Re: [MOPO] McCain Ad Featuring The Ten Commadments
Don't know about any infringement with the usage of film clips, but McCain has continued to use music without permission from several artists including Jackson Browne who is suing his campaign for $75,000 for using his song "Runnin' On Empty" in one of his t.v. ads without permission. Patrick On Aug 21, 2008, at 11:40 PM, channinglylethomson wrote: I was really surprised to see the TEN COMMANCMENTS footage of the parting of the Red Sea with Charlton Heston as Moses used in the recent McCain TV ad. From what I understand the film is heavily copyrighted (it's shown yearly still on network TV around Passover/ Easter). Also, I think the ad includes music by Elmer Bernstein from the original soundtrack. Anyone know if they are using this footage with permission? Maybe the DeMille estate granted this. Seems strange to me. Channing Thomson in San Francisco Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com ___ How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L The author of this message is solely responsible for its content. Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com ___ How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
Re: [MOPO] McCain Ad Featuring The Ten Commadments
McCain is going to part the Red Sea if elected? Or be in a remake of THE TEN COMMANDMENTS? RUNNING ON EMPTY is about the state of his campaign funds warchest? Phil - Original Message - From: "Patrick Michael Tupy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, August 22, 2008 5:58 PM Subject: Re: [MOPO] McCain Ad Featuring The Ten Commadments Don't know about any infringement with the usage of film clips, but McCain has continued to use music without permission from several artists including Jackson Browne who is suing his campaign for $75,000 for using his song "Runnin' On Empty" in one of his t.v. ads without permission. Patrick On Aug 21, 2008, at 11:40 PM, channinglylethomson wrote: I was really surprised to see the TEN COMMANCMENTS footage of the parting of the Red Sea with Charlton Heston as Moses used in the recent McCain TV ad. From what I understand the film is heavily copyrighted (it's shown yearly still on network TV around Passover/ Easter). Also, I think the ad includes music by Elmer Bernstein from the original soundtrack. Anyone know if they are using this footage with permission? Maybe the DeMille estate granted this. Seems strange to me. Channing Thomson in San Francisco Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com ___ How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L The author of this message is solely responsible for its content. Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com ___ How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L The author of this message is solely responsible for its content. Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com ___ How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
Re: [MOPO] McCain Ad Featuring The Ten Commadments
Hi off topic fans, I believe that George Will? wanted to use Springsteen's Born in the USA in one of the Bush Jr. campaigns. Broooce declined. Michael, Cinecityposters Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com ___ How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
Re: [MOPO] McCain Ad Featuring The Ten Commadments
Actually, Michael, I think it was used in one of the Reagan campaigns, much to The Boss's displeasure. Dave Posteropolis Vintage Posters www.posteropolis.com - Original Message - From: "Michael Wong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2008 3:20 AM Subject: Re: [MOPO] McCain Ad Featuring The Ten Commadments Hi off topic fans, I believe that George Will? wanted to use Springsteen's Born in the USA in one of the Bush Jr. campaigns. Broooce declined. Michael, Cinecityposters Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com ___ How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L The author of this message is solely responsible for its content. Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com ___ How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
Re: [MOPO] McCain Ad Featuring The Ten Commadments
No, Phil - the clip was used to satirize a statement of Obama's making it sound like he, Obama, was promising to stop the tides himself, miraculously. You'd have to be following the campaign here to understand. And it was a web ad, not a TV ad, and included other in-jokes. A more recent web Ad - "The One II" - reprised the parting of the Red Sea clip - in this case leading to a shot of Obama body-surfing during his recent Hawaii vacation - and added Yul Brynner as well. Here's a link to the McCain ads on Youtube - The One and the One II - which will go down in history, regardless of the outcome of the election. http://www.youtube.com/user/johnmccaindotcom?ob=4 There was a third web ad - "Fan Club" - whose original version concluded with Wayne and Garth doing their "I'm not worthy" genuflection. Mike Myers objected, and the clip was removed. Another ad somewhat in the same vein - Celeb, at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHXYsw_ZDXg - got a lot of notice for comparing Obama to Paris and Britney as an empty celebrity. I'm not sure, however, that anyone who hasn't been following the election fairly closely, in particular the messianic overtones of the Obama campaign, will get them, especially the two "One" ads. "Running on Empty" was a reference to energy policy, in particular the Democrats' resistance to new drilling for oil. Colin CK MacLeod Collectibles at ckmac.com Kymar's on eBay -Original Message- From: MoPo List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Phil Edwards Sent: Friday, August 22, 2008 02:03 AM To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Subject: Re: [MOPO] McCain Ad Featuring The Ten Commadments McCain is going to part the Red Sea if elected? Or be in a remake of THE TEN COMMANDMENTS? RUNNING ON EMPTY is about the state of his campaign funds warchest? Phil - Original Message - From: "Patrick Michael Tupy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, August 22, 2008 5:58 PM Subject: Re: [MOPO] McCain Ad Featuring The Ten Commadments > Don't know about any infringement with the usage of film clips, but > McCain has continued to use music without permission from several > artists including Jackson Browne who is suing his campaign for > $75,000 for using his song "Runnin' On Empty" in one of his t.v. ads > without permission. > > Patrick > > > On Aug 21, 2008, at 11:40 PM, channinglylethomson wrote: > >> I was really surprised to see the TEN COMMANCMENTS footage of the >> parting of the Red Sea with Charlton Heston as Moses used in the >> recent McCain TV ad. From what I understand the film is heavily >> copyrighted (it's shown yearly still on network TV around Passover/ >> Easter). Also, I think the ad includes music by Elmer Bernstein >> from the original soundtrack. Anyone know if they are using this >> footage with permission? Maybe the DeMille estate granted this. >> Seems strange to me. >> >> Channing Thomson in San Francisco >> >> Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com >> ___ >> How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List >> Send a message addressed >> to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L >> The author of this message is >> solely responsible for its content. > > Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com > ___ > How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List > > Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L > >The author of this message is solely responsible for its content. > Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com ___ How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L The author of this message is solely responsible for its content. Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com ___ How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
Re: [MOPO] McCain Ad Featuring The Ten Commadments
What's clear from all of this is that the McCain campaign clearly has no respect for artists' copyrights and trademarks. FRANC -Original Message- From: MoPo List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of CK MacLeod Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2008 3:34 PM To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Subject: Re: [MOPO] McCain Ad Featuring The Ten Commadments No, Phil - the clip was used to satirize a statement of Obama's making it sound like he, Obama, was promising to stop the tides himself, miraculously. You'd have to be following the campaign here to understand. And it was a web ad, not a TV ad, and included other in-jokes. A more recent web Ad - "The One II" - reprised the parting of the Red Sea clip - in this case leading to a shot of Obama body-surfing during his recent Hawaii vacation - and added Yul Brynner as well. Here's a link to the McCain ads on Youtube - The One and the One II - which will go down in history, regardless of the outcome of the election. http://www.youtube.com/user/johnmccaindotcom?ob=4 There was a third web ad - "Fan Club" - whose original version concluded with Wayne and Garth doing their "I'm not worthy" genuflection. Mike Myers objected, and the clip was removed. Another ad somewhat in the same vein - Celeb, at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHXYsw_ZDXg - got a lot of notice for comparing Obama to Paris and Britney as an empty celebrity. I'm not sure, however, that anyone who hasn't been following the election fairly closely, in particular the messianic overtones of the Obama campaign, will get them, especially the two "One" ads. "Running on Empty" was a reference to energy policy, in particular the Democrats' resistance to new drilling for oil. Colin CK MacLeod Collectibles at ckmac.com Kymar's on eBay -Original Message- From: MoPo List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Phil Edwards Sent: Friday, August 22, 2008 02:03 AM To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Subject: Re: [MOPO] McCain Ad Featuring The Ten Commadments McCain is going to part the Red Sea if elected? Or be in a remake of THE TEN COMMANDMENTS? RUNNING ON EMPTY is about the state of his campaign funds warchest? Phil - Original Message - From: "Patrick Michael Tupy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, August 22, 2008 5:58 PM Subject: Re: [MOPO] McCain Ad Featuring The Ten Commadments > Don't know about any infringement with the usage of film clips, but > McCain has continued to use music without permission from several > artists including Jackson Browne who is suing his campaign for $75,000 > for using his song "Runnin' On Empty" in one of his t.v. ads without > permission. > > Patrick > > > On Aug 21, 2008, at 11:40 PM, channinglylethomson wrote: > >> I was really surprised to see the TEN COMMANCMENTS footage of the >> parting of the Red Sea with Charlton Heston as Moses used in the >> recent McCain TV ad. From what I understand the film is heavily >> copyrighted (it's shown yearly still on network TV around Passover/ >> Easter). Also, I think the ad includes music by Elmer Bernstein from >> the original soundtrack. Anyone know if they are using this footage >> with permission? Maybe the DeMille estate granted this. Seems >> strange to me. >> >> Channing Thomson in San Francisco >> >> Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com >> ___ >> How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List >> Send a message addressed >> to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L >> The author of this message is >> solely responsible for its content. > > Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com > ___ > How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List > > Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L > >The author of this message is solely responsible for its content. > Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com ___ How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L The author of this message is solely responsible for its content. Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com ___
Re: [MOPO] McCain Ad Featuring The Ten Commadments
Before we get all uppity, let me remind everyone that as poster buyers and sellers, we can all be accused of the same thing! Let's not get carried away here, and stay on topic. When it comes to politics, the only opinion that counts is the one we cast on ELECTION DAY, so register and vote! Vic What's clear from all of this is that the McCain campaign clearly has no respect for artists' copyrights and trademarks. FRANC -Original Message- From: MoPo List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of CK MacLeod Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2008 3:34 PM To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Subject: Re: [MOPO] McCain Ad Featuring The Ten Commadments No, Phil - the clip was used to satirize a statement of Obama's making it sound like he, Obama, was promising to stop the tides himself, miraculously. You'd have to be following the campaign here to understand. And it was a web ad, not a TV ad, and included other in-jokes. A more recent web Ad - "The One II" - reprised the parting of the Red Sea clip - in this case leading to a shot of Obama body-surfing during his recent Hawaii vacation - and added Yul Brynner as well. Here's a link to the McCain ads on Youtube - The One and the One II - which will go down in history, regardless of the outcome of the election. http://www.youtube.com/user/johnmccaindotcom?ob=4 There was a third web ad - "Fan Club" - whose original version concluded with Wayne and Garth doing their "I'm not worthy" genuflection. Mike Myers objected, and the clip was removed. Another ad somewhat in the same vein - Celeb, at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHXYsw_ZDXg - got a lot of notice for comparing Obama to Paris and Britney as an empty celebrity. I'm not sure, however, that anyone who hasn't been following the election fairly closely, in particular the messianic overtones of the Obama campaign, will get them, especially the two "One" ads. "Running on Empty" was a reference to energy policy, in particular the Democrats' resistance to new drilling for oil. Colin CK MacLeod Collectibles at ckmac.com Kymar's on eBay -Original Message- From: MoPo List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Phil Edwards Sent: Friday, August 22, 2008 02:03 AM To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Subject: Re: [MOPO] McCain Ad Featuring The Ten Commadments McCain is going to part the Red Sea if elected? Or be in a remake of THE TEN COMMANDMENTS? RUNNING ON EMPTY is about the state of his campaign funds warchest? Phil - Original Message ----- From: "Patrick Michael Tupy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, August 22, 2008 5:58 PM Subject: Re: [MOPO] McCain Ad Featuring The Ten Commadments > Don't know about any infringement with the usage of film clips, but > McCain has continued to use music without permission from several > artists including Jackson Browne who is suing his campaign for $75,000 > for using his song "Runnin' On Empty" in one of his t.v. ads without > permission. > > Patrick > > > On Aug 21, 2008, at 11:40 PM, channinglylethomson wrote: > >> I was really surprised to see the TEN COMMANCMENTS footage of the >> parting of the Red Sea with Charlton Heston as Moses used in the >> recent McCain TV ad. From what I understand the film is heavily >> copyrighted (it's shown yearly still on network TV around Passover/ >> Easter). Also, I think the ad includes music by Elmer Bernstein from >> the original soundtrack. Anyone know if they are using this footage >> with permission? Maybe the DeMille estate granted this. Seems >> strange to me. >> >> Channing Thomson in San Francisco >> >> Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com >> ___ >> How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List >> Send a message addressed >> to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L >> The author of this message is >> solely responsible for its content. > > Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com > ___ > How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List > > Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L > >The author of this message is solely responsible for its content. > Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com ___ How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List Send a messag
Re: [MOPO] McCain Ad Featuring The Ten Commadments
I thought they were great, It gave me a good off topic chuckle. Andrea On Aug 23, 2008, at 3:34 PM, CK MacLeod wrote: No, Phil - the clip was used to satirize a statement of Obama's making it sound like he, Obama, was promising to stop the tides himself, miraculously. You'd have to be following the campaign here to understand. And it was a web ad, not a TV ad, and included other in-jokes. A more recent web Ad - "The One II" - reprised the parting of the Red Sea clip - in this case leading to a shot of Obama body-surfing during his recent Hawaii vacation - and added Yul Brynner as well. Here's a link to the McCain ads on Youtube - The One and the One II - which will go down in history, regardless of the outcome of the election. http://www.youtube.com/user/johnmccaindotcom?ob=4 There was a third web ad - "Fan Club" - whose original version concluded with Wayne and Garth doing their "I'm not worthy" genuflection. Mike Myers objected, and the clip was removed. Another ad somewhat in the same vein - Celeb, at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHXYsw_ZDXg - got a lot of notice for comparing Obama to Paris and Britney as an empty celebrity. I'm not sure, however, that anyone who hasn't been following the election fairly closely, in particular the messianic overtones of the Obama campaign, will get them, especially the two "One" ads. "Running on Empty" was a reference to energy policy, in particular the Democrats' resistance to new drilling for oil. Colin CK MacLeod Collectibles at ckmac.com Kymar's on eBay -Original Message- From: MoPo List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Phil Edwards Sent: Friday, August 22, 2008 02:03 AM To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Subject: Re: [MOPO] McCain Ad Featuring The Ten Commadments McCain is going to part the Red Sea if elected? Or be in a remake of THE TEN COMMANDMENTS? RUNNING ON EMPTY is about the state of his campaign funds warchest? Phil - Original Message - From: "Patrick Michael Tupy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, August 22, 2008 5:58 PM Subject: Re: [MOPO] McCain Ad Featuring The Ten Commadments Don't know about any infringement with the usage of film clips, but McCain has continued to use music without permission from several artists including Jackson Browne who is suing his campaign for $75,000 for using his song "Runnin' On Empty" in one of his t.v. ads without permission. Patrick On Aug 21, 2008, at 11:40 PM, channinglylethomson wrote: I was really surprised to see the TEN COMMANCMENTS footage of the parting of the Red Sea with Charlton Heston as Moses used in the recent McCain TV ad. From what I understand the film is heavily copyrighted (it's shown yearly still on network TV around Passover/ Easter). Also, I think the ad includes music by Elmer Bernstein from the original soundtrack. Anyone know if they are using this footage with permission? Maybe the DeMille estate granted this. Seems strange to me. Channing Thomson in San Francisco Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com ___ How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L The author of this message is solely responsible for its content. Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com ___ How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L The author of this message is solely responsible for its content. Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com ___ How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L The author of this message is solely responsible for its content. Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com ___ How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L The author of this message is solely responsible for its content. "Let us resolve and work toward achieving some very simple propositions: There are no acceptable limits and there are no acceptable prejudices in the twenty-first century." - Sen Hillary Rodham Clinton Visit the MoPo Mailing Li
Re: [MOPO] McCain Ad Featuring The Ten Commadments
Artists' rights are somewhat related to this forum. The French actually call these "moral rights." Woody Allen and other filmmakers have campaigned heavily to strenthen the copyright laws in this country to protect the rights of anyone who creates intellectual property and to prevent the works of artists from being distorted. Woody in fact doesn't even believe a film company the owns a film outright has the right to colorize it, let alone use all or part of the film to promote something other than the film itself. For a politician like McCain to so flagrantly ignore these rights is somewhat amazing to me since he could have just as easily secured the permissions required to create the ads he wanted. It does say something about how he feels about the rights of artists creating works of art. FRANC -Original Message- From: MoPo List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Victor Medina Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2008 4:10 PM To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Subject: Re: [MOPO] McCain Ad Featuring The Ten Commadments Before we get all uppity, let me remind everyone that as poster buyers and sellers, we can all be accused of the same thing! Let's not get carried away here, and stay on topic. When it comes to politics, the only opinion that counts is the one we cast on ELECTION DAY, so register and vote! Vic What's clear from all of this is that the McCain campaign clearly has no respect for artists' copyrights and trademarks. FRANC -Original Message- From: MoPo List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of CK MacLeod Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2008 3:34 PM To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Subject: Re: [MOPO] McCain Ad Featuring The Ten Commadments No, Phil - the clip was used to satirize a statement of Obama's making it sound like he, Obama, was promising to stop the tides himself, miraculously. You'd have to be following the campaign here to understand. And it was a web ad, not a TV ad, and included other in-jokes. A more recent web Ad - "The One II" - reprised the parting of the Red Sea clip - in this case leading to a shot of Obama body-surfing during his recent Hawaii vacation - and added Yul Brynner as well. Here's a link to the McCain ads on Youtube - The One and the One II - which will go down in history, regardless of the outcome of the election. http://www.youtube.com/user/johnmccaindotcom?ob=4 There was a third web ad - "Fan Club" - whose original version concluded with Wayne and Garth doing their "I'm not worthy" genuflection. Mike Myers objected, and the clip was removed. Another ad somewhat in the same vein - Celeb, at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHXYsw_ZDXg - got a lot of notice for comparing Obama to Paris and Britney as an empty celebrity. I'm not sure, however, that anyone who hasn't been following the election fairly closely, in particular the messianic overtones of the Obama campaign, will get them, especially the two "One" ads. "Running on Empty" was a reference to energy policy, in particular the Democrats' resistance to new drilling for oil. Colin CK MacLeod Collectibles at ckmac.com Kymar's on eBay -Original Message- From: MoPo List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Phil Edwards Sent: Friday, August 22, 2008 02:03 AM To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Subject: Re: [MOPO] McCain Ad Featuring The Ten Commadments McCain is going to part the Red Sea if elected? Or be in a remake of THE TEN COMMANDMENTS? RUNNING ON EMPTY is about the state of his campaign funds warchest? Phil - Original Message ----- From: "Patrick Michael Tupy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, August 22, 2008 5:58 PM Subject: Re: [MOPO] McCain Ad Featuring The Ten Commadments > Don't know about any infringement with the usage of film clips, but > McCain has continued to use music without permission from several > artists including Jackson Browne who is suing his campaign for $75,000 > for using his song "Runnin' On Empty" in one of his t.v. ads without > permission. > > Patrick > > > On Aug 21, 2008, at 11:40 PM, channinglylethomson wrote: > >> I was really surprised to see the TEN COMMANCMENTS footage of the >> parting of the Red Sea with Charlton Heston as Moses used in the >> recent McCain TV ad. From what I understand the film is heavily >> copyrighted (it's shown yearly still on network TV around Passover/ >> Easter). Also, I think the ad includes music by Elmer Bernstein from >> the original soundtrack. Anyone know if they are using this footage >> with permission? Maybe the DeMille estate granted this. Seems >> strange to me. >> >> Channing Thomson in San Francisco >> >> Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com >>
Re: [MOPO] McCain Ad Featuring The Ten Commadments
Wait. Something has been lost on me here. You mean the McCain campaign might have used the clip from THE TEN COMMANDMENTS without any kind of permission whatsoever?? And Vic, I disagree. There is no kind of mechanical recording or reproduction at all involved in trading and selling original film promotional material and therefore what we do as hobbyists stands well apart from appropriating part of an artistic work which is intellectual property without any kind of permission at all. Kirby On Aug 23, 2008, at 6:06 PM, Franc wrote: Artists' rights are somewhat related to this forum. The French actually call these "moral rights." Woody Allen and other filmmakers have campaigned heavily to strenthen the copyright laws in this country to protect the rights of anyone who creates intellectual property and to prevent the works of artists from being distorted. Woody in fact doesn't even believe a film company the owns a film outright has the right to colorize it, let alone use all or part of the film to promote something other than the film itself. For a politician like McCain to so flagrantly ignore these rights is somewhat amazing to me since he could have just as easily secured the permissions required to create the ads he wanted. It does say something about how he feels about the rights of artists creating works of art. FRANC -Original Message- From: MoPo List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Victor Medina Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2008 4:10 PM To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Subject: Re: [MOPO] McCain Ad Featuring The Ten Commadments Before we get all uppity, let me remind everyone that as poster buyers and sellers, we can all be accused of the same thing! Let's not get carried away here, and stay on topic. When it comes to politics, the only opinion that counts is the one we cast on ELECTION DAY, so register and vote! Vic What's clear from all of this is that the McCain campaign clearly has no respect for artists' copyrights and trademarks. FRANC -Original Message- From: MoPo List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of CK MacLeod Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2008 3:34 PM To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Subject: Re: [MOPO] McCain Ad Featuring The Ten Commadments No, Phil - the clip was used to satirize a statement of Obama's making it sound like he, Obama, was promising to stop the tides himself, miraculously. You'd have to be following the campaign here to understand. And it was a web ad, not a TV ad, and included other in-jokes. A more recent web Ad - "The One II" - reprised the parting of the Red Sea clip - in this case leading to a shot of Obama body- surfing during his recent Hawaii vacation - and added Yul Brynner as well. Here's a link to the McCain ads on Youtube - The One and the One II - which will go down in history, regardless of the outcome of the election. http://www.youtube.com/user/johnmccaindotcom?ob=4 There was a third web ad - "Fan Club" - whose original version concluded with Wayne and Garth doing their "I'm not worthy" genuflection. Mike Myers objected, and the clip was removed. Another ad somewhat in the same vein - Celeb, at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHXYsw_ZDXg - got a lot of notice for comparing Obama to Paris and Britney as an empty celebrity. I'm not sure, however, that anyone who hasn't been following the election fairly closely, in particular the messianic overtones of the Obama campaign, will get them, especially the two "One" ads. "Running on Empty" was a reference to energy policy, in particular the Democrats' resistance to new drilling for oil. Colin CK MacLeod Collectibles at ckmac.com Kymar's on eBay -Original Message- From: MoPo List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Phil Edwards Sent: Friday, August 22, 2008 02:03 AM To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Subject: Re: [MOPO] McCain Ad Featuring The Ten Commadments McCain is going to part the Red Sea if elected? Or be in a remake of THE TEN COMMANDMENTS? RUNNING ON EMPTY is about the state of his campaign funds warchest? Phil - Original Message ----- From: "Patrick Michael Tupy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, August 22, 2008 5:58 PM Subject: Re: [MOPO] McCain Ad Featuring The Ten Commadments > Don't know about any infringement with the usage of film clips, but > McCain has continued to use music without permission from several > artists including Jackson Browne who is suing his campaign for $75,000 > for using his song "Runnin' On Empty" in one of his t.v. ads without > permission. > > Patrick > > > On Aug 21, 2008, at 11:40 PM, channinglylethomson wrote: > >> I was really surprised to see the TEN COMMANCMENTS footage of the >> parting of the Red Sea with Charlton Heston as Moses use
Re: [MOPO] McCain Ad Featuring The Ten Commadments
At 08:45 PM 8/23/2008, Kirby McDaniel wrote: Wait. Something has been lost on me here. You mean the McCain campaign might have used the clip from THE TEN COMMANDMENTS without any kind of permission whatsoever?? I don't think anyone who is commenting has any idea if this is true or not Kirby There have been no news reports of anything such and if the campaign bought media - from for instance - Corbis or Getty Images, then royalties are paid by the lessee of the assets. IF any royalties are due. Did you ever notice that Biography has loads of clips from movies?? These are available from numerous sources and may not be required to pay any royalties because they are usually clips from trailers for which no copyright was secured. I believe the measure is that trailers from pre-1968 are usable in this way. I'm sure that Sean will know much more on the subject (but he's in Peru.. on his honeymoon) Rich=== Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com ___ How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
Re: [MOPO] McCain Ad Featuring The Ten Commadments
I don't think McCain has respect for Charlton Heston. It's a sad and tacky ad. No matter which political side you're on, it's in bad form. Poor Mr. Heston just died and he's been made into a mockery. Disgusted, Toochis - Original Message From: Franc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2008 1:00:56 PM Subject: Re: [MOPO] McCain Ad Featuring The Ten Commadments What's clear from all of this is that the McCain campaign clearly has no respect for artists' copyrights and trademarks. FRANC -Original Message- From: MoPo List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of CK MacLeod Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2008 3:34 PM To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Subject: Re: [MOPO] McCain Ad Featuring The Ten Commadments No, Phil - the clip was used to satirize a statement of Obama's making it sound like he, Obama, was promising to stop the tides himself, miraculously. You'd have to be following the campaign here to understand. And it was a web ad, not a TV ad, and included other in-jokes. A more recent web Ad - "The One II" - reprised the parting of the Red Sea clip - in this case leading to a shot of Obama body-surfing during his recent Hawaii vacation - and added Yul Brynner as well. Here's a link to the McCain ads on Youtube - The One and the One II - which will go down in history, regardless of the outcome of the election. http://www.youtube.com/user/johnmccaindotcom?ob=4 There was a third web ad - "Fan Club" - whose original version concluded with Wayne and Garth doing their "I'm not worthy" genuflection. Mike Myers objected, and the clip was removed. Another ad somewhat in the same vein - Celeb, at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHXYsw_ZDXg - got a lot of notice for comparing Obama to Paris and Britney as an empty celebrity. I'm not sure, however, that anyone who hasn't been following the election fairly closely, in particular the messianic overtones of the Obama campaign, will get them, especially the two "One" ads. "Running on Empty" was a reference to energy policy, in particular the Democrats' resistance to new drilling for oil. Colin CK MacLeod Collectibles at ckmac.com Kymar's on eBay -Original Message- From: MoPo List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Phil Edwards Sent: Friday, August 22, 2008 02:03 AM To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Subject: Re: [MOPO] McCain Ad Featuring The Ten Commadments McCain is going to part the Red Sea if elected? Or be in a remake of THE TEN COMMANDMENTS? RUNNING ON EMPTY is about the state of his campaign funds warchest? Phil ----- Original Message - From: "Patrick Michael Tupy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, August 22, 2008 5:58 PM Subject: Re: [MOPO] McCain Ad Featuring The Ten Commadments > Don't know about any infringement with the usage of film clips, but > McCain has continued to use music without permission from several > artists including Jackson Browne who is suing his campaign for $75,000 > for using his song "Runnin' On Empty" in one of his t.v. ads without > permission. > > Patrick > > > On Aug 21, 2008, at 11:40 PM, channinglylethomson wrote: > >> I was really surprised to see the TEN COMMANCMENTS footage of the >> parting of the Red Sea with Charlton Heston as Moses used in the >> recent McCain TV ad. From what I understand the film is heavily >> copyrighted (it's shown yearly still on network TV around Passover/ >> Easter). Also, I think the ad includes music by Elmer Bernstein from >> the original soundtrack. Anyone know if they are using this footage >> with permission? Maybe the DeMille estate granted this. Seems >> strange to me. >> >> Channing Thomson in San Francisco >> >> Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com >> ___ >> How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List >> Send a message addressed >> to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L >> The author of this message is >> solely responsible for its content. > > Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com > ___ > How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List > > Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L > >The author of this message is solely responsible for its content. > Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com ___
Re: [MOPO] McCain Ad Featuring The Ten Commadments
Hi Kirby, There are companies out there that disagree with you, like Sony, Warner Bros. and Disney. Most posters have some sort of claim stating that they should not be sold and remain in ownership of the printer/distributor/studio. That's why I posted the question if anyone ever been contacted by the movie studios/distributors about selling their products and that this is an illegal activity. Up untill recently I know of cases in which Studios actually take action and go after the folks that sell the posters, banners, lobby cards etc. Ron MotionPictureArt.com Movie Posters, Lobby Cards and more... http://www.MotionPictureArt.com - Original Message - From: Kirby McDaniel To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2008 5:45 AM Subject: Re: [MOPO] McCain Ad Featuring The Ten Commadments Wait. Something has been lost on me here. You mean the McCain campaign might have used the clip from THE TEN COMMANDMENTS without any kind of permission whatsoever?? And Vic, I disagree. There is no kind of mechanical recording or reproduction at all involved in trading and selling original film promotional material and therefore what we do as hobbyists stands well apart from appropriating part of an artistic work which is intellectual property without any kind of permission at all. Kirby On Aug 23, 2008, at 6:06 PM, Franc wrote: Artists' rights are somewhat related to this forum. The French actually call these "moral rights." Woody Allen and other filmmakers have campaigned heavily to strenthen the copyright laws in this country to protect the rights of anyone who creates intellectual property and to prevent the works of artists from being distorted. Woody in fact doesn't even believe a film company the owns a film outright has the right to colorize it, let alone use all or part of the film to promote something other than the film itself. For a politician like McCain to so flagrantly ignore these rights is somewhat amazing to me since he could have just as easily secured the permissions required to create the ads he wanted. It does say something about how he feels about the rights of artists creating works of art. FRANC -Original Message- From: MoPo List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Victor Medina Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2008 4:10 PM To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Subject: Re: [MOPO] McCain Ad Featuring The Ten Commadments Before we get all uppity, let me remind everyone that as poster buyers and sellers, we can all be accused of the same thing! Let's not get carried away here, and stay on topic. When it comes to politics, the only opinion that counts is the one we cast on ELECTION DAY, so register and vote! Vic What's clear from all of this is that the McCain campaign clearly has no respect for artists' copyrights and trademarks. FRANC-Original Message-From: MoPo List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of CKMacLeodSent: Saturday, August 23, 2008 3:34 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Re: [MOPO] McCain Ad Featuring The Ten CommadmentsNo, Phil - the clip was used to satirize a statement of Obama's makingit sound like he, Obama, was promising to stop the tides himself,miraculously. You'd have to be following the campaign here tounderstand. And it was a web ad, not a TV ad, and included otherin-jokes. A more recent web Ad - "The One II" - reprised the partingofthe Red Sea clip - in this case leading to a shot of Obama body-surfingduring his recent Hawaii vacation - and added Yul Brynner as well.Here's a link to the McCain ads on Youtube - The One and the One II -which will go down in history, regardless of the outcome of theelection.http://www.youtube.com/user/johnmccaindotcom?ob=4There was a third web ad - "Fan Club" - whose original versionconcludedwith Wayne and Garth doing their "I'm not worthy" genuflection. MikeMyers objected, and the clip was removed. Another ad somewhat in thesame vein - Celeb, at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHXYsw_ZDXg - got alot of notice for comparing Obama to Paris and Britney as an emptycelebrity. I'm not sure, however, that anyone who hasn't beenfollowingthe election fairly closely, in particular the messianic overtones ofthe Obama campaign, will get them, especially the two "One" ads."Running on Empty" was a reference to energy policy, in particulartheDemocrats' resistance to new drilling for oil.ColinCK MacLeod Collectibles at ckmac.comKymar's on eBay-Original Message-From: MoPo List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of PhilEdwardsSent: Friday, August 22, 2008 02:03 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Re: [MOPO] McCain Ad Featuring The Ten CommadmentsMcCain is going to part the Red Sea if elected?Or be in a remake of THE TEN COMMA
Re: [MOPO] McCain Ad Featuring The Ten Commadments
And, Kirby, I keep trying to return my posters to NSS but my CASABLANCA 6-Sheet was stamped "Return To Sender, Address Unknown" so I just put it on the wall until I'm contacted by the NSS. And, with all due respect, unless McCain or ANY candidate who uses intellectual property PAYS for it rather than using it to promote their own agenda without permission OR compensation to the artist this is not an 'apples to apples' comparison by any means. And Vic, I don't see how it's "uppity" to expect the leader of the 'straight-talk' express to to be straight-forward and pay the artist who's music he's using in his ads as anyone else is supposed to by law. And I don't see how it's "uppity" for us to expect the McCain campaign to ASK FOR PERMISSION before using said music. And the fact that there is a lawsuit pending suggests that Jackson Browne thinks McCain's camp might just be a little too eager to appropriate his music AND the appearance of Browne's tacit support by having his music 'backing' McCain's ads. This is not a case of 'people in glass houses' by any means. At best it's negligent, at worst it's unseemly, unprofessional and illegal. Call me uppity, but what McCain's camp did was wrong. Patrick On Aug 23, 2008, at 8:45 PM, Kirby McDaniel wrote: Wait. Something has been lost on me here. You mean the McCain campaign might have used the clip from THE TEN COMMANDMENTS without any kind of permission whatsoever?? And Vic, I disagree. There is no kind of mechanical recording or reproduction at all involved in trading and selling original film promotional material and therefore what we do as hobbyists stands well apart from appropriating part of an artistic work which is intellectual property without any kind of permission at all. Kirby On Aug 23, 2008, at 6:06 PM, Franc wrote: Artists' rights are somewhat related to this forum. The French actually call these "moral rights." Woody Allen and other filmmakers have campaigned heavily to strenthen the copyright laws in this country to protect the rights of anyone who creates intellectual property and to prevent the works of artists from being distorted. Woody in fact doesn't even believe a film company the owns a film outright has the right to colorize it, let alone use all or part of the film to promote something other than the film itself. For a politician like McCain to so flagrantly ignore these rights is somewhat amazing to me since he could have just as easily secured the permissions required to create the ads he wanted. It does say something about how he feels about the rights of artists creating works of art. FRANC -Original Message- From: MoPo List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Victor Medina Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2008 4:10 PM To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Subject: Re: [MOPO] McCain Ad Featuring The Ten Commadments Before we get all uppity, let me remind everyone that as poster buyers and sellers, we can all be accused of the same thing! Let's not get carried away here, and stay on topic. When it comes to politics, the only opinion that counts is the one we cast on ELECTION DAY, so register and vote! Vic What's clear from all of this is that the McCain campaign clearly has no respect for artists' copyrights and trademarks. FRANC -Original Message----- From: MoPo List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of CK MacLeod Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2008 3:34 PM To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Subject: Re: [MOPO] McCain Ad Featuring The Ten Commadments No, Phil - the clip was used to satirize a statement of Obama's making it sound like he, Obama, was promising to stop the tides himself, miraculously. You'd have to be following the campaign here to understand. And it was a web ad, not a TV ad, and included other in-jokes. A more recent web Ad - "The One II" - reprised the parting of the Red Sea clip - in this case leading to a shot of Obama body- surfing during his recent Hawaii vacation - and added Yul Brynner as well. Here's a link to the McCain ads on Youtube - The One and the One II - which will go down in history, regardless of the outcome of the election. http://www.youtube.com/user/johnmccaindotcom?ob=4 There was a third web ad - "Fan Club" - whose original version concluded with Wayne and Garth doing their "I'm not worthy" genuflection. Mike Myers objected, and the clip was removed. Another ad somewhat in the same vein - Celeb, at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHXYsw_ZDXg - got a lot of notice for comparing Obama to Paris and Britney as an empty celebrity. I'm not sure, however, that anyone who hasn't been following the election fairly closely, in particular the messianic o
Re: [MOPO] McCain Ad Featuring The Ten Commadments
Actually that's not all the clearances that would have to be done to use the 10 Commandments clip. The owners of the clip would be cleared and paid and also the actors in the clip, the writers, the director, the musicians, they have to be cleared and paid also. FRANC -Original Message- From: MoPo List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard Halegua Comic Art Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2008 12:02 AM To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Subject: Re: [MOPO] McCain Ad Featuring The Ten Commadments At 08:45 PM 8/23/2008, Kirby McDaniel wrote: Wait. Something has been lost on me here. You mean the McCain campaign might have used the clip from THE TEN COMMANDMENTS without any kind of permission whatsoever?? I don't think anyone who is commenting has any idea if this is true or not Kirby There have been no news reports of anything such and if the campaign bought media - from for instance - Corbis or Getty Images, then royalties are paid by the lessee of the assets. IF any royalties are due. Did you ever notice that Biography has loads of clips from movies?? These are available from numerous sources and may not be required to pay any royalties because they are usually clips from trailers for which no copyright was secured. I believe the measure is that trailers from pre-1968 are usable in this way. I'm sure that Sean will know much more on the subject (but he's in Peru.. on his honeymoon) Rich=== Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com ___ How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L The author of this message is solely responsible for its content. Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com ___ How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
Re: [MOPO] McCain Ad Featuring The Ten Commadments
Hi Kirby, You are 100% right. This is what i found: The first-sale doctrine is a limitation on copyright that was recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1908 and subsequently codified in the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 109. The doctrine allows the purchaser to transfer (i.e., sell or give away) a particular lawfully made copy of the copyrighted work without permission once it has been obtained. That means that a copyright holder's rights to control the change of ownership of a particular copy end once that copy is sold, as long as no additional copies are made. In the Netherlands this is known as the "exhaustion rule". I recently was involved in a predicament concerning a vinyl banner together with a movie theater and a contact in the film business. The movie studio was very pissed and made all kinds of threats, but now I know why they backed off. They just don't have a case against us. Thanks for the enlightenment Kirby. Have a great day all! Ron MotionPictureArt.com Movie Posters, Lobby Cards and more... http://www.MotionPictureArt.com - Original Message - From: Kirby McDaniel To: MotionPictureArt.com Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2008 6:12 PM Subject: Re: [MOPO] McCain Ad Featuring The Ten Commadments Hi, The courts have established through the concept of the first sale doctrine that an individual poster, for example, can be owned and traded, without copyright implications. The studios may make noises about copyright protection -- and I am all for protecting intellectual property -- but there are clear court precedents as to why the first sale doctrine holds sway here. If I have a one sheet for CASABLANCA, I can sell, trade, or whatever I want to do with that poster. Mechanical reproduction of the image and all the enterprises that proceed from that kind of activity is another and different issue. Trading individual copies of posters is not an illegal activity. At least that is my understanding of the issue. If anyone has specific knowledge of anything to the contrary, I'd like to see it. K. On Aug 24, 2008, at 2:52 AM, MotionPictureArt.com wrote: Hi Kirby, There are companies out there that disagree with you, like Sony, Warner Bros. and Disney. Most posters have some sort of claim stating that they should not be sold and remain in ownership of the printer/distributor/studio. That's why I posted the question if anyone ever been contacted by the movie studios/distributors about selling their products and that this is an illegal activity. Up untill recently I know of cases in which Studios actually take action and go after the folks that sell the posters, banners, lobby cards etc. Ron MotionPictureArt.com Movie Posters, Lobby Cards and more... http://www.MotionPictureArt.com - Original Message - From: Kirby McDaniel To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2008 5:45 AM Subject: Re: [MOPO] McCain Ad Featuring The Ten Commadments Wait. Something has been lost on me here. You mean the McCain campaign might have used the clip from THE TEN COMMANDMENTS without any kind of permission whatsoever?? And Vic, I disagree. There is no kind of mechanical recording or reproduction at all involved in trading and selling original film promotional material and therefore what we do as hobbyists stands well apart from appropriating part of an artistic work which is intellectual property without any kind of permission at all. Kirby On Aug 23, 2008, at 6:06 PM, Franc wrote: Artists' rights are somewhat related to this forum. The French actually call these "moral rights." Woody Allen and other filmmakers have campaigned heavily to strenthen the copyright laws in this country to protect the rights of anyone who creates intellectual property and to prevent the works of artists from being distorted. Woody in fact doesn't even believe a film company the owns a film outright has the right to colorize it, let alone use all or part of the film to promote something other than the film itself. For a politician like McCain to so flagrantly ignore these rights is somewhat amazing to me since he could have just as easily secured the permissions required to create the ads he wanted. It does say something about how he feels about the rights of artists creating works of art. FRANC -Original Message- From: MoPo List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Victor Medina Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2008 4:10 PM To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Subject: Re: [MOPO] McCain Ad Featuring The Ten Commadments Before we get all uppity, let me remind everyone that as poster buyers and sellers, we can all be accused of the same thing! Let's not get carried away here, and stay on topic. When it comes to politics, the only opinion that counts is the one we cast on ELECTION DAY, so register and vote! Vic What's clear from all of this is that the McCain campaign cl
Re: [MOPO] McCain Ad Featuring The Ten Commadments
Interesting observations, Rich. I always enjoy getting the benefit of your experience in copyright-related issues. (BTW, on that note, would you agree with me that Ron's interpretation of First Sale is ill-founded in the case of "stolen" goods?) It's probably true that the McCain campaign has been a lot more interested in establishing a response to Obama's corporate branding as pseudo-messiah than about the niceties of fair and unfair use. On the other hand, one thing no political party in 21st Century America is short of is lawyers, so I suspect they'd determined their legal or financial exposure would be de minimus, as the lawyers say. Otherwise, they may have grabbed the "we're not worthy" bit without worrying that they might be, as per Franc channeling Woody Allen, desecrating that great and important testament to late 20th Century artistic genius WAYNE'S WORLD. As for Jackson Browne, people indulging in outrage on his behalf need to understand that, though Browne went out of his way to name McCain among the defendants in the "Running on Empty" ad lawsuit, the ad was actually a product of the Ohio Republican Party, not the McCain campaign (and a TV ad, not one of these McCain web ads). The McCain campaign did, however, go pretty far with a web ad mocking the media's love affair with Obama done to the tune of an unsecured version of Franki Valli's "Can't Take My Eyes Off Of You." After protest, they re-did the ad with a generic romantic soundtrack (some urged them to try a porno feel, but by then the campaign had moved on). Before the "Love" ad, they had kicked off this web video campaign with an ad in the style of a '60s Bond film credit sequence or trailer, calling Obama "Dr No" and using familiar Bond music. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3Zy50Dy6Zk I wonder if one of our Bond experts could isolate and specify the antecedents for this ad more precisely. I also wonder if the music on this ad might be covered by the trailer exception Rich mentioned. I'm also thinking that the McCain lawyers probably consider the latitude for "fair use" in political ads to be rather wide, and that there may be gray areas or simply a lack of case law affecting treatment of web ads . My limited experience in such matters is that, on the web, where there's any doubt, and where it's difficult if not impossible to show tangible harm, malign intent, or substantial ill-gotten monetary gain, simply taking down the infringing piece typically puts an end to whatever issue. Browne's TV-related claim may make for a better case (against the Ohio Republicans at least) since by his lights as a 30 - 40 year leftwing environmentalist tool, being used effectively by Republicans hurts him among other tools. Regarding the complaints of Myers and whoever actually owns "Can't Take My Eyes Off Of You," it seemed to me that the McCain camp's response amounted to "Fine, if you insist on being spoilsports, we'll try something else." As for copyright absolutists objecting to these particular infringements and their lethal effect on our artistic heritage, the McCain campaign provided the following response: McCain Campaign Response on Copyright Complaints <http://ckmac.com/blog/mccain_campaign_response_on_copyrights.gif> Personally, I find the will.i.am and Dave Stewart Obama music videos much more tragic as assaults on art and civilization than a mash-up that clips Wayne & Garth, but everyone's entitled to his or her own self-serving kneejerk opinion. Charlton Heston remains unavailable, but I am 100% fersure that, if he were available, he'd be laughing his head off and doing his best to help defeat the gun-grabbers and fellow travelers. Colin CK MacLeod Collectibles at ckmac.com <http://ckmac.com/> Kymar's on eBay <http://stores.ebay.com/Kymars-Stuff> -Original Message- From: MoPo List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Richard Halegua Comic Art Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2008 09:02 PM To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Subject: Re: [MOPO] McCain Ad Featuring The Ten Commadments At 08:45 PM 8/23/2008, Kirby McDaniel wrote: Wait. Something has been lost on me here. You mean the McCain campaign might have used the clip from THE TEN COMMANDMENTS without any kind of permission whatsoever?? I don't think anyone who is commenting has any idea if this is true or not Kirby There have been no news reports of anything such and if the campaign bought media - from for instance - Corbis or Getty Images, then royalties are paid by the lessee of the assets. IF any royalties are due. Did you ever notice that Biography has loads of clips from movies?? These are available from numerous sources and may not be required to pay any royalties because they are usually clips from trailers for which no copyright
Re: [MOPO] McCain Ad Featuring The Ten Commadments
Colin, I was not talking about "stolen" or an interpretation of first sale. Indeed this law also states that the products should be legally obtained or produced. In this case a movie theater, one of many, is selling all the promotional materials they have used or can not use because of lack of space. All money made goes to a good cause in Afghanistan where they are supporting projects that help young children. I can not tell you more about the actual problem because this is inside information that I should not even know about. But rest assured, I'm not involved in any illegal activities. Never have and never will. Ron MotionPictureArt.com Movie Posters, Lobby Cards and more... http://www.MotionPictureArt.com - Original Message - From: CK MacLeod To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2008 7:34 PM Subject: Re: [MOPO] McCain Ad Featuring The Ten Commadments Interesting observations, Rich. I always enjoy getting the benefit of your experience in copyright-related issues. (BTW, on that note, would you agree with me that Ron's interpretation of First Sale is ill-founded in the case of "stolen" goods?) It's probably true that the McCain campaign has been a lot more interested in establishing a response to Obama's corporate branding as pseudo-messiah than about the niceties of fair and unfair use. On the other hand, one thing no political party in 21st Century America is short of is lawyers, so I suspect they'd determined their legal or financial exposure would be de minimus, as the lawyers say. Otherwise, they may have grabbed the "we're not worthy" bit without worrying that they might be, as per Franc channeling Woody Allen, desecrating that great and important testament to late 20th Century artistic genius WAYNE'S WORLD. As for Jackson Browne, people indulging in outrage on his behalf need to understand that, though Browne went out of his way to name McCain among the defendants in the "Running on Empty" ad lawsuit, the ad was actually a product of the Ohio Republican Party, not the McCain campaign (and a TV ad, not one of these McCain web ads). The McCain campaign did, however, go pretty far with a web ad mocking the media's love affair with Obama done to the tune of an unsecured version of Franki Valli's "Can't Take My Eyes Off Of You." After protest, they re-did the ad with a generic romantic soundtrack (some urged them to try a porno feel, but by then the campaign had moved on). Before the "Love" ad, they had kicked off this web video campaign with an ad in the style of a '60s Bond film credit sequence or trailer, calling Obama "Dr No" and using familiar Bond music. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3Zy50Dy6Zk I wonder if one of our Bond experts could isolate and specify the antecedents for this ad more precisely. I also wonder if the music on this ad might be covered by the trailer exception Rich mentioned. I'm also thinking that the McCain lawyers probably consider the latitude for "fair use" in political ads to be rather wide, and that there may be gray areas or simply a lack of case law affecting treatment of web ads . My limited experience in such matters is that, on the web, where there's any doubt, and where it's difficult if not impossible to show tangible harm, malign intent, or substantial ill-gotten monetary gain, simply taking down the infringing piece typically puts an end to whatever issue. Browne's TV-related claim may make for a better case (against the Ohio Republicans at least) since by his lights as a 30 - 40 year leftwing environmentalist tool, being used effectively by Republicans hurts him among other tools. Regarding the complaints of Myers and whoever actually owns "Can't Take My Eyes Off Of You," it seemed to me that the McCain camp's response amounted to "Fine, if you insist on being spoilsports, we'll try something else." As for copyright absolutists objecting to these particular infringements and their lethal effect on our artistic heritage, the McCain campaign provided the following response: McCain Campaign Response on Copyright Complaints Personally, I find the will.i.am and Dave Stewart Obama music videos much more tragic as assaults on art and civilization than a mash-up that clips Wayne & Garth, but everyone's entitled to his or her own self-serving kneejerk opinion. Charlton Heston remains unavailable, but I am 100% fersure that, if he were available, he'd be laughing his head off and doing his best to help defeat the gun-grabbers and fellow travelers. Colin CK MacLeod Collectibles at ckmac.com Kymar's on eBay -----Original Message- From: MoPo List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Richard Halegua Comic Art Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2008 09:0
Re: [MOPO] McCain Ad Featuring The Ten Commadments
You're not a left-wing tool, are you? Wouldn't wanna have that on your conscience. K. On Aug 24, 2008, at 1:32 PM, MotionPictureArt.com wrote: Colin, I was not talking about "stolen" or an interpretation of first sale. Indeed this law also states that the products should be legally obtained or produced. In this case a movie theater, one of many, is selling all the promotional materials they have used or can not use because of lack of space. All money made goes to a good cause in Afghanistan where they are supporting projects that help young children. I can not tell you more about the actual problem because this is inside information that I should not even know about. But rest assured, I'm not involved in any illegal activities. Never have and never will. Ron MotionPictureArt.com Movie Posters, Lobby Cards and more... http://www.MotionPictureArt.com - Original Message - From: CK MacLeod To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2008 7:34 PM Subject: Re: [MOPO] McCain Ad Featuring The Ten Commadments Interesting observations, Rich. I always enjoy getting the benefit of your experience in copyright-related issues. (BTW, on that note, would you agree with me that Ron's interpretation of First Sale is ill-founded in the case of "stolen" goods?) It's probably true that the McCain campaign has been a lot more interested in establishing a response to Obama's corporate branding as pseudo-messiah than about the niceties of fair and unfair use. On the other hand, one thing no political party in 21st Century America is short of is lawyers, so I suspect they'd determined their legal or financial exposure would be de minimus, as the lawyers say. Otherwise, they may have grabbed the "we're not worthy" bit without worrying that they might be, as per Franc channeling Woody Allen, desecrating that great and important testament to late 20th Century artistic genius WAYNE'S WORLD. As for Jackson Browne, people indulging in outrage on his behalf need to understand that, though Browne went out of his way to name McCain among the defendants in the "Running on Empty" ad lawsuit, the ad was actually a product of the Ohio Republican Party, not the McCain campaign (and a TV ad, not one of these McCain web ads). The McCain campaign did, however, go pretty far with a web ad mocking the media's love affair with Obama done to the tune of an unsecured version of Franki Valli's "Can't Take My Eyes Off Of You." After protest, they re-did the ad with a generic romantic soundtrack (some urged them to try a porno feel, but by then the campaign had moved on). Before the "Love" ad, they had kicked off this web video campaign with an ad in the style of a '60s Bond film credit sequence or trailer, calling Obama "Dr No" and using familiar Bond music. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3Zy50Dy6Zk I wonder if one of our Bond experts could isolate and specify the antecedents for this ad more precisely. I also wonder if the music on this ad might be covered by the trailer exception Rich mentioned. I'm also thinking that the McCain lawyers probably consider the latitude for "fair use" in political ads to be rather wide, and that there may be gray areas or simply a lack of case law affecting treatment of web ads . My limited experience in such matters is that, on the web, where there's any doubt, and where it's difficult if not impossible to show tangible harm, malign intent, or substantial ill-gotten monetary gain, simply taking down the infringing piece typically puts an end to whatever issue. Browne's TV-related claim may make for a better case (against the Ohio Republicans at least) since by his lights as a 30 - 40 year leftwing environmentalist tool, being used effectively by Republicans hurts him among other tools. Regarding the complaints of Myers and whoever actually owns "Can't Take My Eyes Off Of You," it seemed to me that the McCain camp's response amounted to "Fine, if you insist on being spoilsports, we'll try something else." As for copyright absolutists objecting to these particular infringements and their lethal effect on our artistic heritage, the McCain campaign provided the following response: McCain Campaign Response on Copyright Complaints Personally, I find the will.i.am and Dave Stewart Obama music videos much more tragic as assaults on art and civilization than a mash-up that clips Wayne & Garth, but everyone's entitled to his or her own self-serving kneejerk opinion. Charlton Heston remains unavailable, but I am 100% fersure that, if he were available, he'd be laughing his head off and doing his best to help defeat the gun- grabbers and fellow trave
Re: [MOPO] McCain Ad Featuring The Ten Commadments
There are very clear guidelines in the Copyright Law for what constitutes "fair use". Using copyright movie footage or music in a political advertisement is NOT a fair use. In another life, I was the Director of Business and Legal Affairs for a TV network. FRANC -Original Message- From: MoPo List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of CK MacLeod Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2008 1:34 PM To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Subject: Re: [MOPO] McCain Ad Featuring The Ten Commadments Interesting observations, Rich. I always enjoy getting the benefit of your experience in copyright-related issues. (BTW, on that note, would you agree with me that Ron's interpretation of First Sale is ill-founded in the case of "stolen" goods?) It's probably true that the McCain campaign has been a lot more interested in establishing a response to Obama's corporate branding as pseudo-messiah than about the niceties of fair and unfair use. On the other hand, one thing no political party in 21st Century America is short of is lawyers, so I suspect they'd determined their legal or financial exposure would be de minimus, as the lawyers say. Otherwise, they may have grabbed the "we're not worthy" bit without worrying that they might be, as per Franc channeling Woody Allen, desecrating that great and important testament to late 20th Century artistic genius WAYNE'S WORLD. As for Jackson Browne, people indulging in outrage on his behalf need to understand that, though Browne went out of his way to name McCain among the defendants in the "Running on Empty" ad lawsuit, the ad was actually a product of the Ohio Republican Party, not the McCain campaign (and a TV ad, not one of these McCain web ads). The McCain campaign did, however, go pretty far with a web ad mocking the media's love affair with Obama done to the tune of an unsecured version of Franki Valli's "Can't Take My Eyes Off Of You." After protest, they re-did the ad with a generic romantic soundtrack (some urged them to try a porno feel, but by then the campaign had moved on). Before the "Love" ad, they had kicked off this web video campaign with an ad in the style of a '60s Bond film credit sequence or trailer, calling Obama "Dr No" and using familiar Bond music. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3Zy50Dy6Zk I wonder if one of our Bond experts could isolate and specify the antecedents for this ad more precisely. I also wonder if the music on this ad might be covered by the trailer exception Rich mentioned. I'm also thinking that the McCain lawyers probably consider the latitude for "fair use" in political ads to be rather wide, and that there may be gray areas or simply a lack of case law affecting treatment of web ads . My limited experience in such matters is that, on the web, where there's any doubt, and where it's difficult if not impossible to show tangible harm, malign intent, or substantial ill-gotten monetary gain, simply taking down the infringing piece typically puts an end to whatever issue. Browne's TV-related claim may make for a better case (against the Ohio Republicans at least) since by his lights as a 30 - 40 year leftwing environmentalist tool, being used effectively by Republicans hurts him among other tools. Regarding the complaints of Myers and whoever actually owns "Can't Take My Eyes Off Of You," it seemed to me that the McCain camp's response amounted to "Fine, if you insist on being spoilsports, we'll try something else." As for copyright absolutists objecting to these particular infringements and their lethal effect on our artistic heritage, the McCain campaign provided the following response: McCain <http://ckmac.com/blog/mccain_campaign_response_on_copyrights.gif> Campaign Response on Copyright Complaints Personally, I find the will.i.am and Dave Stewart Obama music videos much more tragic as assaults on art and civilization than a mash-up that clips Wayne & Garth, but everyone's entitled to his or her own self-serving kneejerk opinion. Charlton Heston remains unavailable, but I am 100% fersure that, if he were available, he'd be laughing his head off and doing his best to help defeat the gun-grabbers and fellow travelers. Colin <http://ckmac.com/> CK MacLeod Collectibles at ckmac.com Kymar's on <http://stores.ebay.com/Kymars-Stuff> eBay -----Original Message- From: MoPo List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Richard Halegua Comic Art Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2008 09:02 PM To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Subject: Re: [MOPO] McCain Ad Featuring The Ten Commadments At 08:45 PM 8/23/2008, Kirby McDaniel wrote: Wait. Something has been lost on me here. You mean the McCain campaign might have used the clip from THE TEN COMMANDMENTS without any kind of permission whatsoever?? I don
Re: [MOPO] McCain Ad Featuring The Ten Commadments
At 10:34 AM 8/24/2008, CK MacLeod wrote: Interesting observations, Rich. I always enjoy getting the benefit of your experience in copyright-related issues. (BTW, on that note, would you agree with me that Ron's interpretation of First Sale is ill-founded in the case of "stolen" goods?) Concerning posters etc. there is a Federal law & there are state laws concerning theft of property. In New York there is an art & antiquities law that concerns theft. If you are the victim of a theft of a Rembrandt painting in 1971, however because the painting was in your basement and you haven't been down there since 1965 and this year you discover it is missing, the clock on Statute of Limitations does not start running until you discover the theft and then the 5 year statute begins. So being stolen in 1971 doesn't mean anything necessarily. Furthermore, you can keep the statute alive past 5 years as long as you can prove that you are continuing to pursue the return of the painting. That can entail just a single letter for instance to a gallery owner asking if he has been able to track the painting just one time a year. The law constitutes that as an activity on your part to retrieve the art and when or if it does come back up. However, by that law, if you discover the theft, never report it and never pursue it's return, you could be relenquishing any claim to the art in the future.. It's called "abandonment of property" So by that standard, the Producers of movie posters for instance are most likely abandoning their property through inaction Also, copyright has become a very convoluted situation since the many revisals of copyright law by Congress during the past 30 years There is quite a bit of material that had been in the public domain under old law that has been recaptured due to newer laws. Disney & Universal are serious beneficiaries of this. There is a whole segment of Disney material in print & on film that was recaptured and under old copyright law, all of the Universal Horrors would have fallen into PD years ago had Congress - ushered by and lobbied by Disney for one and many corps otherwise - not taken the laws under review & extended copyright protections. For instance, Frankenstein would have been PD in 1988 (28+28 years), but now won't be PD until sometime between 2015 & 2020 which is an extension of 30 years +/- from original law which stood for more than 200 years. From the public's view, it is an ill-focused waste of Congress's time. But it follows the philosophy of government to protect corporations from being affected by the same benefits they themselves have benefited from. You don't think that any publisher pays royalties to the Mark Twain or Shakespeare estates do you?? Or that Disney pays anything to the Jacob Ludwig Carl Grimm family for Snow White or that Universal paid one penny to the estate of Mary Shelley in 1931, and yet these companies have made 100s of millions of dollars off the backs of these people. I'm waiting for these companies and Congress to create new law yet which would entail permanent copyright status for all corporations until the end of time, even as these companies use material - for which they will continue to pay nothing - from people who have no such protections. Keep in mind that one thing that happens - and Disney being one of the most benefited - is that soon before something is to go PD, these companies lobby again for a lengthier time period of copyright protection and because they can afford to pay tens of millions to lobby the lawmakers - while smaller entities, including individuals cannot afford the same and are left out in the cold. This is how the copyright laws have been re-written every few years since 1978 extending further and further protections to those who can afford to lobby Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com ___ How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
Re: [MOPO] McCain Ad Featuring The Ten Commadments
There are also all sorts of tricks copyright holders use to prevent their product from goin public domain. Turner managed to essentially get It's A Wonderful Life out of the public domain by re-copyrighting the underlying music used in the film. Thus although the film itself had lapsed and was not renewed because the underlying music was copyright and required permission from Turner to use it, the film became protected again. It's nothing new. Prokofiev didn't want his ballet scores from becoming public domain so he added a few notes here and there to his scores in the 1930s and 1940s and managed to somehow claim a new version of the score which was published by Schmirer's Music. Hence the start date of the copyright began anew on most of his widely played ballet scores. FRANC -Original Message- From: MoPo List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard Halegua Comic Art Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2008 7:21 PM To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Subject: Re: [MOPO] McCain Ad Featuring The Ten Commadments At 10:34 AM 8/24/2008, CK MacLeod wrote: Interesting observations, Rich. I always enjoy getting the benefit of your experience in copyright-related issues. (BTW, on that note, would you agree with me that Ron's interpretation of First Sale is ill-founded in the case of "stolen" goods?) Concerning posters etc. there is a Federal law & there are state laws concerning theft of property. In New York there is an art & antiquities law that concerns theft. If you are the victim of a theft of a Rembrandt painting in 1971, however because the painting was in your basement and you haven't been down there since 1965 and this year you discover it is missing, the clock on Statute of Limitations does not start running until you discover the theft and then the 5 year statute begins. So being stolen in 1971 doesn't mean anything necessarily. Furthermore, you can keep the statute alive past 5 years as long as you can prove that you are continuing to pursue the return of the painting. That can entail just a single letter for instance to a gallery owner asking if he has been able to track the painting just one time a year. The law constitutes that as an activity on your part to retrieve the art and when or if it does come back up. However, by that law, if you discover the theft, never report it and never pursue it's return, you could be relenquishing any claim to the art in the future.. It's called "abandonment of property" So by that standard, the Producers of movie posters for instance are most likely abandoning their property through inaction Also, copyright has become a very convoluted situation since the many revisals of copyright law by Congress during the past 30 years There is quite a bit of material that had been in the public domain under old law that has been recaptured due to newer laws. Disney & Universal are serious beneficiaries of this. There is a whole segment of Disney material in print & on film that was recaptured and under old copyright law, all of the Universal Horrors would have fallen into PD years ago had Congress - ushered by and lobbied by Disney for one and many corps otherwise - not taken the laws under review & extended copyright protections. For instance, Frankenstein would have been PD in 1988 (28+28 years), but now won't be PD until sometime between 2015 & 2020 which is an extension of 30 years +/- from original law which stood for more than 200 years. >From the public's view, it is an ill-focused waste of Congress's time. But it follows the philosophy of government to protect corporations from being affected by the same benefits they themselves have benefited from. You don't think that any publisher pays royalties to the Mark Twain or Shakespeare estates do you?? Or that Disney pays anything to the Jacob Ludwig Carl Grimm family for Snow White or that Universal paid one penny to the estate of Mary Shelley in 1931, and yet these companies have made 100s of millions of dollars off the backs of these people. I'm waiting for these companies and Congress to create new law yet which would entail permanent copyright status for all corporations until the end of time, even as these companies use material - for which they will continue to pay nothing - from people who have no such protections. Keep in mind that one thing that happens - and Disney being one of the most benefited - is that soon before something is to go PD, these companies lobby again for a lengthier time period of copyright protection and because they can afford to pay tens of millions to lobby the lawmakers - while smaller entities, including individuals cannot afford the same and are left out in the cold. This is how the copyright laws have been re-written every few years since 1978 extending further and further protections to those who can afford to lobby Visit the MoPo Mailing Li
Re: [MOPO] McCain Ad Featuring The Ten Commadments
Don't forget the 'orphaned works' crap the lobbyists are trying to get passed now. I don't know why they call it 'orphaned works,' it really should be called the 'license for multinational corporations to blatantly steal artist's works law.' But, then again, isn't it required for all new US laws to have a hypocritical, Orwellian title nowadays?... - Original Message - From: Richard Halegua Comic Art To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2008 4:20 PM Subject: Re: [MOPO] McCain Ad Featuring The Ten Commadments At 10:34 AM 8/24/2008, CK MacLeod wrote: Interesting observations, Rich. I always enjoy getting the benefit of your experience in copyright-related issues. (BTW, on that note, would you agree with me that Ron's interpretation of First Sale is ill-founded in the case of "stolen" goods?) Concerning posters etc. there is a Federal law & there are state laws concerning theft of property. In New York there is an art & antiquities law that concerns theft. If you are the victim of a theft of a Rembrandt painting in 1971, however because the painting was in your basement and you haven't been down there since 1965 and this year you discover it is missing, the clock on Statute of Limitations does not start running until you discover the theft and then the 5 year statute begins. So being stolen in 1971 doesn't mean anything necessarily. Furthermore, you can keep the statute alive past 5 years as long as you can prove that you are continuing to pursue the return of the painting. That can entail just a single letter for instance to a gallery owner asking if he has been able to track the painting just one time a year. The law constitutes that as an activity on your part to retrieve the art and when or if it does come back up. However, by that law, if you discover the theft, never report it and never pursue it's return, you could be relenquishing any claim to the art in the future.. It's called "abandonment of property" So by that standard, the Producers of movie posters for instance are most likely abandoning their property through inaction Also, copyright has become a very convoluted situation since the many revisals of copyright law by Congress during the past 30 years There is quite a bit of material that had been in the public domain under old law that has been recaptured due to newer laws. Disney & Universal are serious beneficiaries of this. There is a whole segment of Disney material in print & on film that was recaptured and under old copyright law, all of the Universal Horrors would have fallen into PD years ago had Congress - ushered by and lobbied by Disney for one and many corps otherwise - not taken the laws under review & extended copyright protections. For instance, Frankenstein would have been PD in 1988 (28+28 years), but now won't be PD until sometime between 2015 & 2020 which is an extension of 30 years +/- from original law which stood for more than 200 years. From the public's view, it is an ill-focused waste of Congress's time. But it follows the philosophy of government to protect corporations from being affected by the same benefits they themselves have benefited from. You don't think that any publisher pays royalties to the Mark Twain or Shakespeare estates do you?? Or that Disney pays anything to the Jacob Ludwig Carl Grimm family for Snow White or that Universal paid one penny to the estate of Mary Shelley in 1931, and yet these companies have made 100s of millions of dollars off the backs of these people. I'm waiting for these companies and Congress to create new law yet which would entail permanent copyright status for all corporations until the end of time, even as these companies use material - for which they will continue to pay nothing - from people who have no such protections. Keep in mind that one thing that happens - and Disney being one of the most benefited - is that soon before something is to go PD, these companies lobby again for a lengthier time period of copyright protection and because they can afford to pay tens of millions to lobby the lawmakers - while smaller entities, including individuals cannot afford the same and are left out in the cold. This is how the copyright laws have been re-written every few years since 1978 extending further and further protections to those who can afford to lobby Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com ___ How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L The author of this message is solely responsible for its content. Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at ww
Re: [MOPO] McCain Ad Featuring The Ten Commadments
Yep, Bob, spot on...especially if they're "left wing tools." Any double-speak, or reduce the infraction by reduction of the victim by calling names is always a fine start. I'm sure you can fill in the rest of the hackneyed blanks on your own. Patrick On Aug 24, 2008, at 8:20 PM, Robert D. Brooks wrote: Don't forget the 'orphaned works' crap the lobbyists are trying to get passed now. I don't know why they call it 'orphaned works,' it really should be called the 'license for multinational corporations to blatantly steal artist's works law.' But, then again, isn't it required for all new US laws to have a hypocritical, Orwellian title nowadays?... - Original Message - From: Richard Halegua Comic Art To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2008 4:20 PM Subject: Re: [MOPO] McCain Ad Featuring The Ten Commadments At 10:34 AM 8/24/2008, CK MacLeod wrote: Interesting observations, Rich. I always enjoy getting the benefit of your experience in copyright-related issues. (BTW, on that note, would you agree with me that Ron's interpretation of First Sale is ill-founded in the case of "stolen" goods?) Concerning posters etc. there is a Federal law & there are state laws concerning theft of property. In New York there is an art & antiquities law that concerns theft. If you are the victim of a theft of a Rembrandt painting in 1971, however because the painting was in your basement and you haven't been down there since 1965 and this year you discover it is missing, the clock on Statute of Limitations does not start running until you discover the theft and then the 5 year statute begins. So being stolen in 1971 doesn't mean anything necessarily. Furthermore, you can keep the statute alive past 5 years as long as you can prove that you are continuing to pursue the return of the painting. That can entail just a single letter for instance to a gallery owner asking if he has been able to track the painting just one time a year. The law constitutes that as an activity on your part to retrieve the art and when or if it does come back up. However, by that law, if you discover the theft, never report it and never pursue it's return, you could be relenquishing any claim to the art in the future.. It's called "abandonment of property" So by that standard, the Producers of movie posters for instance are most likely abandoning their property through inaction Also, copyright has become a very convoluted situation since the many revisals of copyright law by Congress during the past 30 years There is quite a bit of material that had been in the public domain under old law that has been recaptured due to newer laws. Disney & Universal are serious beneficiaries of this. There is a whole segment of Disney material in print & on film that was recaptured and under old copyright law, all of the Universal Horrors would have fallen into PD years ago had Congress - ushered by and lobbied by Disney for one and many corps otherwise - not taken the laws under review & extended copyright protections. For instance, Frankenstein would have been PD in 1988 (28+28 years), but now won't be PD until sometime between 2015 & 2020 which is an extension of 30 years +/- from original law which stood for more than 200 years. From the public's view, it is an ill-focused waste of Congress's time. But it follows the philosophy of government to protect corporations from being affected by the same benefits they themselves have benefited from. You don't think that any publisher pays royalties to the Mark Twain or Shakespeare estates do you?? Or that Disney pays anything to the Jacob Ludwig Carl Grimm family for Snow White or that Universal paid one penny to the estate of Mary Shelley in 1931, and yet these companies have made 100s of millions of dollars off the backs of these people. I'm waiting for these companies and Congress to create new law yet which would entail permanent copyright status for all corporations until the end of time, even as these companies use material - for which they will continue to pay nothing - from people who have no such protections. Keep in mind that one thing that happens - and Disney being one of the most benefited - is that soon before something is to go PD, these companies lobby again for a lengthier time period of copyright protection and because they can afford to pay tens of millions to lobby the lawmakers - while smaller entities, including individuals cannot afford the same and are left out in the cold. This is how the copyright laws have been re-written every few years since 1978 extending further and further protections to those who can afford to lobby Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site
Re: [MOPO] McCain Ad Featuring The Ten Commadments
At 10:34 AM 8/24/2008, CK MacLeod wrote: Interesting observations, Rich. I always enjoy getting the benefit of your experience in copyright-related issues. (BTW, on that note, would you agree with me that Ron's interpretation of First Sale is ill-founded in the case of "stolen" goods?) Colin I should have added pointedly: it does not matter if an item is resold over & over after it has been stolen stolen goods are stolen goods until a statute of limitations passes or until a rightful owner signs off It does not matter if 100 people owned it before it was found by the rightful owner, the person it was stolen from can reclaim it at any time pursuant to local or federal laws If owner #10 is found by the person from whom it was stolen, the owner gets to reclaim the item at no cost and buyer #10 has civil recourse against person #9 who has recourse against person #8 down to #1 who was presumably - the thief possession of a stolen item does not constitute owning title because title to stolen items cannot be passed on by anyone but the rightful owner Rich=== Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com ___ How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
Re: [MOPO] McCain Ad Featuring The Ten Commadments
Bob Orphaned works doctrine has always been in force. However to my knowledge it was limited to those having an interest in creation. So if Superman Comics #1 fell into the public domain within the time frame it can be held in copyright (75 years or whatever), then Siegel & Shuster could file for "assignment of rights" singly or together. That could be challenged by others involved such as the Heirs of Malcolm Wheeler Nicholson etc Rich=== At 08:20 PM 8/24/2008, Robert D. Brooks wrote: Don't forget the 'orphaned works' crap the lobbyists are trying to get passed now. I don't know why they call it 'orphaned works,' it really should be called the 'license for multinational corporations to blatantly steal artist's works law.' But, then again, isn't it required for all new US laws to have a hypocritical, Orwellian title nowadays?... - Original Message - From: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Richard Halegua Comic Art To: <mailto:MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU>MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2008 4:20 PM Subject: Re: [MOPO] McCain Ad Featuring The Ten Commadments At 10:34 AM 8/24/2008, CK MacLeod wrote: Interesting observations, Rich. I always enjoy getting the benefit of your experience in copyright-related issues. (BTW, on that note, would you agree with me that Ron's interpretation of First Sale is ill-founded in the case of "stolen" goods?) Concerning posters etc. there is a Federal law & there are state laws concerning theft of property. In New York there is an art & antiquities law that concerns theft. If you are the victim of a theft of a Rembrandt painting in 1971, however because the painting was in your basement and you haven't been down there since 1965 and this year you discover it is missing, the clock on Statute of Limitations does not start running until you discover the theft and then the 5 year statute begins. So being stolen in 1971 doesn't mean anything necessarily. Furthermore, you can keep the statute alive past 5 years as long as you can prove that you are continuing to pursue the return of the painting. That can entail just a single letter for instance to a gallery owner asking if he has been able to track the painting just one time a year. The law constitutes that as an activity on your part to retrieve the art and when or if it does come back up. However, by that law, if you discover the theft, never report it and never pursue it's return, you could be relenquishing any claim to the art in the future.. It's called "abandonment of property" So by that standard, the Producers of movie posters for instance are most likely abandoning their property through inaction Also, copyright has become a very convoluted situation since the many revisals of copyright law by Congress during the past 30 years There is quite a bit of material that had been in the public domain under old law that has been recaptured due to newer laws. Disney & Universal are serious beneficiaries of this. There is a whole segment of Disney material in print & on film that was recaptured and under old copyright law, all of the Universal Horrors would have fallen into PD years ago had Congress - ushered by and lobbied by Disney for one and many corps otherwise - not taken the laws under review & extended copyright protections. For instance, Frankenstein would have been PD in 1988 (28+28 years), but now won't be PD until sometime between 2015 & 2020 which is an extension of 30 years +/- from original law which stood for more than 200 years. From the public's view, it is an ill-focused waste of Congress's time. But it follows the philosophy of government to protect corporations from being affected by the same benefits they themselves have benefited from. You don't think that any publisher pays royalties to the Mark Twain or Shakespeare estates do you?? Or that Disney pays anything to the Jacob Ludwig Carl Grimm family for Snow White or that Universal paid one penny to the estate of Mary Shelley in 1931, and yet these companies have made 100s of millions of dollars off the backs of these people. I'm waiting for these companies and Congress to create new law yet which would entail permanent copyright status for all corporations until the end of time, even as these companies use material - for which they will continue to pay nothing - from people who have no such protections. Keep in mind that one thing that happens - and Disney being one of the most benefited - is that soon before something is to go PD, these companies lobby again for a lengthier time period of copyright protection and because they can afford to pay tens of millions to lobby the lawmakers - while smaller entities, including individuals cannot afford the same and are left out in the
Re: [MOPO] McCain Ad Featuring The Ten Commadments
you are both correct and incorrect Turner was able to copyright "the new version", they cannot however reclaim the original version Such a situation existed for Vertigo. The reason it was out of circulation was that the heirs of Bernard Herrmann would not extend a new contract for the music because they wanted too much money. This dragged on for years until Paramount decided they'd had enough & created a new score At 04:55 PM 8/24/2008, Franc wrote: There are also all sorts of tricks copyright holders use to prevent their product from goin public domain. Turner managed to essentially get It's A Wonderful Life out of the public domain by re-copyrighting the underlying music used in the film. Thus although the film itself had lapsed and was not renewed because the underlying music was copyright and required permission from Turner to use it, the film became protected again. It's nothing new. Prokofiev didn't want his ballet scores from becoming public domain so he added a few notes here and there to his scores in the 1930s and 1940s and managed to somehow claim a new version of the score which was published by Schmirer's Music. Hence the start date of the copyright began anew on most of his widely played ballet scores. FRANC -Original Message- From: MoPo List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard Halegua Comic Art Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2008 7:21 PM To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Subject: Re: [MOPO] McCain Ad Featuring The Ten Commadments At 10:34 AM 8/24/2008, CK MacLeod wrote: Interesting observations, Rich. I always enjoy getting the benefit of your experience in copyright-related issues. (BTW, on that note, would you agree with me that Ron's interpretation of First Sale is ill-founded in the case of "stolen" goods?) Concerning posters etc. there is a Federal law & there are state laws concerning theft of property. In New York there is an art & antiquities law that concerns theft. If you are the victim of a theft of a Rembrandt painting in 1971, however because the painting was in your basement and you haven't been down there since 1965 and this year you discover it is missing, the clock on Statute of Limitations does not start running until you discover the theft and then the 5 year statute begins. So being stolen in 1971 doesn't mean anything necessarily. Furthermore, you can keep the statute alive past 5 years as long as you can prove that you are continuing to pursue the return of the painting. That can entail just a single letter for instance to a gallery owner asking if he has been able to track the painting just one time a year. The law constitutes that as an activity on your part to retrieve the art and when or if it does come back up. However, by that law, if you discover the theft, never report it and never pursue it's return, you could be relenquishing any claim to the art in the future.. It's called "abandonment of property" So by that standard, the Producers of movie posters for instance are most likely abandoning their property through inaction Also, copyright has become a very convoluted situation since the many revisals of copyright law by Congress during the past 30 years There is quite a bit of material that had been in the public domain under old law that has been recaptured due to newer laws. Disney & Universal are serious beneficiaries of this. There is a whole segment of Disney material in print & on film that was recaptured and under old copyright law, all of the Universal Horrors would have fallen into PD years ago had Congress - ushered by and lobbied by Disney for one and many corps otherwise - not taken the laws under review & extended copyright protections. For instance, Frankenstein would have been PD in 1988 (28+28 years), but now won't be PD until sometime between 2015 & 2020 which is an extension of 30 years +/- from original law which stood for more than 200 years. From the public's view, it is an ill-focused waste of Congress's time. But it follows the philosophy of government to protect corporations from being affected by the same benefits they themselves have benefited from. You don't think that any publisher pays royalties to the Mark Twain or Shakespeare estates do you?? Or that Disney pays anything to the Jacob Ludwig Carl Grimm family for Snow White or that Universal paid one penny to the estate of Mary Shelley in 1931, and yet these companies have made 100s of millions of dollars off the backs of these people. I'm waiting for these companies and Congress to create new law yet which would entail permanent copyright status for all corporations until the end of time, even as these companies use material - for which they will continue to pay nothing - from people who have no such protections. Keep in mind that one thing that
Re: [MOPO] McCain Ad Featuring The Ten Commadments
And let me also apologize to Moses, Y*h*w*h, and CB DeMille on behalf of whoever misspelled the word "Commandments" in the subject header. CK MacLeod Collectibles at ckmac.com <http://ckmac.com/> Kymar's on eBay <http://stores.ebay.com/Kymars-Stuff> -Original Message- From: MoPo List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Richard Halegua Comic Art Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 03:44 AM To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Subject: Re: [MOPO] McCain Ad Featuring The Ten Commadments Colin I should have added pointedly: it does not matter if an item is resold over & over after it has been stolen stolen goods are stolen goods until a statute of limitations passes or until a rightful owner signs off It does not matter if 100 people owned it before it was found by the rightful owner, the person it was stolen from can reclaim it at any time pursuant to local or federal laws If owner #10 is found by the person from whom it was stolen, the owner gets to reclaim the item at no cost and buyer #10 has civil recourse against person #9 who has recourse against person #8 down to #1 who was presumably - the thief possession of a stolen item does not constitute owning title because title to stolen items cannot be passed on by anyone but the rightful owner Rich=== Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com ___ How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L The author of this message is solely responsible for its content. Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com ___ How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
Re: [MOPO] McCain Ad Featuring The Ten Commadments
Don't get mand about, CK. K. On Aug 25, 2008, at 10:49 AM, CK MacLeod wrote: And let me also apologize to Moses, Y*h*w*h, and CB DeMille on behalf of whoever misspelled the word "Commandments" in the subject header. CK MacLeod Collectibles at ckmac.com Kymar's on eBay -Original Message- From: MoPo List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Richard Halegua Comic Art Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 03:44 AM To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Subject: Re: [MOPO] McCain Ad Featuring The Ten Commadments Colin I should have added pointedly: it does not matter if an item is resold over & over after it has been stolen stolen goods are stolen goods until a statute of limitations passes or until a rightful owner signs off It does not matter if 100 people owned it before it was found by the rightful owner, the person it was stolen from can reclaim it at any time pursuant to local or federal laws If owner #10 is found by the person from whom it was stolen, the owner gets to reclaim the item at no cost and buyer #10 has civil recourse against person #9 who has recourse against person #8 down to #1 who was presumably - the thief possession of a stolen item does not constitute owning title because title to stolen items cannot be passed on by anyone but the rightful owner Rich=== Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com ___ How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L The author of this message is solely responsible for its content. Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com ___ How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L The author of this message is solely responsible for its content. Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com ___ How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
