Bruno e Renato... Eu e o Jota estavamos discutindo exatamente isso na semana passada.....
aí aí aí !!!!! 2009/5/10 Bruno Buys <[email protected]> > Renato S. Yamane wrote: > >> Em 08-05-2009 16:45, Daniel Bianchi escreveu: >> >>> Não consegui colocar no You Tube porque disseram que eu estava violando >>> os direitos da Fox. Isso porque usamos um lance dos Simpisons. >>> Bom está ai... quem se interessar veja, assim poderemos discutir. >>> http://www.mininova.org/tor/2571016 >>> >> >> Entre em contato com a Fox, diga que foi um trabalho universitário... >> Muito provavelmente eles lhe fornecerão o direito de reprodução de um trecho >> curto. >> >> Att, >> Renato >> >> >> > Sobre entrar em contato com a Fox, e sobre usar trecho dos simpsons, me > lembrei dessa situação aqui. Vocês podem ler na íntegra em 'Free Culture', > referência fundamental da cultura hacker. Veja em free-culture.org. Para > baixar o livro: free-culture.org/freecontent. > O trecho colado aqui começa na página 95. > > "CHAPTER SEVEN: Recorders > > Jon Else is a filmmaker. He is best known for his documentaries and > has been very successful in spreading his art. He is also a teacher, and > as a teacher myself, I envy the loyalty and admiration that his students > feel for him. (I met, by accident, two of his students at a dinner party. > He was their god.) > Else worked on a documentary that I was involved in. At a break, > he told me a story about the freedom to create with film in America > today. > In 1990, Else was working on a documentary about Wagner’s Ring > Cycle. The focus was stagehands at the San Francisco Opera. Stagehands > are a particularly funny and colorful element of an opera. During > a show, they hang out below the stage in the grips’ lounge and in > the lighting loft. They make a perfect contrast to the art on the stage. > During one of the performances, Else was shooting some stagehands > playing checkers. In one corner of the room was a television set. > Playing on the television set, while the stagehands played checkers and > the opera company played Wagner, was The Simpsons. As Else judged > it, this touch of cartoon helped capture the flavor of what was special > about the scene. > Years later, when he finally got funding to complete the film, Else > attempted to clear the rights for those few seconds of The Simpsons. > For of course, those few seconds are copyrighted; and of course, to use > copyrighted material you need the permission of the copyright owner, > unless “fair use” or some other privilege applies. > Else called Simpsons creator Matt Groening’s office to get permission. > Groening approved the shot. The shot was a four-and-a-halfsecond > image on a tiny television set in the corner of the room. How > could it hurt? Groening was happy to have it in the film, but he told > Else to contact Gracie Films, the company that produces the program. > Gracie Films was okay with it, too, but they, like Groening, wanted > to be careful. So they told Else to contact Fox, Gracie’s parent company. > Else called Fox and told them about the clip in the corner of the one > room shot of the film. Matt Groening had already given permission, > Else said. He was just confirming the permission with Fox. > Then, as Else told me, “two things happened. First we discovered > . . . that Matt Groening doesn’t own his own creation—or at least > that someone [at Fox] believes he doesn’t own his own creation.” And > second, Fox “wanted ten thousand dollars as a licensing fee for us to use > this four-point-five seconds of . . . entirely unsolicited Simpsons which > was in the corner of the shot.” > Else was certain there was a mistake. He worked his way up to > someone he thought was a vice president for licensing, Rebecca Herrera. > He explained to her, “There must be some mistake here. . . . > We’re asking for your educational rate on this.” That was the educational > rate, Herrera told Else. A day or so later, Else called again to > confirm what he had been told. > “I wanted to make sure I had my facts straight,” he told me. “Yes, > you have your facts straight,” she said. It would cost $10,000 to use the > clip of The Simpsons in the corner of a shot in a documentary film about > Wagner’s Ring Cycle. And then, astonishingly, Herrera told Else, “And > if you quote me, I’ll turn you over to our attorneys.” As an assistant to > Herrera told Else later on, “They don’t give a shit. They just want the > money.” > Else didn’t have the money to buy the right to replay what was playing > on the television backstage at the San Francisco Opera.To reproduce > this reality was beyond the documentary filmmaker’s budget.At the very > last minute before the film was to be released, Else digitally replaced the > shot with a clip from another film that he had worked on, The Day After > Trinity, from ten years before. > There’s no doubt that someone, whether Matt Groening or Fox, > owns the copyright to The Simpsons. That copyright is their property. > To use that copyrighted material thus sometimes requires the permission > of the copyright owner. If the use that Else wanted to make of the > Simpsons copyright were one of the uses restricted by the law, then he > would need to get the permission of the copyright owner before he > could use the work in that way. And in a free market, it is the owner of > the copyright who gets to set the price for any use that the law says the > owner gets to control. > For example, “public performance” is a use of The Simpsons that > the copyright owner gets to control. If you take a selection of favorite > episodes, rent a movie theater, and charge for tickets to come see “My > Favorite Simpsons,” then you need to get permission from the copyright > owner. And the copyright owner (rightly, in my view) can charge > whatever she wants—$10 or $1,000,000. That’s her right, as set by > the law. > But when lawyers hear this story about Jon Else and Fox, their first > thought is “fair use.”1 Else’s use of just 4.5 seconds of an indirect shot > of a Simpsons episode is clearly a fair use of The Simpsons—and fair use > does not require the permission of anyone. > So I asked Else why he didn’t just rely upon “fair use.” Here’s his reply: > The Simpsons fiasco was for me a great lesson in the gulf between > what lawyers find irrelevant in some abstract sense, and > what is crushingly relevant in practice to those of us actually > trying to make and broadcast documentaries. I never had any > doubt that it was “clearly fair use” in an absolute legal sense. But > I couldn’t rely on the concept in any concrete way. Here’s why: > 1. Before our films can be broadcast, the network requires > that we buy Errors and Omissions insurance. The carriers require > a detailed “visual cue sheet” listing the source and licensing > status of each shot in the film. They take a dim view of > “fair use,” and a claim of “fair use” can grind the application > process to a halt. > 2. I probably never should have asked Matt Groening in the > first place. But I knew (at least from folklore) that Fox had a > history of tracking down and stopping unlicensed Simpsons > usage, just as George Lucas had a very high profile litigating > Star Wars usage. So I decided to play by the book, thinking > that we would be granted free or cheap license to four seconds > of Simpsons. As a documentary producer working to exhaustion > on a shoestring, the last thing I wanted was to risk legal > trouble, even nuisance legal trouble, and even to defend a > principle. > 3. I did, in fact, speak with one of your colleagues at Stanford > Law School . . . who confirmed that it was fair use. He also > confirmed that Fox would “depose and litigate you to within > an inch of your life,” regardless of the merits of my claim. He > made clear that it would boil down to who had the bigger legal > department and the deeper pockets, me or them. > 4. The question of fair use usually comes up at the end of the > project, when we are up against a release deadline and out of > money. > In theory, fair use means you need no permission. The theory therefore > supports free culture and insulates against a permission culture. > But in practice, fair use functions very differently. The fuzzy lines of > the law, tied to the extraordinary liability if lines are crossed, means > that the effective fair use for many types of creators is slight. The law > has the right aim; practice has defeated the aim. > This practice shows just how far the law has come from its > eighteenth-century roots. The law was born as a shield to protect > publishers’ > profits against the unfair competition of a pirate. It has matured > into a sword that interferes with any use, transformative or not." > > > > > > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact > [email protected] > >
