Are photos taken of TV screens copyrighted?

Phillygirl · Nov 1, 2008

I took photos yesterday of a city event, and want to use them with an article I'm writing. Can I do this without breaking copyright laws? I would appreciate an answer from anyone ASAP. Thanks loads. (pun intended. :lol:

)

Phranquey · Nov 1, 2008

Well, I wouldn't do it. I'm not a lawyer, but you are taking pictures of something that someone else video taped, which I believe holds the same copyright as photographs. Those who video / photo something own it.

table1349 · Nov 1, 2008

Phillygirl said:
I took photos yesterday of a city event, and want to use them with an article I'm writing. Can I do this without breaking copyright laws? I would appreciate an answer from anyone ASAP. Thanks loads. (pun intended. )

No.

JerryPH · Nov 1, 2008

Nope. Not without written permission.

skieur · Nov 1, 2008

Violating copyright is defined as copying a work or a substantial part of a work which is also defined as 10%. A still frame does not constitute a substantial part of a video, so you do not seem to be violating the rights of the video producer.

skieur

table1349 · Nov 2, 2008

skieur said:
Violating copyright is defined as copying a work or a substantial part of a work which is also defined as 10%. A still frame does not constitute a substantial part of a video, so you do not seem to be violating the rights of the video producer.

skieur

Not in the US it's not. Broadcasts may not be copied whole or in part with out the expressed permission of the owner of the property. One frame is in part.

skieur · Nov 2, 2008

gryphonslair99 said:
Not in the US it's not. Broadcasts may not be copied whole or in part with out the expressed permission of the owner of the property. One frame is in part.

In the US, violation of copyright is defined in the same manner. A substantial part and therefore a violation is 10%. Don't confuse warnings on broadcasts as being the law. They are NOT.

skieur

JerryPH · Nov 2, 2008

I just looked around on th web for this 10% number. I found it in a few Canadian documents, but not in any documents. "... in whole or in part..." is the exact term that they use and the "in part" is not defined and is very likely at the discretion of the true owner's (and their lawyer... lol), interpretation.

In the USA, whether justifiable or not... they will sue your hiney for that 1 frame just as easily as for copying and abusing the whole show. That's just a fact of life there.

Phranquey · Nov 2, 2008

In the USA, whether justifiable or not... they will sue your hiney for that 1 frame just as easily as for copying and abusing the whole show. That's just a fact of life there.

Unfortunately, the US is a litigation happy place, but.....if someone swiped a frame from a video of mine for an article or publication, I would probably be a bit peeved, more so if they profited from it.

skieur · Nov 2, 2008

JerryPH said:
I just looked around on th web for this 10% number. I found it in a few Canadian documents, but not in any documents. "... in whole or in part..." is the exact term that they use and the "in part" is not defined and is very likely at the discretion of the true owner's (and their lawyer... lol), interpretation.

In the USA, whether justifiable or not... they will sue your hiney for that 1 frame just as easily as for copying and abusing the whole show. That's just a fact of life there.

"In part" is not open to any discretionary interpretation because copyright laws are very similar among trading partners and subject to treaties as well as individual federal laws. Ten percent period is the agreed interpretation.

USA may be very litigous but copyright is a more complex area and the costs of prosecuting a law suit of any type are substantial. On one, I am prosecuting the costs for photocopying documents has reached $25,000 and disbursements for obtaining documents and records has reached $100,000. Legal costs will be about $400,000.

So in a failing economy, how many video producers or their companies have that kind of money to throw into a lawsuit if their chance of winning is extremely slight and their chance of collecting is even less. Lawyers as well will not accept a law suit on a contingency basis either if their chance of winning is very slight.

skieur

table1349 · Nov 2, 2008

Considering that this guy is an Attorney at Law, might be good advise to consider.

Misconception #2: "I don't need a license because I'm using only a small amount of the copyrighted work."

It may be true that de minimis copying (copying a small amount) is not copyright infringement. Unfortunately, it is rarely possible to tell where de minimis copying ends and copyright infringement begins. There are no "bright line" rules.

Copying a small amount of a copyrighted work is infringement if what is copied is a qualitatively substantial portion of the copied work. In one case, a magazine article that used 300 words from a 200,000-word autobiography written by President Gerald Ford was found to infringe the copyright on the autobiography. Even though the copied material was only a small part of the autobiography, the copied portions were among the most powerful passages in the autobiography. Copying any part of a copyrighted work is risky. If what you copy is truly a tiny and non-memorable part of the work, you may get away with it (the work's owner may not be able to tell that your work incorporates an excerpt from the owner's work). However, you run the risk of having to defend your use in expensive litigation. If you are copying, it is better to get permission or a license (unless fair use applies). You cannot escape liability for infringement by showing how much of the protected work you did not take.

The whole PDF.
http://www.up.edu/showimage/show.aspx?file=6651

skieur · Nov 2, 2008

One frame represents about 1/54,000 or so of an half hour video production, so I don't think anyone would consider that as a substantial part of a work.

skieur

table1349 · Nov 2, 2008

skieur said:
One frame represents about 1/54,000 or so of an half hour video production, so I don't think anyone would consider that as a substantial part of a work.

skieur

And 300 words out of 200,000 is 0.0015%. Apparently the Court considered it a substantial part of the work. That can get real expensive real fast. Especially considering that if you loose you can also be forced to pay the legal expenses of the plaintiff as well.

JerryPH · Nov 2, 2008

skieur said:
"In part" is not open to any discretionary interpretation because copyright laws are very similar among trading partners and subject to treaties as well as individual federal laws. Ten percent period is the agreed interpretation.

I see where you are coming from, but your logic is not exactly correct.

When saying "Agreed upon"... By whom and written down in what law? In Canada it may be 10% because this *is* written down, not agreed by the judge and lawyers on the spot.

If the law is broken in the USA the only one who has discretionary rights to decide if they were stolen from is the original owner in their country. And an "agreed upon interpretation" is just another way of saying another discretionary method with no fixed amount defined. In this case it is not open to interpretation and is very clear. "cannot reproduce in whole or in part..." means exactly what it says... you cannot "steal" all or even the smallest portion without breaking the law, there is no room for misinterpretation there.

Finally, irrespective of if it costs 1 dollar or 100 million dollars, bears no meaning of it it is illegal or not in the eyes of the law. That is another discussion outside of what the OP is asking.