ASK & DISCUSS INDEX

9 years, 1 month ago - Paddy Robinson-Griffin

Welcome to the world of film clearances!
I should imagine the mention is OK, but you will need the release from the photographer to use the image.

9 years, 1 month ago - Eric Jukes

You need to be precise in this type of query. I think an unnamed photographer of a photography published 70 years ago is out of copyright. I have to deduce that as two musicians who are depicted are still alive then the photo is probably less than seventy years since publication so above won't apply. Do also remember that (just to be difficult!) that the photographer is not necessarily the owner of the copyright, even though he may own the original negative. Copyright can be assigned, or the photographer may have been employed by someone, magazine or agency or something, to take the pics and that the employer MAY own the copyright..

9 years, 1 month ago - Paddy Robinson-Griffin

Just to give the wider case as there have been a couple of copyright questions recently - it's a minefield. Clearances are a specific and very real job, and the answer varies case by case, country by country. The thoughts of strangers on a forum like myself are pretty much meaningless, and even a clearances expert will produce a report which is used to get insurance for if they're mistaken (or correct, but sued anyway).

And just to make it all worse, the biggest photo agency (Getty) have once again proved they cannot be trusted to run an honest shop after they attempted to sue a photographer for using one of her own images *that she had specifically put into the public domain*. They're litigious in the extreme and will attempt to sue for a settlement before even checking if they have any rights to the work. It's a racket of the highest order.

Intellectual Property law is so complex and so full of thugs relying on the threat of the cost of defending legal action being enough to bankrupt most individuals that they don't contest. Dallas Buyers Club is a prime example. In the more exotic end of the market, Prenda Law/Guardalay/others actually have been demonstrated to have seeded their own films on bit torrent just so they could chase anyone whose computer had even a frame of the copyrighted work in order to extort them. Basically you very quickly end up in a pool of utter sharks, so specific legal advice is important if the picture is important enough to use. Don't expect anyone you're not paying to act with integrity on your side in that whole arena, and get insurance.

Or don't use the photo - draw your own sketch, do a cartoon, dress an actor up to reconstruct, so you can get into festivals, etc. If you make a sale, let the buyer decide what they want to do with the IP.

9 years, 1 month ago - Louise Marie Cooke

Thanks Paddy and Eric and apologies for being deliberately vague. Copyrights indeed do seem like a minefield.

So to be specific - the two characters in my film will make reference to Kurt Cobain and Courtney Love and I would love to be able to feature a photograph of them also.

9 years, 1 month ago - Andrew N. Hill

1.Copyright of photographs subsists for 70 years after the original photograph dies regardless of who owns the copyright at the moment of its expiration.

9 years, 1 month ago - Andrew N. Hill

Regarding the above, I accidentally submitted it before I intended to and before I'd finished. But as far as it goes it's true to the best of my knowledge but nothing I say should be taken as a definitive statement of the law.

9 years, 1 month ago - Andrew N. Hill

In my first posting a few minutes ago I should have written "original photographer dies" and not "original photograph dies".
If you follow this link you'll find a document published by the Intellectual Property Office concerning photographs and the internet. It contains lots of useful information but may not address any particular issue that you have. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/481194/c-notice-201401.pdf
I

9 years ago - Marc Mason

Hi Louise,

Copyrights clearance is very simple. If you are using something which is not yours, you must clear it. If you are showing someone’s image, you must ask them if this is ok. If you are talking about someone, you must consider that that person might have an objection to what you are saying, so it might be worth checking with them first. etc etc. So as a producer, you must always clear everything and have the paperwork to prove it. It’s the right professional attitude.

For your short film, you need clearance from the copyright owner of the photograph and those who appear in the photograph.

Clearing can be very time consuming and can end up costing you money but it is vital to do it properly.

In the first instance, it is important to define where and how your film will be shown as this is what right holders will need to know in order to be able to allow, or not, and to charge, or not, for the use of their work or image.

As a rule, all artwork, photograph, music (publishing rights) etc is protected by the life of the author +70 years, except in certain cases where the author has purposely given the work to the public domain.

Regarding clearing people who appear in a photograph, again you need to seek permission, dead or alive! The right to use someone’s image can be tricky and varies from country to country.

I recommend the book “Archival Storytelling: A Filmmaker's Guide to Finding, Using, and Licensing Third-Party Visuals and Music” by Sheila Curran Bernard and Kenn Rabin. It’s full of great advice and it encourages the filmmaker to think outside the box in the use of copyrighted material without infringing anyone’s rights.

If you need more help, please feel free to contact me.

Best wishes,

Marc