A couple of weeks ago, I was featured in a documentary. In that programme they screened an excerpt from one of my plays which carried a subtitle of the play’s name and when it was performed.
The problem with this was that I didn’t know that this footage existed and I never gave permission for the clip to be used.
Coincidentally, because I used to handle the PR for a movie company I do have a little relevant knowledge; but it's barrack-room, and you need to check it out.
I THINK...
The media enjoy special exemption from breach of copyright where such use is for the purpose of reporting current affairs. For instance; in articles about Andy Warhole, you often see pictures of his work; on tv movie reviews, you often see clips; in newspapers and online, you regularly see photographs of company's logos.
The material has to have been obtained legally (although reporters can often refuse to reveal source anyway) and it has always been considered good etiquette to credit - but I do believe that there is no compunction to do so. I don't think either permission or license or credit is mandatory - but, again, don't reply on me - I'm only recalling working principles from a previous client, not personal knowledge.
He's on the local rag, and doesn't know if the law is different for broadcast (he really, really doesn't think so) but his belief is that it's a matter of 'in part, significant element or whole' when it comes to exemption for current affairs.
For instance; if the TV programme had been 5 minutes about Stephen, 1 hour of your play and a tail of 5 minutes about Stephen, they would have needed the full smash; permission, license and credit. But for what amounts to a soundbite, they don't.
In the same way; when a local artist has an exhibition, if he can get hold of a shot of a painting, he can use it as part of an article about the exhibition quite freely. But if he got hold of ALL the photographs and published them all full-page, full-colour, that would be breach.
Errrm... I still think you should check, but it's a start!
Damnit! It explains why my emails are going unanswered.
Showing that clip has caused so much anger - but bless them all (families and friends) they've been maddend that no mention has been made to the origination of the play, as they all want to see it performed again (due in some small part to fact that it is now dedicated to Steve).
[QUOTE]Originally posted by JaysPlays: A couple of weeks ago, I was featured in a documentary. In that programme they screened an excerpt from one of my plays which carried a subtitle of the play’s name and when it was performed.
Jay, did you sign anything before filming? usually when appearing on a tv programme you have to sign a paper allowing the company to broadcast any of what they have filmed, ie they have the rights, and at that stage of the game one is really to excited to ask awkward questions, I didn't.
I signed a release document for the interview straight after filming. It made no mention of using any of my works or extracts from the play, simply stating that they were entitled to edit what they had filmed in the interview at the producer's discretion.
The same was true for my freind that was in the programme. Hence we were both stunned to see the clip on the screen (as we were both in it).
This is an odd time for a forum wallflower to start contributing, but since you ask ...
There are a couple of issues here. Firstly - who filmed the footage? If it was you, then you own the copyright to the film, if not you don't.
Just as an architect owns the copyright to the plans of a building they design, they do not have the right to demand copyright for all photographs or drawings made of that building once it is built and in the public arena - unless he/she took the photos himself.
Secondly, as already said, if it was a minor excerpt it could be viewed in the same way as an author would a quotation from another author - there's no need to obtain copyright as long as the source is credited. Depending on the context of the excerpt (if the placement in the programme implied that it was your play, for example, after an interview with you), they could argue that this is enough.
Shades of grey. But ....
In an earlier post where you made reference to this programme being aired, you said:
quote:
From what I've heard they'll be making a number of references to my play 'Prime Directive' and may have an extract in the programme.
This implies that you had forewarning of the excerpt being used and should have raised any concerns before it went to air.
Welcome to the forum (Even being a longstanding lurker!).
Thanks for the most informative post.
But this is where the problems start...
The footage was shot by Steve (who has now been dead for two+ years) and is now evidence of a certain police force. I have asked them for the footage and each time they have refused.
And when I mentioned that there would be reference to my play in the doc... That came from a journo mate of mine that had seen the programme before it aired... No one told me or Steve's family; and I had to break it to Steve's Mum and Dad that we were going to see him alive in the Doc, other than the pre-jump footage that we all knew existed.
I think I'm on to a loser here. But I feel betrayed - rightly or wrongly; it's just the way I feel.
If the footage belonged to Steve, plod won't release it to you any more than they would to me. But as it now (I suspect) belongs to Steve's parents, they could probably legally ask for it back.
Welcome to the forum (Even being a longstanding lurker!).
Err - Thanks ... I think. More an intermittent lurker than a longstanding one.
AdMan is right - the footage will belong to Steve's next of kin. They can ask for it back, but if it's still part of an on-going inquiry they may be waiting for a while. You, as the author of the production shown, have no rights over the footage. Sorry.
My two pence worth? I understand your frustration, but you're unlikely to gain anything by pursuing this except greater stress and heartache - Write it off to experience, remember Steve for all the good reasons, and move on with writing your next play.
It's painful experiences like these that make writers of us all.
AdMan is right - the footage will belong to Steve's next of kin. They can ask for it back, but if it's still part of an on-going inquiry they may be waiting for a while.
Eros - I agree generally - but I don't think it's evidence as such; after all, the tv crew got hold of a copy easily enough, from someone, somewhere!
