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.

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.

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.

“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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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, ?