Jump to content


Photo

You Tube give up rights? "Before Sunset" copyright question?


  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

#1 Tim O'Connor

Tim O'Connor
  • Sustaining Members
  • 860 posts
  • Other
  • Boston, Massachusetts

Posted 28 April 2007 - 06:48 PM

Why at the end of movie credits does it say story and screenplay copyright by (the studio)
when in the front credits authorship is attributed to other people? Yes, I know that owning a
copyright is different than having written the screenplay but for example "Before Sunset"
directed by Richard Linklater, story by Richard Linklater, based on characters created by
Richard Linklater and Kim Krizan, screenplay by Richard Linklater, Ethan Hawke and Julie
Delpy, has its story and screenplay copyrighted by the studio.

I would think that people would want to keep control over their work. Is this a deal that the
studios demand in order to participate in getting a movie made and does it raise the possibility
that they could do things (sequels,t.v. series, fast food marketing toys) that the filmmakers might
not want?

On the other hand, does a mighty studio holding the copyright give more protection to the
story and screenplay because of the studio's muscle and money compared to the perhaps
lesser clout of the filmmakers?




The lines below are copied from: http://www.youtube.com/t/terms



. For clarity, you retain all of your ownership rights in your User Submissions. However, by submitting the User Submissions to YouTube, you hereby grant YouTube a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the User Submissions in connection with the YouTube Website and YouTube's (and its successor's) business, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the YouTube Website (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels. You also hereby grant each user of the YouTube Website a non-exclusive license to access your User Submissions through the Website, and to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display and perform such User Submissions as permitted through the functionality of the Website and under these Terms of Service. The foregoing license granted by you terminates once you remove or delete a User Submission from the YouTube Website.


Does anybody know what "prepare derivative works of" means? Would this worry you?
  • 0

#2 Jim Simon

Jim Simon
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 93 posts
  • Director

Posted 28 April 2007 - 08:28 PM

The publisher of a motion picture normally holds the copyright (at least in the U.S.). Producers pay screenwriters for the privilege of making their script into a movie. Screenwriters probably do want to keep control over their work, but often don't have the funds to back production, and so must seek out the Studios if they want to get their movie made.

A "derivative work" is a work that is based on (or derived from) one or more already existing works. If you were to write the continuing story of Middle Earth, that would be a derivative work.

The quoted paragraph is to protect YouTube from copyright suits, but a whole lot of what's on YouTube is copyrighted by other than the poster and is being illegally posted anyway. It's basically to cover their ass.
  • 0

#3 Tim O'Connor

Tim O'Connor
  • Sustaining Members
  • 860 posts
  • Other
  • Boston, Massachusetts

Posted 29 April 2007 - 09:29 AM

The publisher of a motion picture normally holds the copyright (at least in the U.S.). Producers pay screenwriters for the privilege of making their script into a movie. Screenwriters probably do want to keep control over their work, but often don't have the funds to back production, and so must seek out the Studios if they want to get their movie made.

A "derivative work" is a work that is based on (or derived from) one or more already existing works. If you were to write the continuing story of Middle Earth, that would be a derivative work.

The quoted paragraph is to protect YouTube from copyright suits, but a whole lot of what's on YouTube is copyrighted by other than the poster and is being illegally posted anyway. It's basically to cover their ass.



That makes sense but it's kind of scary that in both cases there seems to be the possibilty
at least that you have to relinquish a certain amount of control beyond what you would ever want,
to get your film seen, although in the second case I see a bit of a difference. It's unlikely, I'm
guessing, that YouTube is going to produce a derivative work but if somebody else does and posts
it, YouTube has covered itself, as you pointed out, so that the party to sue if desired
would be the producer of the derivative work, not the exhibitor. Thanks.
  • 0

#4 Jim Simon

Jim Simon
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 93 posts
  • Director

Posted 29 April 2007 - 01:26 PM

Once thing I recall reading about George Lucas is that he kept the sequel rights when he made the deal with 20th Century for Star Wars. Back then, this was very unusual. But he knew where he wanted to go with the story, and felt he had to keep certain creative control.

He also kept the merchandising rights, which turned out to be a major contributor to his back account and allowed him to finance much of Empire with his own money, thus allowing even further creative control as Executive Producer.
  • 0

#5 Mark Allen

Mark Allen
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 591 posts
  • Director
  • Los Angeles

Posted 29 April 2007 - 03:17 PM

He also kept the merchandising rights, which turned out to be a major contributor to his back account and allowed him to finance much of Empire with his own money, thus allowing even further creative control as Executive Producer.


Lucas is often cited as being a genuis for keeping his merchandising rights. However, in an interview he mentioned that all he wanted was control over how the posters looked because he really didn't like how American Graffiti was marketed. Back then, the world of merchandising from movies wasn't really recognized, so to get the right to posters and such - he got the rights to merchandising. An industry was then redefined.


As for YouTube. They are definitely trying to cover themselves - but they are also starting to now distirbute user material at their own discression. YouTube is the number one cellphone channel, for example. Expect more and more distribution as they have now amassed an enormous content library. You need to think twice about trying to start your own channel there. Make sure you understand what rights you are giving away.

It's a catch 22. YouTube can give you a huge audience.

bliptv.com on the other hand is not after your rights and you can pull your content at anytime. But they don't have a built in referencing audience.
  • 0

#6 Tim O'Connor

Tim O'Connor
  • Sustaining Members
  • 860 posts
  • Other
  • Boston, Massachusetts

Posted 29 April 2007 - 07:57 PM

Lucas is often cited as being a genuis for keeping his merchandising rights. However, in an interview he mentioned that all he wanted was control over how the posters looked because he really didn't like how American Graffiti was marketed. Back then, the world of merchandising from movies wasn't really recognized, so to get the right to posters and such - he got the rights to merchandising. An industry was then redefined.
As for YouTube. They are definitely trying to cover themselves - but they are also starting to now distirbute user material at their own discression. YouTube is the number one cellphone channel, for example. Expect more and more distribution as they have now amassed an enormous content library. You need to think twice about trying to start your own channel there. Make sure you understand what rights you are giving away.

It's a catch 22. YouTube can give you a huge audience.

bliptv.com on the other hand is not after your rights and you can pull your content at anytime. But they don't have a built in referencing audience.


Another industry that I think started, or ballooned in size from what it had been previously,
is the soundtracks to movies. I'm pretty sure that George Lucas asked for the rights to
sell the soundtrack to "American Graffitti" and got them easily because nobody seemed
to care...until the double
record set became a huge seller on the album charts and made a ton of dough and all of
a sudden people saw a whole new market in soundtracks.


I wonder if YouTube can be used for a hit and run type of exhibition. Show a lot of people
something and then pull it before YouTube starts to use one's material for its own purposes.
I think it says in YouTube's terms of service that it has no claim on material that was posted
once that material is removed by the filmmaker.

Attached Images

  • Photo_668.jpg
  • Photo_668.jpg

  • 0


Rig Wheels Passport

CineLab

The Slider

Ritter Battery

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Abel Cine

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Opal

Technodolly

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

FJS International, LLC

rebotnix Technologies

Aerial Filmworks

Willys Widgets

Paralinx LLC

Glidecam

Wooden Camera

CineTape

Metropolis Post

Tai Audio

Visual Products

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Technodolly

FJS International, LLC

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Wooden Camera

Opal

Metropolis Post

Aerial Filmworks

The Slider

Glidecam

Willys Widgets

Rig Wheels Passport

CineLab

Abel Cine

Ritter Battery

CineTape

rebotnix Technologies

Tai Audio

Visual Products

Paralinx LLC