[Bob Cole]

[Dennis Size] “if I only had one choice of instrument to take with me on a shoot — it would be a Source 4 Junior zoom.”

I learned about this instrument on this forum and it has been a fantastic addition to the kit. I do wish it were smaller, and had a wider angle.

But my only real problem with the Source Four Jr Zoom has been the (im)balance on the yoke arm. It seems as if I have to crank the tightening handle like crazy to keep it from dropping after I walk away. So adjusting the angle turns into a major PITA. Is there something I’m missing here, or is there something I can do to the yoke arm to make tightening and adjusting its angle easier?

Bob C

[Bob Cole]

Great link. A whole tutorial in lighting (and shadowing) here.

[Bill Davis] “And god in heaven – look at the WOMEN in the clips. They have lovingly deployed EYE SPECIALS just so the viewers eyes are DRAWN to their eyes. “

Please explain more about the use of Eye Specials. What instrument (positioned how) do you like to use for this? I’ve been trying to use them more, but it’s been tricky creating the glint while not “polluting” the rest of the lighting. It’s easiest when the motivation if a light right in the middle of the room, as in this scene. The CU of the man at 4:53 — the terrific eyelight is the source for the slash across the top of the face, right?

The WS at 2:15 is incredible. Are there lighting diagrams for such scenes published somewhere? The Tiffany-ish lamp over the table is a source, but I’m damned if I can figure out the grid for the whole room.

Bob C

[Bob Cole]

All good points. You sure you’re not a lawyer Tim?

[Tim Wilson] “[Bob Cole] “Nobody has simply directly responded to the question in the original subject line, but I’m pretty sure that the answer is “forever.”””

Actually I was trying to make a joke there. Not the first time my effort at humor has gone totally undetected ….

It would be helpful to hear from people who have successfully asserted fair use, to get a better idea of how it can be done and the actual risks involved. What I fear most is self-censorship, due to fear of some catastrophic consequence which might not actually exist. It would be great to learn about real cases and outcomes. After all, there are consequences either way. If you don’t use the material, you might have no documentary at all, or a severely compromised project.

Meanwhile, on a far greater scale: there’s a story in today’s NY Times about China’s wholesale mega-ripoffs of foreign companies’ IP; the companies won’t complain because they fear getting locked out of the Chinese market. It’s not about right and wrong, it’s all about the money.

Time to switch gears! Merry merry everyone. Tim, a delight to have this dialog with you. Very informative.

Bob C

[Bob Cole]

Some of this is just POV. Taking the POV of the creator, Tim likes IP law; taking the POV of documentarians, I don’t.

It’s fairly sympathetic to think about Mark Twain and his heirs, but the big beneficiaries of our IP system are not quite so warm and fuzzy. In practical terms, the only entities (and usually not actual “creators”) who benefit from current intellectual property law are those with the resources to defend them.

re Twain’s analogy to the ownership of a house: There’s a big difference between IP and real property. Real property rights are democratic; there is a framework of law which supports the rights of the poor homeowner (theoretically) the same as the rich homeowner. But intellectual property is inherently anti-democratic, because its enforcement is left to the owner, and only the “haves” have the ability to defend it.

imho intellectual property law has gone way too far. It inhibits free speech, including scholarly writing; it’s fairly commonplace for serious biographical works to be eviscerated and not even published, because the correspondence between two historic people has become a commercial property and can’t be quoted. Martin Luther King’s family has notoriously defended their commercial rights to the “dream” speech. (I was in a central Mexico town recently, and the CD sellers on the street were blasting a rap song liberally quoting the actual recording of the “dream” speech. I’m pretty sure it was illegal. It was startling to hear King’s words and voice, and I realized that I’d been missing it because the legal tie-ups had so constricted its use. I think there should be a “new rule”: if the nation declares a holiday in your name, you should give it your public speeches for FREE.)

I hope that intellectual property law evolves further in the direction of fair use, much as real property law has changed. Society has come to recognize the concept of a “bundle of rights” to real property, rather than one single right. There is no absolute right to real property; when it benefits the community to take your house for a road, it gets taken by eminent domain. You can’t use your house contrary to zoning. When Your Rights to real property conflict with Society’s Rights, you lose.

Look at “Strictly Background,” a film about movie extras which liberally uses clips of major Hollywood movies (including their stars) to tell the story of the movie extras who just happen to be in the same field of view as Tom Cruise, etc. The studios first told the filmmakers that they would have to pay mega-thousands for permission to use clips in which the extras appeared. After consulting an attorney, the filmmakers discovered that no payment to the studio or Cruise was necessary, because part of their story involved relatively penurious actors who provide the “background” for big stars. Fair use can be powerful, and we need to exercise and enforce it, lest serious independent documentaries become even more endangered than they are.

Question. You note that “commercial” use is forbidden; are you drawing a distinction between the content of a piece (e.g. a doc on Ty Cobb, using historic images and various MLB logos) vs. putting Cobb’s face and the logos on the poster? Or, are you saying that ANY use of such images is subject to licensing?

Another question, Tim. When a major news organization uses a celebrity image or an image of a trademarked figure, do they have to pay the same licensing fees? Or is there an exception for major media to exercise “freedom of the press”? I don’t think that Time Magazine has to pay a dime to put any person they want on the cover – just the rights holder to the physical image. (Independent documentarians, with their lengthy production timelines and without the cachet of being “major news orgs,” have a very uneven playing field.) Given the evolution of the Internet, where bloggers and anyone with a website or a YouTube video becomes part of a very different media landscape, do you think that the “news exception” will become broader, or more restricted?

Nobody has simply directly responded to the question in the original subject line, but I’m pretty sure that the answer is “forever.” I hope we don’t have to put up with abusive intellectual property restrictions quite that long.

[Bob Cole]

Excellent paper, Reed. Thanks. This is the information I was looking for.

[Bob Cole]

It could be a FCP issue. Have you tried all the usual FCP fixes? e.g. delete preferences. Have you seen any error messages in FCP itself lately? Does FCP run just fine on the laptop, except for feeding data to PluralEyes?

I’d try

1 – delete prefs;
2 – open new job and create new sequences to see whether PluralEyes can find them;
3 – reinstall FCP on the laptop, unless it isn’t worth the hassle.

[Bob Cole]

Phil is probably Philip Bloom, of https://www.philipbloom.net.

[Bob Cole]

fwiw: I have never had to create a sequence called PluralEyes. The software will find every sequence within my projects, no matter what they’re called.

You’re in an ideal position, since you have the software on both the desktop and laptop. Try going through the same procedure that works on the MacPro, and duplicate that, step by step, on the MacBook. Since it’s working on the MacPro, you should be able to find a significant difference on the MacBook.

I feel your pain. But if that doesn’t work, the only thing left is incense and witch doctors. Good luck. And let us know.

Bob C

[Bob Cole]

Thanks Peter. The GH2 looks great. The only negative: Some very knowledgeable people have warned me that the AVCHD codec is a concern.

[Bob Cole]

One of my clients sends me a signed card and a little paper tree ornament which says that they’ve donated to a charity in my name. Last year they gave me a choice of charities, which was great.