: two comets strike
earth movies, two versions of La Ronde, two animated ants tales ... ideas
seem to have their own ways of surfacing in many places at the same time.

The trick is to record the idea in some form. The traditional way was to
write it down. I do not see that writing it into a computer is any different.
Possibly it would be safer to cut it to a CD-ROM or print it onto paper
rather
than depend solely on magnetic memory.

Having a hard copy (paper or CD) lets you use another trick for establishing
your rights ... seal a copy in an envelope and post it to yourself. Keep
the unopened envelope with the postmark acting as a formal date-stamp.
To
be really safe send it to yourself by Registered Post - that gets round
smeared
postmarks..

As CfT "... printed it out for the view of appropriate parties" I reckon
that establishes it as his/her property.

Two caveats:
1. I am NOT a lawyer and have only a layman's understanding
2. It must be original work and not just re-typing someone else's works.

McDave