Photographing in quarantine

Hi all. Quick question...an iPhone photographer friend of mine (a good one) came up with the idea of using still images of royalty/copyright free video footage found on various websites (I.e. YouTube etc.)

my question to you all is whether this sort of photographing and editing is within legal limits as long as the footage is ALL copyright free and put out for public consumption?

I figure it is abc it seems like an inventive and creative way to produce some cool work when one isn’t able to go out and shoot very often.

Any thoughts would be appreciated.
Thanks!!

 

Unless I had clear written proof allowing the use of each download I’d steer clear.

For personal use might be ok, but when you start publishing you open yourself up to every hungry lawyer on the planet. Burden of proof of rights is on you.

 

Thanks for your insight. That makes sense. The work is only for personal use as part of a portfolio, so I doubt it’ll be an issue.

 

Just a thought
Are copyright laws difference in different countries what may be ok one place is is still ok in another country or state

 

my understanding is that if the video is clearly labeled as copyright/royalty free and states that it’s intended for others to use in their own projects, then it’s legal here in the US. Not sure about other countries.

 

Let's approach it from the opposite direction. How would you feel about someone using your intellectual property without asking first?

 

Re above post
It makes me mad. People have done it to me.

 

Here's the deal, most owners of copyrighted material are not going to do much against infringement for personal use. While a moral issue for the ones that do it, there just isn't much monetary gain for the owner. When it crosses the line for commercial use that changes things. The issue becomes further clouded, thanks to a change in 1989, that no longer required a copyright notice and that a work is considered to be copyrighted when it is first fixed (published) in a tangible medium. Even if a work is copyrighted there are exceptions for "fair use". More Information on Fair Use | U.S. Copyright Office

 

Having spent 10 years in the manufacturing of CD's, music, video and data, the copyright owner is not the one that will file a lawsuit. It's trade orginiazti0ns like RIAA, they will sue a grandma for making 10 music CD's of her grandsons wedding music. Trust me, I've seen it.

If you don't have clear written permission, I'd just not do it. At all.

 

You could always seek professional legal advice on the matter and get the answer in print
Will it’s is not protection as such you could at least show proof that you did your research into the matter

 

@Rickbb having been in the business then you're also probably familiar with Section 107 Fair Use. Having been at both tables in litigation, what's right isn't always right, what's wrong isn't always wrong and the only ones assured of compensation are attorneys (both sides), Judges, and court employees.

 

Fair use is generally interpreted by the courts as making a few copies for personal use. A copy for the house, one for the car, a copy on your phone, etc.

There have been cases where it was argued that putting the files on a web site meant it was the equivalent of making a copy for every user who went to the site, since they could download the image, song, etc. And technically you are redistributing thousands of copies and in violation of the fair use. BitTorrent uses got slammed hard on this a few years back and all those old file sharing sites went to the dark web.

Some of these arguments have been successful others not. The successful ones resulted in multi million dollar judgments.