Marc Wielage
Forum Replies Created
-
[Mel Matsuoka] “It’s stated explicitly in Section 107 of the Copyright Law of The United States of America (Title 17 of the United States Code):”
This is not case law. I had to testify three times in Federal Court during the Sony/Universal Betamax copyright case in the late 1970s and early 1980s, and I covered the case extensively for several magazines during that period, so I’m pretty familiar with Title 17 of the U.S. code. Judge Warren Ferguson’s original ruling in that case was actually fairly narrow.But again, I don’t know of anybody who’s been sued over a short demo reel in the last 10 years. I can imagine cases where there would be a phone call or a letter requesting that the clip be taken down, and YouTube frequently gets take-down letters from copyright holders.
Actors in particular are known for using short segments of movies and TV shows. As long as it’s not for public distribution, particularly for profit, I don’t see an issue in the real world for brief clips. In fact, I suspect the studios would be loathe to actually bring a case like this to court, for fear that a decision against them would actually become case law. But nobody I know has the time and deep pockets needed to bring a case like this to trial. That’s why I say: there is no case law to interpret the statute. Only a judge can really say where the boundaries are.
-
I agree with Juan in that in the real-world, nobody is going to give a crap about a :20-second or :30-second clip. Go over to YouTube if you want to see real copyright infringement, where thousands of entire features and TV episodes are posted. The studios are extremely selective about what they chase down and what they let slide; I’m astonished at the whole features and TV shows that are up there, particularly when they’re clearly done without permission.
A short demo reel of images isn’t depriving the studio or copyright holder of any income, though I would be cautious about trademark use and music use. Again, anybody can sue you for any reason they want, but the question boils down to how much time and money they want to spend to go after you, and whether they could really show a monetary loss in court.
I’m reminded of the old adage: “better to beg for forgiveness than ask permission.” This is one of those instances.
-
Show me some case law to support your opinion.
-
I disagree, and you are being pedantic.
-
Legally, the studio can sue you if they really want to. YouTube and other sources can detect copyrighted material in some cases and delete it (or throw up a warning notice). What I think can be done is to use shot sections, re-edited, and with new background music. I see VFX artists and cinematographers do this kind of thing all the time. I also put an identifying “bug” in the lower left showing the name of the project and the DP and/or director to make it clear it’s just a clip, and I keep each clip to under :30 seconds. I’d say that pretty much defines the nature of Fair Use, but it is open to interpretation.
-
Very impressed that BMD turned this around so quickly. Congrats, Peter.
-
The little << button on the lower left of the Keyframe window can be used to temporarily expand this window, but it shoves aside the Primary color window. I think the answer is, the screen is optimized for a given display resolution and you can't do it any smaller. Mine is always in 1920x1200 and it works fine. This is a good reason why Resolve does not generally work well on 13" or 15" displays (IMHO).
-
Check the Audio Mixer settings on pages 342-343. You may be able to disable the tracks you don’t want to hear in the embedded audio. The pan and send controls will allow you to place the audio tracks where you need them to be.
-
[Joseph Owens] “Resolve rides all your ponies HARD. Some of them pull up lame… “
That’s the best line of the day!
-
Post your computer hardware info and system info and it should be possible to diagnose the problem. Also the specific version of Resolve 10 (10.1.3? 10.1.4? etc.).