[LINK] We?re all copyright criminals now

[Stewart Fist]

Brendan wrote

> I think the case I was referring to was:
> Hawkes & Son (London) Ltd v Paramount Film Service Ltd [1934] Ch 593.

Good God Brendan, that was even before my time!  They had laws against
anything done in public, back then.  I think one-piece bathing suits showing
the knees were held to be obscene.


I looked into this copyright question seriously many years ago when I was
with the Australian Film, Radio and TV School.

The rule that we taught, for reality film makers (as distinct from those who
are making fictional films ... and I can see the wisecracks already !!!) is
that:

1. If I am standing in a public place (and that can include private property
opened to the public), and I can see or hear something, then I can switch on
my film or movie camera and capture what I see.

2. The caveat, is that I can not replay that purely for the purpose of using
any copyright material -- other than legitimate sections for criticism (and
in USA, for education).

3. I must obey lawful (and that is the keyword!) directions from a police
office, not to obstruct activities, traffic, etc.


 So if there is a public sculpture on display, or a piece of music on a
loudspeaker, of someone performing, or whatever, it is OK provided that this
represents the background atmosphere of the event -- not the substance.

You will always find cases of magistrates or judges who get it wrong when
copyright holders try to stop TV recordings, etc. -- but these will usually
(perhaps always) be overturned by higher courts.