When filmed, these items may be obscured, out of focus, and virtually unidentifiable. While decorative items often have thematic relevance to a story, they’re just as often used to avoid blank walls and unadorned coffee tables. That’s why uncleared art and other props can be a set decorator’s worst nightmare. Fair use and de minimis defenses are often unreliable, and even if you have a solid case, defending copyright infringement lawsuits is an expensive proposition. However, for every “ Hey, that’s my church picnic quilt!” incident that results in a published court decision, there are dozens of others that are resolved quickly and quietly out of court. While folks who wanted to see Bruce Willis strapped to a torture device were happy, entertainment lawyers were anxious.Ī still from 12 Monkeys (left) and Lebbeus Woods’ “Neomechanical Tower (Upper) Chamber.” This prompted a quick settlement which allowed the chair to remain in the picture. In that case, artist Lebeus Woods claimed that a torture device used in the Terry Gilliam film had been unlawfully copied from his drawing of a wall-mounted chair.Įven though the movie had already been in theaters for nearly a month, the judge issued a preliminary injunction preventing further exhibition of the film’s chair scene. This was the late ’90s, and the entertainment industry was still reeling from a well-publicized copyright infringement case involving the movie 12 Monkeys. After some back-and-forth negotiation, our panda poster dispute was settled before a lawsuit was filed. But nobody involved in the production had asked for permission from the copyright owner to use her image in the scene, as the demand letter made sure to mention several times.Īrguably, permission wasn’t legally required given the poster’s fleeting and incidental appearance in the commercial, but nobody really wanted to find out. It wasn’t a focal point of the commercial. The poster was out of focus and only visible for a few seconds. It was actually a panda poster, which was tacked to a child’s bedroom wall. The letter claimed that the director, an ad agency, and a popular theme park had all committed copyright infringement because a panda appeared in the background of their TV commercial. I was barely out of law school when a senior partner muttered those words as he handed me a scathing demand letter sent to one of the firm’s commercial director clients. An image I created using the DALL♾ 2 prompt “A cartoon illustration of a little girl reading a book in her bedroom with a poster of a panda on the wall in the background.”ĪI-generated art isn’t perfect, but it’s become a viable option for license-free set decoration in motion pictures and other commercial productions.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |