How to get WT Comments videos back up (with Knocking section)

by Burger Time 44 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Burger Time

  Hmmm good point Leolaia, I think another good argument would be what is at the bottom portion of that study:

  In some cases, the amount of material copied is so small (or "de minimis") that the court permits it without even conducting a fair use analysis. For example, in the motion picture Seven, several copyrighted photographs appeared in the film, prompting the copyright owner of the photographs to sue the producer of the movie. The court held that the photos "appear fleetingly and are obscured, severely out of focus, and virtually unidentifiable." The court excused the use of the photographs as "de minimis" and a fair use analysis was not required. ( Sandoval v. New Line Cinema Corp., 147 F.3d 215 (2d Cir. 1998).) As with fair use, there is no bright line test for determining a de minimis use. For example, in another case, a court determined that the use of a copyrighted poster for a total of 27 seconds in the background of the TV show, "Roc" was not de minimis. What distinguished the use of the poster from the use of the photographs in the Seven case? The court stated that the poster was clearly visible and recognizable with sufficient observable detail for the "average lay observer " to view the artist's imagery and colorful style. ( Ringgold v. Black Entertainment Television, Inc. 126 F.3d 70 (2d Cir. 1997).)
• 

  Leolaia

  Also, WRT cell phone videos, I don't think permission needs to be granted if the person is unidentifiable. If it is taken from behind and if the person's face is not seen, and if the place is really general and not unique, I think it is probably fine. You may have seen candid stuff filmed on the street on television (such as Clarence's street interviews on Wonder Showzen or Criss Angel's street magic), and sometimes you might see a person's face blurred out if they did not sign a release, but they are often not blurred out until they turn around and show their face. It is okay to see them from behind and not blur out the back of their head as well.

  What do you think of finding some "apostate" who works in an office who might be willing to raise his hand in a clip? I am sure many offices have meeting rooms that are just as plain and sterile as kingdom halls, with rows of chairs, or where chairs could be arranged to mimic the appearance, at least in a brief shot from behind.
• 

  Leolaia

  BTW, here is a description of the permissions process:

  http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter1/1-b.html
• 

  Burger Time

  So did this get resolved? I've been away for a few days.
• 

  Nathan Natas

  As of the instant I write this, there is nothing to announce, AFAIK.

  Probably I am one of the very few people on this board who have actually obtained "fair use" permission for a project. In both my experiences, I made a polite request and obtained a polite affirmative reply. No problemo.

  In a case such as V's, there should be one question asked before all others: "Is the person I'm going to be asking likely to be friendly or hostile to my project?" Usually this is NOT a consideration when seeking "fair use" permission, but this is an ideological war (apostates v. the WTB&TS) and normal civility doesn't always prevail.

  If the answer to the above question is, "hostile." Then why bother with that minute aspect of the project? Certainly V could hire a team of lawyers to begin discussing fair use rights with the producers of "Knocking," but is that an effective use of his resources?

  These "WT comments" videos already require a huge amount of work on V's part. Does it need to be made even more complex and difficult? Scrap the three seconds of video and shake the dust from your feet...