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