Good catch on #1 Adam! I replied before I had my morning coffee and was assuming the worst case scenario.
Coffee has been had and now the world is a friendly place again... :-) On 2015-10-01, at 12:55 PM, Adam Hyman wrote: > #1 isn’t true but the rest are. > > Fair Use for critical commentary is a real thing, at least in the United > States, for US-originated publications. (Copyright law is different from > country to country, although the US & Europe at least have been working to > sync up their laws.) > Just because artists or distributors or film studios don’t want it to be > doesn’t mean it isn’t; to the best of my knowledge, no one has ever sued on > that point and won, as they know that a more likely result would be that they > would lose. > > In addition, something is never plagiarism if it is credited. (It might be > other things, but not “plagiarism”.) And an image to illustrate a point that > you are making in an academic context also isn’t “plagiarism”. > > However, using an image without permission for advertising or marketing is > not fair use. You can’t use it on the cover of a book or in an ad without > full permission. > > But the other reasons are more then good enough to ask permission from the > artist. It’s also good form, and to let someone know that their work is > being discussed, which might lead to some publicity, and good dialogue. And > most people in my experience do let you use it for free. > > Best regards, > > Adam > (I also have extensive experience doing rights & clearance work for a living) > > > On 10/1/15 4:50 AM, "Amanda Christie" <ama...@amandadawnchristie.ca> wrote: > >> Yes but for every asshole, there are probably 5 people who will allow you to >> use the image for free. Just ask. >> >> Here are some solid reasons why you should approach the owners of the image: >> >> 1. If this is an academic publication, you absolutely need to get the >> artists' permission to use the image, otherwise it falls under plagiarism. >> >> 2. If you get the image from the artist or their distributor the image will >> be of much higher quality than from a screen grab >> >> 3. If the artist or distributor does charge a fee, it likely won't be >> exhorbitant. In Canada, the organizations CARFAC and CARCC set fee >> schedules as guidelines for the cost of licensing to reproduce images... and >> the fees vary depending on what you're doing with them (i.e. type of >> publication, whether it's for sale or not, print run, etc.) >> You can find the list of their fee schedule here: >> http://www.carcc.ca/fee_schedule_2015_2_reproduction.html >> >> 4. Integrity: Getting an artist's permission to reproduce their image is a >> good thing to do if you are using it to talk about their work or to >> illustrate something. Don't steal it or plagiarize. >> >> >> On 2015-10-01, at 7:40 AM, marilyn brakhage wrote: >> >>> Well -- yes. That's probably true too. >>> >>> Marilyn >>> >>> >>> On 30-Sep-15, at 8:58 PM, Chuck Kleinhans wrote: >>> >>>> However, you don’t have to spend much time in the experimental film >>>> community to run into artists who have a vastly inflated opinion of >>>> themselves, incredible insecurities, and just plain nuttiness. They may >>>> never answer you, insist on reviewing everything you are saying about them >>>> for pre-approval, or want to gouge you. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> FrameWorks mailing list >>> FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com >>> https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks >> >> >> _______________________________________________ FrameWorks mailing list >> FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com >> https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks >
_______________________________________________ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
