Martin Curtis
Forum Replies Created
-
Although mere mortals would be wise to follow the advice given by Denis, I wonder how a theme park (like this one) gets away with this little
A slate app like this?
YouTube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y91NEuo1JtUWebsite:
https://www.pureblendsoftware.com/userguides/MovieSlate/English.lproj/help_web.htmliTunes Link:
https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/id320315888?l=en&mt=8iTunes link in Spanish:
https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/id320315888?l=es&mt=8Some contents or functionalities here are not available due to your cookie preferences!This happens because the functionality/content marked as “Google Youtube” uses cookies that you choosed to keep disabled. In order to view this content or use this functionality, please enable cookies: click here to open your cookie preferences.
[Todd Terry] “The simple fact is that for most of what we do (mostly broadcast television commercials, some industrials or corporate films) we are just hired by advertising agencies, or occasionally marketing departments of companies. We’re not the cheapest game in town, not by a long shot (nor quite the most expensive)… so we’re usually hired by folks who do so because they like our work, or the way we get things done… not because of price.”
You’re hired by people you know and who know you and can work well with you. This government contract is pretty much the same. They want people they know and can work with, but they are required to put it out to tender so they create these convoluted requirements that no-one else can fulfil. Is it understandable? Yes. Is it right? No. In my state there are laws against that. As others have suggested, drop a line to a journo or the anti-corruption commission or something.
I use a Primera BravoPro Xi for disc printing. I avoid printing anything else (labels and inserts for the cases) by using translucent cases. But inserts do look more professional.
Primera has a range of printers with built-in burners.
Just a thing to be aware of: when I launch the printing software on my Mac (PT Publisher), my Mac loses the ability to see its internal DVD burner, so I can’t burn a disc and prepare a print at the same time. As soon as I quit PT Publisher, discs are visible again. Odd little thing, but there you go.
[Andre van Suntenmaartensdijk] “Sure, the sweetest thing from U2 sounds nice under a romantic scene,”
Oh no he doesn’t…
[Mark Suszko] ” You’re asking for an imdenification by a second party for crimes you know you the first party are about to commit, knowing they are crimes.”
I don’t think you read the question fully. I said “Sometimes it’s quite obvious they do not have the rights for copying/distributing this material (YouTube videos, commercial footage, music CDs etc) and so it’s not included”. NOT being the operative word.
The cases I am talking about are when someone seems to be licensing stock images etc correctly, but I can’t be sure. I’m not a lawyer and the “simple” licensing terms of sites like me-stocky-photo or whatever they are called aren’t that simple.
Just a nota bene, no-one is going to sue me, I will not go to trial, I will not be found guilty and I will not have to sue my client to recover anything. I work for government. As do my clients.
This exercise is so I can use a standard form as an opportunity to remind the client(s) of their responsibilities towards copyright. It is also about being able to look my boss in the eye, hand on heart, and say to her “I explained everything, I asked all the right questions and these are the answers I got back” so if faecal material ever hit the whirling device (and I am 100% aiming to avoid this situation, but we can’t spend our lives shuttling everything past lawyers), we get as little on us as possible.
I do have stock music I use – most describe it as elevator music, but down low it’s fine and dandy. I have neither stock photos or video. We shoot our own photos whenever possible and video is either done by us or not done – no-one is willing to stump up for stock video. My unit does not have an account with a stock image site, something the graphic designers and I are trying to rectify.
If you want the actual case details for what stimulated this post, read on.
I am producing a video aimed at patients for the (body part unit). This (body part unit) is producing the video in conjunction with (body part charitable organisation). Said (body part charitable organisation) is quite a large organisation and has an account with a stock photography site. They have supplied images via (body part unit) for use in this production. The licensing terms from the stock photography site make it clear that an organisation cannot transfer images to someone else. However, are they able to supply these images to me for use in this production that they are a part of? I’d imagine so since they can use these images in printed material they create, and that printed material may be part of a larger work. However, what I imagine things to be and what is reality may not be one and the same. So, as said above, rather than shuttling everything I do past lawyers, I’d like something to put the onus of checking back to the producers because this is the work they should have done (a) before getting an account with the stock photography site to make sure its licensing terms were suited to their requirements and (b) before supplying imagery for a production, since it is their agreement with the stock image site that is in question.
If a commercial printer receives a document for a production run, do they have to run everything past a lawyer?
As a comparison, pawn shop owners don’t get charged with receiving stolen goods because they follow certain agreed-upon procedures and are expected to exercise good judgement in their dealings with customers as well as maintaining good records of their transactions. I wish to have things set up so that I can demonstrate I have used good judgement and maintained good records. All of the copyright cases against videographers I have seen have been pretty obvious ones where a decision was clearly made to include material they were not entitled to.
Video is still relatively new in my unit, and so policies and procedures are still evolving. I have few peers in my department and our (distant) lawyers are generally worried about malpractice suits rather than the guy who makes video so any advice would be appreciated. I’ll be running this past my opposite number at another large institution to see what they do just to try and get some consistency.
In Australia, wedding videographers can get a Domestic Use Video Licence.
“Under the joint licence issued by AMCOS and ARIA, you may record an unlimited number of weddings or other similar events per year, but for each event you may only make:
- a maximum of 20 copies under the Standard Format scheme; and
- a maximum of 30 copies per event under the Standard plus CD-ROM scheme.
“
I can’t add anything regarding brands, but I can for size. I built my own teleprompter (chipboard, perspex, black spray paint and black blanket material) and I’ve used it for a professional actor at work. It holds a 17″ monitor and I use Easy Prompter Portable to drive it (free, runs via a browser on any PC/Mac and you can download a “reverse font”) and the actor was fine at a distance of 6′ or 7′ – I could get mid shots with no problem and the actor got through huge amounts of text in record time. Negatives: weighs a ton; has that ‘version 1′ look.
Short version: use a 17″ monitor to work with people 7 – 10’ away. If the monitor is too big, people’s eyes may noticeably flick back and forth.
My little Canon HFS10 does that. Scared me silly until I read that it is the optical image stabilisation mechanism and it’s perfectly normal.
Well take his analogy out (it’s baseball, so I sort of flew over that part of it). Does his post on the future of media make sense?