>>2909978>being on /vid/>not having the slightest clue of productionyou'll be astonished, but as a matter of absolute fact you may not place ANY copyright protected material in a staged scene. ofc if you shoot in public it is a different thing. but when staged you may not include 3rd party work without permission/licensing.
I tell you an example because I know you are an ape-head: there was a case about a documentary about a museum. the doc was shot when a contemporary artist exhibited his paintings in this museum. the video art-director made an interview with the owner of the museum and placed him in front of one of the paintings.
after the documentary was aired the painting artist sued the producer because he used one of his paintings in his work. the (German) court decided that the painter was right and the producer of the documentary infringed his copyright. the main argument was that inspite the exhibition was public, the video producer decided to use the painting as the background and so 'staged' the scene. he was not obligated to use the painting as the background but specifically decided to do, so he took benefit for his work from another work.
fun fact: this is also valid for e.g. brand names and logos etc., since they either produce copyrights (due to the design) or are registered trade marks. at least in principle; till now there haven't been any case where a court decided if a brand may be shown in a film or not, simply because no brand ever sued a filmmaker for placing his product (or rather logo) in his work.
however the consensus among media lawyers is that one have to expect that a brand would win such a case. and this btw also my source, I visited a symposium for trans-media business at the international film school cologne in 2013. the media lawyer who held a lecture about this advocated the producer in the example.
so. go. fuck. yourself. if you have no clue, try being quiet in future.
