Depiction of a copyrighted work in the background of an image may not be infringement as this court case against Paramount Pictures shows (here).
Chin said that, under the case law, “The observability of the copyrighted work is critical, and courts will consider the length of time the copyrighted work is observable as well as factors such as focus, lighting, camera angles and prominence.”
3 Comments
Perhaps this will ease some photo editing paranoia, where you may capture portions of copyrighted works – simply as part of the scene, but not the focus.
Seems like a ridiculous lawsuit to begin with. Besides even if it were really that prominently placed, most other products would have to pay for a product placement. If I were the pinball owner I’d be promoting the heck out of my “appearance” in the movie.
Ya know what this is something I have been looking into recently with ‘Richard Prince’ He’s a rephotographer and he literally rephotographs other people photo’s picking out the sections he wants. Clearly this is more of a copy right infringement than the pinball machine.
I think that’s its unfair to claim copyright in this case because the pinball machine and its logo and what not where not used to sell the film. The film no way at all made money from the pin ball machine being in the shot.
That’s like if I took a photo of a street with people in it. Would I have to run after everyone in the shot and get model release forms. Of course I shouldn’t have to.
Comments are closed for this article!