Author Topic: Stock photos used in 50 milion dollar budget movie! (Read 17366 times)

dbajurin · « **Reply #25 on:** October 09, 2008, 10:05 »

I am video producer and director and I can say that if they buy picture from any stock site they buy rights for use it in movie but if they download from free site they don't have rights.
In any case they have to place credit at the end of the movie.
World famous case like this is Giger case in Alien IV (I think it is IV). They don't have to pay anything for his work but forgot to put his name in credits. After he sue production company they pay him as off-court agreement.
I hope that some of this facts can help you what to do.
Dario

litifeta · « **Reply #26 on:** October 09, 2008, 16:00 »

Oh come on, give me a break. I thought your photos were featured, not sitting in a blurred background.

Is this a set? Or have they hired this home? Looks to me as if it was part of the existing decor.

This copyright thing is getting beyond a joke. So what now ... the film producers have to run around and get approval for every isolated object in a set? The cups, the chairs, the vase, the flowers?

Gregor909 · « **Reply #27 on:** October 09, 2008, 17:43 »

Quote from: dbajurin on October 09, 2008, 10:05

I am video producer and director and I can say that if they buy picture from any stock site they buy rights for use it in movie but if they download from free site they don't have rights.
In any case they have to place credit at the end of the movie.
World famous case like this is Giger case in Alien IV (I think it is IV). They don't have to pay anything for his work but forgot to put his name in credits. After he sue production company they pay him as off-court agreement.
I hope that some of this facts can help you what to do.
Dario

Thanks for your input!
The name Giger was coming to my mind also. I didn't expect to become as famous as Giger did.
But I thought at least they could give me credit!
I watched all the names at the end of the movie; there's hundreds of names, including several photographers, but I didn't see many photographs in the movie!

Gregor909 · « **Reply #28 on:** October 09, 2008, 18:07 »

Quote from: litifeta on October 09, 2008, 16:00

This copyright thing is getting beyond a joke. So what now ... the film producers have to run around and get approval for every isolated object in a set? The cups, the chairs, the vase, the flowers?

A joke??
Are you familiar with the advertisement business? Being a member of microstockgroup I would suspect you are! Then you should know that the movie industrie is the most lucrative advertisement business there is! Large companies like Coca Cola are lining up to have their product shown in the movies. It's called the "product placement industry".
Yes they have to clear copyrights on all intellectual property visible in the movie!

You wanna know why I put images on a free site like SXC?
Because I want to build a reputation, I want to be a name in the graphic industrie. That's why they have to give me credit in return for a free image.
What do you think I am some kind of moron who has nothing better to do than spend his precious time working hard on his images and doesn't expect something in return?
I need to pay rent every month, and I would like to have some food now and then!

Jimi King · « **Reply #29 on:** October 10, 2008, 04:33 »

If they are part of the set then a set dresser would have put them there. If they are featured in the plot (which they clearly are when they are painted over) then they would have been chosen specifically. However the hard facts are that they may well have purchased them as prints and the person who made those prints is the guilty party.

However, it looks to me like there has been an infringement of your copyright, even if it is only the omission of your name from the credits. I suspect that they'll end up paying you somethiong if you pursue it with them, although you may have to sue them or at least threaten to sue them.

Of course if the screenshots you have shown above are from an illegally downloaded version of the movie or you do not have permission to reproduce them here, then you may have just shot yourself in the foot somewhat as they could in theory counter any action you might undertake as you have probably breached their copyright by posting them on this board.

Gregor909 · « **Reply #30 on:** October 10, 2008, 04:50 »

Thanks, you have a point!
Although the movie isn't mine, I removed the screenshots!

travelstock · « **Reply #31 on:** October 11, 2008, 14:08 »

Quote from: Jimi King on October 10, 2008, 04:33

If they are part of the set then a set dresser would have put them there. If they are featured in the plot (which they clearly are when they are painted over) then they would have been chosen specifically. However the hard facts are that they may well have purchased them as prints and the person who made those prints is the guilty party.

However, it looks to me like there has been an infringement of your copyright, even if it is only the omission of your name from the credits. I suspect that they'll end up paying you somethiong if you pursue it with them, although you may have to sue them or at least threaten to sue them.

Of course if the screenshots you have shown above are from an illegally downloaded version of the movie or you do not have permission to reproduce them here, then you may have just shot yourself in the foot somewhat as they could in theory counter any action you might undertake as you have probably breached their copyright by posting them on this board.

If the screenshots are reproductions of his images, then the movie doesn't have copyright over them. Whether the movie was downloaded illegally is another matter entirely.

Do a search on "Moral Rights" - its a separate but related issue to copyright - there have been numerous cases where people have been successful in claims where they haven't been properly attributed for their work. As I said earlier though, it depends where you are and where the movie was made and distributed. Alternatively you could just send them an invoice for a few thousand dollars in the way that Getty do and hope that they pay up.

RGebbiePhoto · « **Reply #32 on:** October 11, 2008, 17:13 »

Quote from: Gregor909 on October 09, 2008, 18:07

Quote from: litifeta on October 09, 2008, 16:00
This copyright thing is getting beyond a joke. So what now ... the film producers have to run around and get approval for every isolated object in a set? The cups, the chairs, the vase, the flowers?

A joke??
Are you familiar with the advertisement business? Being a member of microstockgroup I would suspect you are! Then you should know that the movie industrie is the most lucrative advertisement business there is! Large companies like Coca Cola are lining up to have their product shown in the movies. It's called the "product placement industry".
Yes they have to clear copyrights on all intellectual property visible in the movie!

You wanna know why I put images on a free site like SXC?
Because I want to build a reputation, I want to be a name in the graphic industrie. That's why they have to give me credit in return for a free image.
What do you think I am some kind of moron who has nothing better to do than spend his precious time working hard on his images and doesn't expect something in return?
I need to pay rent every month, and I would like to have some food now and then!

Sir,

Product placement works for name brand items. A random shot from an extensive portfolio is clearly not product placement, unless you used those flowers SPECIFICALLY to "brand" your name to.

I wish you much success with using your free sites. However, remember. You get what you pay for.

Gregor909 · « **Reply #33 on:** October 11, 2008, 18:07 »

Quote from: RGebbiePhoto on October 11, 2008, 17:13

Sir,

Product placement works for name brand items. A random shot from an extensive portfolio is clearly not product placement, unless you used those flowers SPECIFICALLY to "brand" your name to.

No need to call me Sir, Im only your colleague!

I didn't mean my image is also product placement.

Quote from: RGebbiePhoto on October 11, 2008, 17:13