Screen Captures of Films / Television Shows (Copyright issue?)

Just wondering about a copyright issue here. Let's say I take a screen capture of Buddy Holly performing on The Ed Sullivan Show or a screen capture of 2001 and use it on a web site. Is that infringing upon copyright in any way?

 

Images like that could fall under the fair use concept--i.e., that if you aren't profiting from it but are just using it for personal use it might be OK. Then again, I'm not an expert on this either but that's what I've always assumed. If you seek to distribute it, etc. it might be an issue.

 

Not fair use.

Someone owns the exclusive Right to Copy, as implemented by the US Congress under powers implemented in the Constitution. And you are infringing on that.

IANAL

 

This Honeymooners fan site has a bunch of fun screen captures.

 

Not only are the images copyrighted by the people who own the film/TV show, but the celebrity's own image may have underlying rights that belong to their estate.

For example, with the above Honeymooners clips, you might have to get permission from Viacom (or whoever owns the show) as well as Jackie Gleason's estate and Art Carney's estates. In the case of Buddy Holly, his wife is known to be fairly litigious and could very well go after you.

The reality is that anybody can sue you if they want to and make your life miserable, even if their rights are tenuous. Sometimes, this winds up being a "he who has the deepest pockets wins" situation.

 

Generally speaking the copyright holder would first issue a "cease and desist" notice asking you to remove the copyrighted material from your website before they would contemplate suing. Companies may have "deep pockets", but they are generally not going to jump straight into a lawsuit unless there is a reasonable chance that their action will result in a financial return to them. It's highly unlikely that a court is going to award huge damages to Buddy Holly's estate because someone used one photograph on a website (unless the website is a vast commercial enterprise).

 

I've wondered the same thing about YouTube. We at this forum are understandable forbidden to discuss or provide links to bootleg audio recordings yet YouTube links seem to be acceptable. Isn't there a copyright issue with those as well?

 

I know of several TWILIGHT ZONE websites that have shut down or severely altered their existence in response to CBS' cease and desist orders regarding screen captures of copyrighted images.

YouTube stuff is mostly copyrighted too. And many videos have been removed over the last few years in response to cease and desist orders. I guess no one is complaining (yet) about the stuff that's still there. I notice that a lot of the videos are posted from countries outside of the US, perhaps making the legal actions more complicated.

Harry

 

We also post song lyrics! Infringement!

Gray areas abound.

 

Indeed. Good information. I always thought as with books that if you reference a quotation or a small reference to it that it was considered OK and that it also carried over to film and music as long as there wasn't a profit in the venture.

 

Profit has no position in current copyright law (perhaps it should - can of worms).

Quotes from books, previews of recordings, etc., are generally presented with permission from the copyright holder.

I believe that I can write "the answer my friend, is blowin' in the wind" without being sued by Bob Dylan, but if I'm wrong, visiting days are Tuesday and Thursday, and I hear that Federal prison ain't that bad.

 

Well ... you just did write "the answer my friend, is blowin' in the wind"! Are you worried?

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the US Copyright Act 1976, Section 107, which says, in part:

So profit does play a part in determing "fair use" of copyright. It's right there in the legislation.

 

Perhaps, but I bet any responsible website owner would freak out if they got a "cease and desist" letter from a major studio legal department. A letter like that costs them nothing, but it's more than enough to put the fear of god into anybody.

After the letter, I think most studio/record label lawyers would just file for a summary judgement against the website, so it wouldn't necessarily have to be an expensive, protracted copyright lawsuit. If they could show all the paperwork to prove that they owned the rights, this would pretty much be an open-and-shut case.

I don't think Fair Use would be a defense here. Fair Use has been watered-down extensively in recent years, and it's on the verge of collapse, if you ask me.

 

Well, I happen to know some people who've received "cease and desist" letters due to copyrighted material they had on their fan websites. None of them were ever sued.

Generally the letters are worded along the lines of "...if you do not remove the offending material from your website within 48 hours then we will commence legal proceedings". If you get one of those letters, you comply with the request, and then notify the complainant that you have done what they asked.

I've run fan websites myself over the years, including one that was at one time fairly popular (eg, featured in newspapers, print magazines etc). I just put a disclaimer at the bottom of every page indicating who was the actual copyright holder of certain photos I used, plus a statement that I believed this was fair use, and a link to the copyright holder's website. I was never asked to take the material down by the copyright holder, although they are a company that has been extremely litigious in the past.

What sort of damages do we imagine that Buddy Holly's Estate would seek for the use of one photograph on a non-commercial website?

Unless your use of Buddy Holly's image can be construed as an endorsement of a product, or is in some way damaging to Buddy Holly's reputation, I don't think the Buddy Holly Estate would have any claim whatsoever since they are not the copyright holder of the image.

The way to go would be to credit the source of the photograph. If the photograph was taken from an Ed Sullivan Show DVD, for example, then include a link to where the DVD can be purchased. This certainly seems like 'fair use' to me. I mean, where is the damage to the copyright holder? If anything they are being advantaged.

As far as 2001 is concerned, there are a number of 2001 fan websites that feature photographs from the film.

EDIT: Withough laboring the point, I might point out that many of the avatars at this site probably use a copyrighted image. I myself am using a screencap from a 1979 Kate Bush TV special (never issued on tape or DVD).

 

Good idea. If you do that, then you won't get sued.

There's always the risk that a major studio or record label will sue you. The RIAA has been particularly litigious lately.

I'm saying that it's justified or moral by any means. I think a lot of companies police their copyrights with a heavy hand. To me, more studios should be like Paramount, who permits quite a few Star Trek fan-made sites and films, and even George Lucas, who tolerates a lot of Star Wars copyright violations up to a certain point. As long as nobody's trying to make money -- which few people do on fan websites -- I don't see any problem.

But if you cross a particularly rough law firm, or a wacked-out person who doesn't mind spending money on lawyers, watch out.

 

Paramount tried pursuing a few fan sites back in the nineties, but then they realised that this was counter-productive. Now they will even link approved fan sites from their official startrekmovie.com site.

However, if you were to publish something like a leaked script to a up and coming Star Trek movie, then you might find yourself getting the dreaded "cease and desist" letter. Generally if you "step over the line" then Paramount will ask for ALL content to be removed, including stuff they usually overlook. I've just reviewed the standard Paramount letter and they generally give 10 days notice:

Disney have a similar standard letter.

Vidiot does make a good point, and I think it's worth being aware of who you're dealing with if you're planning on posting anything that might be considered a copyright violation, no matter how minor.

EDIT: It just occured to me that sites that have a primarily news reporting focus, or that have an element of parody, generally get a lot of leeway in this area. Not coincidentally, my fan sites all had heavy news and parody components