posted on August 28, 2001 10:35:01 PM
I sell movies occasionally and would like some advice. When I do, I always scan the front and back covers of films.
If I decide (based on feedback here) to post a screenshot or two of the actual film to "jazz" up the listing, is this a bad or "illegal" thing to do. Specifically, are film images copyrighted? I know the whole film is copyrighted, but if I post an image from a film, could this also be copyright
violation. BTW, I haven't actually done anything, but I hoping some people can help me out.
posted on August 28, 2001 11:02:03 PM
My understanding is that would be copyright infringement. You'd need permission from the copyright holder. A hassle if you only list movies on occasion.
The Internet Movie Database will allow you to use some of their data if you apply for permission from them. Even there, however, pictures are a no go because they license them from third parties. If you see something at IMDB that you want to use, you e-mail their Licensing Dept. Their homepage is: www.imdb.com. Go to the bottom and click on Terms of Service (or something like that) and hunt from there.
Hope this helps. I know what you mean about boring listings. But, unless you think a lawsuit would spice up your life, better play it safe.
posted on August 29, 2001 12:12:38 AM
Copyright infringement? Gimme a break! Like saying you can't photograph any pages of a book you are selling!
Copyright laws allow for something called 'FAIR USE'. This means that you can use parts of a copyrighted work, especially to sell it in the open market - as long as it does not promote other products or deprive the copyright holder of rightful revenue.
This would mean that you can post a scene from the TITANIC on the Internet as part of selling the movie. You may run into trouble if you use that scene to promote your web site on Titanic memorabilia, or to promote sales of them. You will run into trouble if you post the entire movie on the Net, or sell bootlegged versions.
posted on August 29, 2001 12:39:16 AM
--snakebait---
I know about fair use for books, but don't know if it also applies to visual media.
That said, thanks for your input. BTW,
everything I sell is legitimate and never a bootleg. Though, of course you are right,
selling bootlegs is a bad idea.
As a hypothetical example, I'll use Titanic
(very tongue and cheek).
Dutch Action:
Titanic starring Kate Winslet and Leonardo DiCaprio (1997). Be the first to snag your copy of this cinematic achievement and Academy Award Winner. Prices sinking fast!
[Picture of ship going down]
Own yours for the unbelievable price of $X.XX
Very Cheesy example, but I'm hoping someone will be able to shed more light on this issue.
posted on August 29, 2001 05:21:32 AM
I'm no lawyer, but I agree that this would seem to fall under the fair use principle.
I don't know how much time it would take to do these video stills, but IMO, I don't think it would increase your sales enough to justify the time spent. If there are 30 copies of titanic being sold, I'll look for price and fair number of feedbacks, and not much else. The coolness of the ad doesn't do much for me. Others may feel differently, of course.
posted on August 29, 2001 06:07:59 AM
Great idea, not so great example.
I would not hesitate to run photos of the film I was selling, the worst that could happen is they would tell me to stop. I am not sure how or if the fair use doctrine would apply. I do know the film industry keeps the courts really busy trying to control every aspect of their business.
As to the Titanic, there are millions of copies of that video around and last time I looked there were tons of them for sale on half for less than the postage! But extra information and photos _will_ help stimulate bidding (and be worth the investment of time and effort) with out of print videos.
And as someone asked, where are you to get these photos? Taking someone elses jpg would be problematic, too, don't you think?
posted on August 29, 2001 06:22:03 AM
As a buyer, I would rather see a picture of the video sitting next to the box sleeve.
I've been burned too many times by auctions that show a scan of the video cover and then send me a homemade tape with a small, paper copy of the cover attached. I won't even bid anymore unless it's clear that the video is not a copy.
"Politicians always tell the truth when they call each other liars"
posted on August 29, 2001 11:38:14 AMCopyright infringement? Gimme a break! Like saying you can't photograph any pages of a book you are selling!
Actually, I had an auction cancelled because of something like that.
I was selling a magazine supplement. I think it was the Girls of FHM. The front just had a picture of a model's face, but the back had small pics of the inside photos. So, I used a pic of the back cover in my listing. The VERO owner cancelled it saying that I was violating the photographers' copyrights. Apparently, showing the front cover was acceptable, but not the back cover.
posted on August 29, 2001 01:06:11 PM
Just because VERO cancelled an auction, doesn't mean there was a violation of any intellectual rights. If you owned the object being sold, you are well within your rights to display the object to the potential buyers, barring that there wasn't any other contractual limitations included when you bought the item. Next time file a counter claim and get your auction reinstated. It would be interesting to know what theory of copyright would apply when a photographer claims you can not display his copyrighted image, which you own, to potential buyers.
The same would apply to Trademarks. Imagine Ford saying you can't use their trademarks when you want to sell your used Ford Explorer.
Fair Use doctrine would permit use of stills, and pictures of the box etc.. Just don't get carried away with how many stills you use, remember, it must be "fair" use. If the movie creators wish it to be stopped, it would throw a wrench in the commerce of used intellectual property items.
Some of this also falls under the "First Sale" doctrine, that is, you have a right to re-sell copyrighted material which you have purchased, again, barring that there isn't any contractual or licensing agreement contra for selling the product.
posted on August 29, 2001 01:11:07 PM
You "could" be infringing, but if you post the owner's copyright notice, this should not be an issue. You are, in fact, promoting the work for them. If they have a cow over it, you know their elevator doesn't go to the top floor.
posted on August 29, 2001 01:49:32 PM
I asked a copyright attorney from Askme.com the question and he sent me an answer this morning. I've invited him to this discussion, so he may pop in later. His name is Jeff Gordon. This is what he wrote:
"There are probably two issues here (and maybe more).
First, the person who owns the video really doesn't own the movie. They've been granted a limited right to view a COPY of the movie (and they get to keep that copy as long as they comply with the limited rights granted). That limited right is for personal viewing only (ie: can't sell tickets to the movie, even if we're only talking about ONE other person paying to see it) in a home environment. This is why people aren't allowed to use home copies for use with clubs or university showings... the royalties are MUCH more for public viewings.
So, what rights do they get? Well, like I said, they get the right to show the movie privately. That's it. And they are able to divest ONLY that right, as well. Thus, they can sell their copy of the movie, but they can't keep a copy for themselves. What they're really doing, is selling the right to view and eliminating THEIR right to view. They don't have the ability, therefore, to SELL more than they own.
During the sale, they can use the name of the movie and probably even a picture of the box (since the box is purchased and probably will not be considered licensed) to promote the sale. To get a still image from the film, however, would require that the person make a COPY of at least one frame from the movie. As I stated before, the rights granted to the purchaser do NOT include the ability to make any copies (no matter how slight). Thus, this WOULD be a violation of the copyright act.
This would bring the second issue. If the person who is selling their copy of the movie goes to the studio's website and copies an image off the site for use in promotion of their sale, they are most DEFINATELY violating the copyright act (probably twice, even).
The studios do NOT want you to take images from their sites - and my guess is that EVERY studio has a legal page that explicitly states this and the penalties for violations ($250,000 in fines and up to 5 years in prison).
So, if you make a local copy to your hard drive in the "between step" to moving the image to eBay, you've violated the Act once. When the image is then copied to eBay's servers, the Act has been violated again."
He went on to suggest a link to the movie's website, if any. However, I'm not sure if Buyers would want to follow a link away from the eBay page, or whether WE as Sellers want them to leave just yet. What if they get intrigued and don't come back to bid? YIKES!
BOTTOM LINE: Whether it is only a little infringement, or whether it is "fair use", or whether they catch me or not, is really academic. I don't have time to deal with my auctions being shut down, or to handle whatever may be thrown at me by a movie studio's aggressive legal team. I'm choosing NOT to include still photos from the movie in my video listings.
The rest of you can do what you like, and good luck to you.
The argument of this attorney probably would not hold up in court, especially as 'Fair Use' has always in practice included elements of intent.
With today's technology there is certainly no implication whatever that copying a frame of a movie implies in any manner whatever that the entire movie has been somehow copied. Perhaps the lawyer does not understand video capture cards. Copying a paragraph or a quote from a book, magazine, or newspaper has always been permitted. An entire chapter would be an entirely different matter. The same basic premises should also apply to magnetic media. If anything the rules on magnetic media have loosened so as to be comparable with print media. At one time you could not borrow computer programs from a public library. And you have always been able to borrow videos...
Naturally the industry would like to control as much as possible and even make exaggerated claims on limitations of use. However I have never heard of a successful case of copyright infringement where it could not be proved that there was malice or economic harm - both of which is my understanding is crucial to copyright suits.
Especially when it is used to sell the item in question.
However taking the picture out of its original context could definitely stir up a hornets nest. Using a sinking Titanic to illustrate *your* sinking prices would make it a derived work eligible for royalties. Using it to show the clarity and the special effects of the movie would be fair use.
In reality it is best to avoid any graphics or multimedia that are not absolutely necessary. Don't ever try to be 'cute' in your auctions as it will turn off more buyers than you would believe. Most buyers hit the BACK button immediately on sound or animations. I myself have these turned off totally. People expect the ads to come from stay-at-home moms looking to make a buck selling cut rate bargains, and will go to the Walmart site if they really want a multimedia blitz. SOmetimes it is the worst photos that can sell an item best. Buyers figure they can get the best deal from a rookie.
posted on August 30, 2001 12:45:09 AM
Thanks for all the replies so far. To clarify,
I am not selling "Titanic" and that bogus
example may not have been a good one. It was in reference to snakebait's original 'Titanic' reference and no harm was meant.
Like someone already mentioned, Videocapture
cards work well for capturing film. Also, any decent software DVD Player will take
screenshots of films. So in answer to others' questions about how I would obtain the screenshots, I would use either
A) a video capture card or
B) a Software DVD Player
Here is a more practical example. More of what I was thinking in the first place.
Let's say the movie is: Forrest Gump
starring Tom Hanks and Robin Wright (picked this example because most have seen it) I
would show a photo of the movie case
and a screenshot/frame of
A) Tom Hanks and Robin Wright in the roles of their characters.
I can certainly understand how some may not
bother to look at the actual design of a
listing i.e. "How cool" or "Not cool" it is (and I might be one of those people at certain times and with certain items. However, it would be nice to use Html on occasion and if I'm going to invest the
time to design a neat listing, why not go all
the way (hence a screenshot). However,
perhaps it won't be worth it and dealing with
a Vero owner and/or the wrath of Meg Whitman
is not what I have in mind.
