dbuckley Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 Another Reddit link. This one is comments on a posting on celebdiceria.com (now removed!, cached copy from google here) entitled '"Film producers Paul Tanter & Simon Phillips ‘taint film industry’' The comments on Reddit have many links to many copies of the videos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulears Posted February 16, 2014 Author Share Posted February 16, 2014 This is going to get messy but could be useful if it gets to court to see if comments like these really are actionable. We've had some much lower level questions asked of the blue room occasionally with people saying things that others want removed, and we've usually sorted them. In this case the stakes are higher so reading all those links it's mentioned about county court and then criminal action. The wording used also suggests most of this is bluster, but trying to look at the entire story there seem some fairly clear components.The video of the incident. It's excellent evidence of what actually happened but poses new questions. Is a public street somewhere where a copyright infringement claim can be made? A closed set is in essence, private. A street is not. Can any of us who have not been paid tell people about it? If a contract contains 'do not tell' clauses, if they don't pay, then is the contract void? If you post factual information on the net is there any support? We have a freedom of information act, yet the speed with which these sites remove information suggests we don't have the freedom we think we do? In this one, each removal does more damage to their reputations than it must be worth? Watching what happens may well be of considerable importance for everyone, especially whistleblowers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
top-cat Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 If you post factual information on the net is there any support? We have a freedom of information act, yet the speed with which these sites remove information suggests we don't have the freedom we think we do? I don't know if it's what you're referring to, but I think the reason the company are able to withdraw this footage every time it's posted is based on copyright law, not freedom of information. If somebody had snapped a video of this occurrence on their mobile and put it on youtube, I doubt they could do anything about it. But the footage posted is from the actual shoot, and therefore the production company are the copyright owner and have every right to take it down where it has been illegally distributed just as they would do if the entire film were uploaded to rapid-share. Of course it's up to the cynic in you to decide whether their motive to take it down is a genuine one of copyright breach! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david.elsbury Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 If somebody had snapped a video of this occurrence on their mobile and put it on youtube, I doubt they could do anything about it. But the footage posted is from the actual shoot (snip)Hmm - this footage was apparently filmed on a personal GoPro (edit: mounted to the top of the RED camera) rather than any production cameras. I'd say this is the same thing (from a copyright perspective as your example of) being shot on a mobile phone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 ...this footage was apparently filmed on a personal GoPro rather than any production cameras....So the copyright will be owned by whoever shot it unless the contract they have with the production company releases it to them. It still means that copyright laws apply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
top-cat Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 Yes the example of a mobile phone referred to a random bypasser walking down the road, thinking "ooh this looks interesting" and snapping up a video. The actual type of camera on which it is recorded is irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulears Posted February 16, 2014 Author Share Posted February 16, 2014 Ignoring the contractual obligations, and for most work (including what I do quite a bit of) what you shoot is not actually yours, I wonder if the concept of the passer by with the mobile has ever been tested. I this case, clearly the activity is in a public place, and the 'copyright material' would be the Director's blocking, and perhaps the actors performance, assigned by them to the production company in their contracts. So is a video shot on a phone or mega expensive broadcast camera containing these elements covered? I'm obviously expanding this, but would somebodies flower arrangement in a window box not also be covered, as would the care and attention put in to selecting matching curtain fabric? If you see the BBC in the street interviewing a politician, is putting your camera phone video of this on youtube illegal? If somebody made a copy of the RED footage and put this up, then I can see exactly how this is a full on breach. People nowadays are so busy signing releases, and then blobbing out people's faces, or registration numbers that we've got perhaps an artificial view on copyright ownership. Has it ever been tested properly, or are people just ultra-sensitive to potential action. Our copyright laws are a bit of a mess, with clarity lacking and contradiction everywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Lewis Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 Just seen this pop up on facebook:That link is already dead, but this and this and this seem OK... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 ...I wonder if the concept of the passer by with the mobile has ever been tested.You are allowed 'fair use' for 'news reporting'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigclive Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 Someone is very keen that the evidence is removed. Alas, I fear they're too late as the file is now floating around the 'net in its original and convenient GIF form. I wonder what they used as the dust. It's quite dense and colourful. As for the crew storming off the job and the "hospital admission" for dust inhalation, I can't help feeling that it was an over-reaction to an overzealous effect and the amount of dust they were exposed to for a short time was NOTHING compared to what they would routinely breath in the construction industry. Good publicity for their final production though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jivemaster Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 OK Who owns the rights if the camera op didn't get paid? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulears Posted February 17, 2014 Author Share Posted February 17, 2014 It seems BECTU are aware of this incident and the chain of problems regarding payments - so wait and see time, I guess? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerry davies Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 OK Who owns the rights if the camera op didn't get paid? When a certain mega rock band caused some damage at a recording studio they were told to sling their hook until the record company paid £2000 in damages. The following is a paraphrased telephone conversation."If you think we are paying two grand, think again.""No problem, we still have all the two-inch tapes.""There is a motorcycle courier on his way right now with the cash, sir. Are you sure £2K is enough?" Possession really is nine tenths of the law especially when payment is due. If he has the physical recording they have no rights unless they pay the contract in full. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xllx Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 Possession really is nine tenths of the law especially when payment is due. If he has the physical recording they have no rights unless they pay the contract in full. Many years ago, I was sacked off a show that I was doing sound for so that the venue sound operator could take over. This was about 2 hours before curtain up on about the third night of the show. I was paid in full in cash on the street about half a mile from the theatre... Having the 1/4" tapes in my bag probably helped! I had purchased the tape, recorded all the content, so until I was paid for them they most definitely belonged to me. I wonder if it would have been different if the production company had bought the tape stock? The content would have been mine but the physical media would have been owned by someone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itiba Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 And now the mirror are reporting about it... in such a calm and balanced way I see! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.