Copyright Part III, Good News

I did hear from a couple of attorneys today, one gave me the $250 an hour, 2-4 hours quote, another couple might give me some info for free. However, I decided to dig deeper online into the issue on my own.

After pages of fruitless googling, I finally found this site which rocks. Stanford has done a wonderful job of taking the legalese and confusion out of copyright law and combined it with some concrete, real examples that help you understand exactly how things work. It's a great achievement considering the amorphous, changing world of copyright and fair use.

I found two concrete case law discussions involving image use in films that seems to somewhat clarify my situation. In both cases, the ability of someone to pause the image was not a factor. The duration and clarity of the image onscreen is a factor. Combine that with the 4 pillars of fair use law and "Outside In" seems on firmer ground than I believed.

Plus, there is a nice discussion of "Right to Publicity" which clarifies some other questions I had. There are also links to some other helpful sites including this site that has some nice examples.

I will see what response I get from attorneys, but at this point I'm not going to fork out $1000 plus just for reassurance. If I get some gratis info, great, if not, I think that a combination of "Fair Use" principles with a good Errors & Omissions policy (in case I do make a mistake with use) is all the CYA I need.

The silver lining is in experimenting with various techniques to distort images, I've come up with some new kewl stuff for Zeitgeist that will work even better....stay tuned.

Giving sharks a Bad Name

I've sent out around a dozen email inquiries to attorneys re: the copyright issue. I have one reply already but it will cost me a $500 minimum to find out anything at all.

Of course, I know lawyers are expensive, but I'm trying to find one that will give some advice in return for credit and future business on the film. There's so much vagueness around "fair use" that I keep swinging back and forth. This issue needs some resolution so I can move on and just create, not create, then worry...

And little people do get sued - is that not incredible? The many people I know who did far, far worse then this woman as far as downloadinggoes and she is unlucky enough to be made an example of. Of course, I'm at least free of RIAA. I've got permission for the music in "Outside In" and never downloaded MP3s, not because I'm noble, but because I'm on audio snob. Don't buy iTunes or listen to iPods. Uncompressed music only, please...

But what about sharks? I'm partial to sharks, having once considered marine biology as a career. Lawyers, lobbyists and corporate henchmen like the RIAA are often called sharks. What an insult to sharks!

Sharks only eat when hungry and attack only when threatened. The oceans depends on them for balance and health. They are beautiful, mysterious, social and more intelligent that most people know.

If only humans were that moral, much less the RIAA and MPAA. There are noble, hardworking lawyers out there, that's for sure, and our democracy depends on this. But the RIAA and MPAA are not any body's hero. Art everywhere and thus our world is less a place because of them.