 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
"Important court decision recently determined the issue in favor of the artist."
| Attorney Joel L. Hecker lectures and writes extensively on issues of concern to the photography industry. His office is located at Russo & Burke, 600 Third Ave, New York NY 10016. 1 212 557-9600. |
TELEVISION USE OF IMAGES CAN BE COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.
Television shows and movies use props as matter of
course. On occasion these props are photographs or
other artistic work, and sometimes releases or
clearances are not obtained from the copyright owner in
advance. Disputes arise as to whether such use without
the consent of the copyright owner constitutes
copyright infringement or whether it is a "fair use,"
and thus permitted.
An important court decision recently determined the issue in favor of the artist. The United States Court of Appeals of the Second Circuit, in Ringgold v. Black Entertainment Television, Inc., held on September 16, 1997 that the use of a work of art entitled "Church Picnic Story Quilt" was plainly observable in the Television sitcom episode, was well suited as a set decoration for the scene portrayed, and was used precisely for the purpose for which the art was created - to be decorative.
The image was visible during nine sequences ranging from 1.86 to 4.16 seconds, or a total aggregate of 26.75 seconds in all.
The court concluded that producers of plays, films and television programs should expect, just as members of the public, to pay a license fee to use a copyrighted artwork as a component of the decoration of a set.
Although the facts of each case may vary, the principles enumerated by this Court apply fully to similar use of photographs, and add an important arrow in the arsenal of weapons available to enforce rights of photographers.
|
International Home Page |
 
|