Re: VERY interesting copyright article
Fri, 2 Feb 2001 10:37:48 -0800 (PST)

Darryl et. al
> The folowing . . .
> "Curiously, filmmakers do homages -- or derivatives -- of other films
> all the time and never seem to be nailed for it. Scary Movie is
> probably the most extreme (derivative) example I've seen -- whole
> scenes are virtually identical to all kinds of previously created
> works, particularly Wes Craven's Scream -- but no one seems to
> complain."

. . . tends to come under the USC provisions to allow "fair comment"
and recognize that "Parody" is not a derivative work.
> And this point . . .
"Finally, here's something else to consider... what about cinemas that
> with the projection? Private theatres . . . . have forsaken projectionists altogether which has led to lots of burnt-out bulbs, flickering bulbs, film stoppages, film interruptions and especially mis-framings. Prints usually come with specific instructions as to what ratio they should be projected (i.e 1.85:1, 1.66:1) and I've seen many mistakes done with this. Are these "derivative" versions? Don't these
> violate copyrights?"

. . . . . are issues of public display, not derivative works.
But let's not go there.

BTW: How come we have all this collective time to follow, research and
respond to this strand. Doesn;t anybody work out there anymore? Come to
think of it, how come I have time to follow this? I gotta get out my
time management manual . . . ;^)