I knew intellectual property law was silly, but this ....?

[robinturner]

Material Used On Set. If in the set dressing (including, without limitation, any props, no matter how inconsequential) or in any other manner, pre-existing material is used which may be protected by copyright, such as paintings, photographs, art objects, articles, book covers, magazines, newspapers, and even items of décor such as wallpaper (and the list could go on for pages) the written consent of the copyright proprietor of any such material must be secured. Note that the permission of the owner of the original or of a duplicate of the physical material is not sufficient. Thus a release to film in a particular location is not sufficient to cover the use of any artwork which may be present in that location – the permission of the copyright proprietor of that artwork is mandatory. Sometimes the “fair use” defense will apply, however Filmmaker should never rely on this limited defense without consulting an experienced attorney.

So in other words, if you're making a film, the company which manufactures any object that appears in your film can sue you if you don't get permission from them first. Kind of like reverse product placement.
Hmm, I wonder if I've just violated Atomfilms' IP rights by quoting this.

Comments

absurdity feeds on itself . . . and we let it happen!

[kesey.livejournal.com]

yes, uh huh. make sure you retain "an experienced attorney" . . . the legal profession once again reaches a new level of making itself necessary largely because of itself. feed the ever growing mountain of litigation that makes their car payments while mere mortals are sued into extinction!

the law ceases to serve the people. it is merely a tool of the law-yers, their stock-in-trade, designed to be deciperable only by those in their club. if "we, the people" ever got a firm grip on it, i suspect that the lawyers would be washing our cars - else asking if "we want fries with that!"

just for the record, my 'icon' picture here is derived from a photograph taken by me, and edited using software licensed to me with permission to be used in this manner (or maybe i should consult an attorney before posting this comment?) hmmmmm . . .

Re: absurdity feeds on itself . . . and we let it happen!

[solri.livejournal.com]

So given that your picture now appears on my page, can you sue me?

oh yes . . .

[kesey.livejournal.com]

. . . and the CAT has, of course, signed all the necessary release forms for me to use her image ;-)