Student IP (continued)
This was originally a comment in reply to Tony's comment, but I'm posting it because I raise some additional arguments and I want to archive them for the forthcoming article:
Hi Tony CC,
I'm glad you followed me onto my own blog. You're welcome to continue abusing me if it makes you feel better about yourself. I don't need nor seek your approval of my intellect, grasp of the english language, or cinematic tastes. If you must know, I'm a fan of Tarsem's 'the Cell', Michael Bay's 'Armageddon', the Wachowski Brothers' 'Matrix Revolutions', and Star Wars.
FWIW, I was also the Stupid Law Student who handed in their thesis with a word count 50% over what was stipulated. I don't know if I have been docked marks, but I accepted that I may be docked marks. Thats fine. I'm the kinda guy who does their thing regardless.
As for the first owner being 'whoever makes the arrangements to make the film', I note that you convinently left out the clarification in the next sentence: "In practice, this person is usually known as the producer". It further clarifies that in the absence of a producer, it will be the person who shot the film. Given that students films generally have credited Producers, then the Department will have an uphill battle to prove that they really are 'the Producers' on the project and not Executive Producers (which is what they amout to).
Remember, the act itself says nothing about copyright residing in those who arrange for a film to be made - that's just Copyright Council interpretation. It explicitly says at s92(2) that the copyright resides in the makers and in s189 that makers are 'the producer, the director and the screenwriter'. s191(2) specifically excludes 'subsidary producers' such as executive producers, associate producers, etc as being within the definition of s189.
Please keep up, Tony. I'm citing the actual source of copyright (which is the Copyright Act and is ONLY the copyright act) ; you're referring to the crib notes.
As for the crusade fulled with magical tales of me and my lawyers fighing evil media department... I now plan to launch that crusade; if only to cut off your nose to spite your face.... though your face is doing such a good job of spiting your nose.
Hi Tony CC,
I'm glad you followed me onto my own blog. You're welcome to continue abusing me if it makes you feel better about yourself. I don't need nor seek your approval of my intellect, grasp of the english language, or cinematic tastes. If you must know, I'm a fan of Tarsem's 'the Cell', Michael Bay's 'Armageddon', the Wachowski Brothers' 'Matrix Revolutions', and Star Wars.
FWIW, I was also the Stupid Law Student who handed in their thesis with a word count 50% over what was stipulated. I don't know if I have been docked marks, but I accepted that I may be docked marks. Thats fine. I'm the kinda guy who does their thing regardless.
As for the first owner being 'whoever makes the arrangements to make the film', I note that you convinently left out the clarification in the next sentence: "In practice, this person is usually known as the producer". It further clarifies that in the absence of a producer, it will be the person who shot the film. Given that students films generally have credited Producers, then the Department will have an uphill battle to prove that they really are 'the Producers' on the project and not Executive Producers (which is what they amout to).
Remember, the act itself says nothing about copyright residing in those who arrange for a film to be made - that's just Copyright Council interpretation. It explicitly says at s92(2) that the copyright resides in the makers and in s189 that makers are 'the producer, the director and the screenwriter'. s191(2) specifically excludes 'subsidary producers' such as executive producers, associate producers, etc as being within the definition of s189.
Please keep up, Tony. I'm citing the actual source of copyright (which is the Copyright Act and is ONLY the copyright act) ; you're referring to the crib notes.
As for the crusade fulled with magical tales of me and my lawyers fighing evil media department... I now plan to launch that crusade; if only to cut off your nose to spite your face.... though your face is doing such a good job of spiting your nose.
posted by stu willis at
1:40 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home