A short clip of an action shot for Transformers 3 was filmed by some eager fans who were working in the building adjacent to the set, and the footage of the short scene was put online.
But thanks to Paramount’s opposition to free publicity the YouTube clip was removed. Not the first time this has happened, but I was suprised to see how this is offending the poster.
Ben Brown was a fan of Transformers 3, so when he saw the film being shot outside of an office building he was visiting, he knew what it was immediately. He used his iPhone to shoot three minutes of footage, which actually had some pretty interesting material from what is apparently an action scene in the upcoming film.
After putting it on Youtube, the video got popular quite quickly, accumulating 36,000 views in 48 hours. But in yet another sign that our DMCA takedown system is out of control, Paramount Pictures filed a copyright claim against the video, causing Google to automatically take it down.
Now even The Movie Blog has occassionally been issued requests to take down copyrighted materials at the request of the studio. And while we are more than willing to co-operate with the claims, we do so grudgingly, as we shake our heads at the free advertising and publicity we are giving them that they don’t seem to want.
I don’t disagree with /Film that removing the footage only hurts Paramount and the buzz all this generates in the online community, but here is where I disagree.
Their article seems to side with the opinion of Ben Brown, who is offended that his clip was removed and challenges that this video is not copyright because the film isn’t done yet.
It IS Paramount’s copyright. It is their property and it is their right to protect it. Did they take a picture in a public place? Yup. That’s legal. Posting online is just free advertising and hype. We live for the hype. But is it legal for them to recognize the content, and ask for the person who posted it to take it down? Damn right it is.
For those of you who have been following our site for a while, Paramount had our site TAKEN DOWN, for not complying with a request. We had posted a picture on set, and they asked us to remove it, which we did – but the same request was sent to our host, who shut us down despite our compliance.
The online reaction was HUGE. Digg was on fire with the article about Paramount shutting us down. In the end of things, Paramount admitted the error and the Vice President at the time called to apologize for the incident.
You would think we would be first in line to defend Ben Brown who was doing exactly what this fanboy would have done. But Paramount isn’t WRONG in their actions here. (They made an error taking us down even though we complied with the request – but the request is legal) We may not agree that they should snuff this free publicity, but it is still their right to do so.
Even after the offense we suffered, we still kept the image off our site. The post was removed and we complied, because despite our feelings on the free publicity we were providing – it is their legal right.
For those of you interested, one of Ben’s co-workers also shot some footage, and that is mysteriously still online.
The footage has been there for a while now, showing a shot of a Smart Car getting tossed (rumoured to be one of the upgraded Twins snubbing the compact car)
Of course Ben Brown has the right to distribute his video work – since he was the one who created it. He chose the angle, the framing, etc., which are all different from what Paramount’s camera captured at the same moment in time.
Tell you what, please get the former editor of this site with a law degree to post his legal opinion on the matter here on this thread. Ask him to back it up with cites to case law and/or statutes. I’d be curious to see how (or if) he manages to back you up on this one.
There is a reason he is a former editor. And while you are throwing around your challenges you might want to do the same.
How about you go and cite these legal cases and statutes yourself and see if you can manage to find this fictional law of yours that says he can film and distribute someone else’s intellectual property.
We have been running this site for a long time now, and we know our rights. And when a studio says to take something down, we do. If they didn’t have a legal reason to do it, we woudln’t.
Don’t meant to get into a legal pissing contest with you Rodney, but you are wrong as to the way copyright law works in this instance. If Ben Brown wants to bother to spend the time and money fighting this thing, this is a slam dunk case in his favor.
Paramount only owns copyrights in creative works that have been “fixed” (i.e., already out on film). That is not the case in this instance since Brown was using his own camera to film something simultaneously with Paramount’s camera. Even then, Brown filmed it from a different angle with different lighting settings on his camera – thus making his clip eligible for a copyright that is separate and independent from whatever Paramount filmed.
Don’t take my word for it – honestly go ahead and ask any other copyright lawyer out there. Other than Paramount’s legal team, they will all back me up on this.
Sorry. A movie set is still considered intellectual property while they are filming. To record or take pictures is not illegal, but to redistribute is.
You are wrong about your assumptions. Ben Brown can fight to keep his copy of the footage he took, but Paramount is not pursuing that.
They are however well within their rights to restrict this sequence for their film. The film, even while in production is copyright. We have been approached a number of times to have trailers, pictures and other copyright materials removed from this site, and the former Senior Editor of this site has a law degree.
He would not have complied with any of their requests if he didn’t see a legal justification in their actions.
“Sorry. A movie set is still considered intellectual property while they are filming.”
I’m sorry Rodney, but you are mistaken in this instance. I urge you to actually ask other IP attorneys about this point, rather than just making blanket assertions.
A movie set is not “intellectual property”, only items that are in a “fixed medium of expression” are with regards to copyright. A movie set doesn’t qualify as a “fixed medium of expression”, and even if it did, it wouldn’t apply in this instance anyway since the film crew was filming on a public street – not a closed movie set (I recognize it from the Arts District in downtown L.A.).
If you choose not to believe me about this point, oh well. I’ve done my best. I can then only hope that other readers are a bit more open minded about learning the objective realities of copyright law.
And you are choosing to be legally selective.
I never said it was illegal for him to take the pictures/video. As with anything filmed in a public location if someone takes a photo they cannot stop you from doing so. That’s not copyright infringement.
Where copyright comes into play is the distribution and publication of said imagery which is in fact their intellectual property.
Take it from someone who has been on MANY film sets, that taking pictures and publishing them (like to this blog) is very much under the jurisdiction of copyright law.
And the former editor of this site has a law degree, and has been on even more sets than me.
What Brown did above is subject to copyright law. He does not have the right to redistribute or publish the images he took. Even under the fair use laws, should Paramount not want the image published they have the right to remove it. And this is all that Paramount has challenged.
“Their article seems to side with the opinion of Ben Brown, who is offended that his clip was removed and challenges that this video is not copyright because the film isn’t done yet.”
That’s sad, isn’t it. As to his buddy who also shot footage, I’m sure they (Paramount) will get around to him. However, I don’t understand Mr. Brown’s line of thinking here. He should not be offended. For a short period of time, he and his pal had a badge of honor. They shared it with millions of people. It should be thought of as a crumb to a big cake. A little glimpse and it is gone.
THEY still have the footage for their own personal use, correct?
I’m also wondering why didn’t they go the extra mile and go to that area below before or after the stunt, ask permission and/or show what they filmed from that angle. Before everyone starts ragging on me saying “horrible idea” just think it over for a moment.
*There would be less confusion.
*They could be hired as extras (witnesses)
*Footage could wind up in the film in a Cloverfield like shot. (or not)
*They could obtain permission.
*They could have gotten more footage.
Lots of possibilities. They took advantage of none.
I don’t understand how copy rights work. its not their film that was put online.
Say if Paris Hilton says she is making a documentary. As long as what she is doing is being filmed for the purpose of making a movie, would that prevent anyone else from taking photos of her ever again, ?
If it doesnt belong to you and you didnt give them permission, the person who does own it can take it down.
It has nothing to do with being in a film or not. What they were doing was part of their film, and the images and sequences used belong to them. You can film it if you want, because its public. But if you wish to publish it or otherwise redistribute the image/video you need the permission of the people involved.
The screenplay for that film is copyrighted, and everything that plays out on their cameras from that screenplay is their property right? I also hope that car hits Megan Fox’s character, and kiling her.