Re: Well...Part 2...

Posted by Indiana Jimmie from 1Cust84.tnt2.portland.or.da.uu.net on June 29, 2000 at 23:11:03:

In Reply to: Well... posted by sas c|:) on June 29, 2000 at 18:21:41:

Hello Michaelson and Sas!!
You are ALL THREE actually right.
I do not know a whole lot about it ( my experience is along the lines of Michaelson's....I used to work in film production )...there is an "article" in the US known as the Berne Act...it basically goes on about using copyrighted materials, and how you are allowed if there are changes in the material. That's how most of these 'bootleggers' can get away with selling 'unedited' versions of films here, since they technically exist in a form that was never copyrighted here.
HOWEVER....these US copyrights sometimes only exist IN the US, and if he's in, say, Germany, they may not apply. Also, the point about using someone's image is true...under US law. Again, I'm no expert or lawyer, but I remember a story a few years ago about Sean Connery not allowing his image to be used for the Highlander card game, hence no Ramirez card. (this may have changed since then)
Also, This particular painting carries not only OBVIOUS representations of Harrison, et.al., but are in fact reproductions of other already officially liscenced artwork simply re-arranged to construct a new overall image.
BUT the end product CAN be considered intellectual property, so a strong case could probably be made for distribution, if not for profit.
Again, before you attack me like sharks , :), let me stress that my experience is strictly movie related, and I am not a lawyer, nor have I studied law.....I used to have to carry release forms also...what a pain!!
Hope I helped, and not gummed things up worse.

Besides, the painting was pretty cool.

Indiana Jimmie

Follow Ups:

Re: Well...Part 2 1/2... Michaelson 16:03:36 7/03/2000 (0)

Post a Followup:

Name:    
E-Mail:  
Subject: 
Comments:

: Hello Michaelson and Sas!!
: You are ALL THREE actually right.
: I do not know a whole lot about it ( my experience is along the lines of Michaelson's....I used to work in film production )...there is an "article" in the US known as the Berne Act...it basically goes on about using copyrighted materials, and how you are allowed if there are changes in the material. That's how most of these 'bootleggers' can get away with selling 'unedited' versions of films here, since they technically exist in a form that was never copyrighted here.
: HOWEVER....these US copyrights sometimes only exist IN the US, and if he's in, say, Germany, they may not apply. Also, the point about using someone's image is true...under US law. Again, I'm no expert or lawyer, but I remember a story a few years ago about Sean Connery not allowing his image to be used for the Highlander card game, hence no Ramirez card. (this may have changed since then)
: Also, This particular painting carries not only OBVIOUS representations of Harrison, et.al., but are in fact reproductions of other already officially liscenced artwork simply re-arranged to construct a new overall image.
: BUT the end product CAN be considered intellectual property, so a strong case could probably be made for distribution, if not for profit.
: Again, before you attack me like sharks , :), let me stress that my experience is strictly movie related, and I am not a lawyer, nor have I studied law.....I used to have to carry release forms also...what a pain!!
: Hope I helped, and not gummed things up worse.

: Besides, the painting was pretty cool.

: Indiana Jimmie

Optional:

Link URL:   
Link Title: 
Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The Indyfan Forum ] [ FAQ ]