I would like to include a long paragraph of dialog of a well known movie in my new story as part of a joke. Can I?
The five or six sentences would equal sixty words. I could shorten it down to forty words.
Do I have to alter the paragraphs slightly or can I use it verbatim. Do I have to credit the movie or writer?
Thanks.
Depends on where you are. In the US, there are NO hard and fast rules in the US for how much can be fair use.
A lot depends on how it is used and whether or not that use is commercial in nature.
Well, I'd hope to be able to list the story for sale. As far as the quote. It would be like having a character use the dialog "Luke, I am your father." as a joke. Most everyone knows it's a Star Wars line. Is it ok to use that line in a story?
You'd have to consult a lawyer who practices in the area of copyright law for solid answers to questions that specific.
What I do know what while commercial use doesn't absolutely rule out fair use, it will be much tougher to claim fair use where the use is commercial.
The general rule applied in most countries is: 'No more than 10% of a work or a chapter, whichever is the lower size.' Being 60 words I don't think it'll be in violation. However, remember you are talking about the MaFIA - Music and Film Industry Association - who have long record of stomp all over anyone who even thinks about violating their copyrights in any manner at all.
edit to add: most of us get away with such issues by proper attribution to them.
Ok, that makes sense. So, for the quote I gave what would be the proper attribution? My actual quote is another, longer line from Star Wars. How would I format the attribution and where would it go in the book?
Thanks in advance.
How would I format the attribution and where would it go in the book?
It depends on how you want to include it in the context. In stories I've used a number of options:
A little later he says, "You know, Shakespeare was wrong!" She gives him an odd look, so he quotes:
"As You Like It: Act 2, Scene 7
All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players.
They have their exits and their entrances,
And one man in his time plays many parts,
His acts being seven ages. ..."
or
Mo walks out onto the field for the opening ceremonies of the game. When he walks out the team manager holds the rest of the team back as the announcer says, "All please stand to welcome home our own Mo Walker!" The crowd stands to cheer while the stadium speakers come alive with music and song:
"Now he couldn't move a mountain
Or pull down a big oak tree,
But my daddy became a mighty big man
With a simple philosophy ..."
The crowd joins in the singing as Mo turns around while waving his cap and the tears run down his cheeks. In the VIP box Mo's wife, father, and step-mother are also crying at his welcome home.
or
Do what you do do well
Do what you do do well boy
Do what you do do well
Give your love and all of your heart
And do what you do do well
Ned Miller, 1965
or
Kyle laughs, "I think it's the or something. Now let's get these trailers attached to our vehicles, and check to make sure we haven't forgotten anything. We've got guests meeting us here in a few minutes."
"Guests! What guests? We don't need no stinking guests."
Kyle laughs, and suddenly has an even funnier thought. "Brain, that Cheech and Chong line has become a part of our culture."
"Oh, it's more ingrained than you know. It was originally said by Humphrey Bogart in a nineteen forty-eight movie."
"Are you serious?"
A female voice behind them adds, "He's partially right, Kyle. The line does come from the movie 'The Treasure of Sierra Madre,' but it was spoken by Alfonse Bedoya, not Bogie. It was also used in other movies like 'Blazing Saddles.' Cheech and Chong may have used it in comedy routines, but it was never actually in one of their movies."
Kyle turns, and sees Dr Haywood is the source of the voice and the information. Her husband, Marc, is standing beside her. They're both dressed in desert camouflage BDUs (Battle Dress Uniforms). What really surprises Kyle is while he knows Marc is a captain, Dr Haywood is wearing the oak leaves of a major. Kyle introduces the couple to Ryan, and mentions his nickname is Brain.
so, in my example sentence, if I followed the copied dialog segment with something like "I don't think now is the proper time to make Star Wars jokes." That would be enough of an attribution?
I'm tracking you too Dominions Son. Thanks for the points.
so, in my example sentence, if I followed the copied dialog segment with something like "I don't think now is the proper time to make Star Wars jokes." That would be enough of an attribution?
I think it would work, but I'm not a US copyright lawyer. However, it would pass under Australian copyright laws.
Personally, for what you're describing, I'd probably use a footnote. Simple attach a < sup>1< /sup> line, and then include the movie title, year, and studio. That's pretty straight forward, and demonstrates that you're not claiming the words as your own.
But again, since the Movie Industry has a demonstrated heavy hand in this, I'd minimize it as much I can (i.e. keep the quotes short—including using ellipses— to ensure that you stay well inside the 10% limit. Also, beware of trademark, which is separate from copyright. Thus a phrase like "Luke, I am your father" would be very easy to copyright and unless you research it, you've never know that you've violated their legal restrictions on the phrase.
The nature of your story might make a difference as well in how the studio treats it. Some of them will object to any use that connects their works to "adult entertainment".
Disney (not the owner of Star Wars) in particular aggressively defends their reputation as family friendly/children's entertainment.
Use a Disney property in an erotic work and if they become aware of it, Disney will hit you like a ton of bricks. In that situation, attribution could actually make it worse.
Another factor you could consider is the owner's stance and fan fiction.
You aren't doing fan fiction, but a fan fiction friendly source might be more tolerant of the use of quotes.
Actually Disney does own Star Wars.
They purchased the entire franchise several years ago, and now own it, lock, stock and barrel!
You aren't doing fan fiction, but a fan fiction friendly source might be more tolerant of the use of quotes.
Fan-fiction, by definition, is not for profit. Once you start charging for it, most of the fan-fiction allowances by authors (who allow it, since it ultimately benefits their work) will likely evaporate, as they'll see you as a competitor, only trying to rip them off.
edit to add: most of us get away with such issues by proper attribution to them.
Most of us who get away with such issues mostly get away with them by obscurity. The studio would have to notice your work before it became an issue, attribution or not.
Ok. Two stories I know of. 1st one was a painting I saw some place. Sci fi con, I think. A tracked armadillo with guns. I told the artist. "hey, thats Tarkus, right?" Referring to the album cover from Emerson Lake and Palmer. He says, "No, it is less than 60% similar, and that makes it different by law." Of course, I have no clue about the law, here.
2nd story. A gaming magazine back in the 80s (the space gamer) had a heavy paper mailing cover and they always put a single panel cartoon drawing on the cover. So on one particular issue the had a picture of a female fantasy fighter facing a beholder(d&d monster looks like a floating beach ball with teeth, several small tentacle eyes and one Giant central eye.) The giant eye has a CHARM spell. So the lady is looking this monster right in the eye and saying, "This one is kind of cute" the caption reads 'Beauty is in the eye of the...oh, never mind
Next issue, there is an editorial. The head lawyer for TSR (the owners of D&D) had sent a letter stating that the magazine could not not use any copyrighted material on or in the magazine. So the magazine announced they could no longer accept artwork and certain other stuff for tsr.
NEXT ISSUE: TSR drops the hammer on the magazine. They had published a review on a TSR product. This is a standard practice in the industry. Nope.
"You are not allowed to even mention the name of any of our products... we will sue you into bankruptcy. The magazine and its parent company was gone within a year or two. Those reviews were the reason people buy those magazines.
He says, "No, it is less than 60% similar, and that makes it different by law." Of course, I have no clue about the law, here.
I will say again, US copyright law is not that simple.
Anyone who makes statements that specific without consulting a copyright lawyer first is a moron.
"You are not allowed to even mention the name of any of our products... we will sue you into bankruptcy.
That would not have held up in court. The only basis for such a claim could be trademarks and trademark law doesn't work like that.
Which is not to say TSR couldn't bankrupt a small independent magazine by forcing them to defend a frivolous lawsuit in court.
I started RPG games in college with Chainmail, D&D, and Swords & Spells. I can't cite the specific incident due to CRS, but I do recall TSR being particularly aggressive in courts. It would not surprise me in the least to hear TSR bankrupted a startup magazine they took issue with.
It would not surprise me in the least to hear TSR bankrupted a startup magazine they took issue with.
They were as bad then as Apple has been the last 20 years. They drove a great many small businesses in the early 1980's that made fantasy game supplements.
Judges Guild, Chaosium, and Flying Buffalo each came under particular attention by them. Finally most companies by 1983 started producing their expansions as "generic", then including a supplement at the end to explain how to convert it to multiple game systems. But many of the smallest start-ups could not afford the lawyers so simply "went away".
Which I find ironic that you move forward a few decades, and almost everybody had adopted d20 as their core rules.
In one of my stories I even covered some parts of this, including one company that made a game accessory being sued out of existence, and a "fictional company" (heavily inspired by Judges Guild) talking about their turbulent past with TSR.
But yes, at one time they were almost fanatical about suing anybody that came even close to using one of "their" creations.
http://www.skotos.net/articles/TTnT_/TTnT_209.phtml.html
Which I find ironic that you move forward a few decades, and almost everybody had adopted d20 as their core rules.
TSR is dead.
Their corpse was sold to Wizards of the Coast (who are the current owners of D&D) in 1997.
WoC released the d20 system under an open gaming license, Although, successive editions have put less and less content under the open gaming license. With 5E, only the base rules are under the open gaming license, they don't even have the class experience tables available under the OGL.
I will say again, US copyright law is not that simple.
What's more, the newly passed 'Covid Relief' act, which lawmakers only have 2 days to pass, and which doesn't give anyone enough to survive on, further complicates copyright law, shifting it to a separate court which isn't beholden to established copyright law determined by other courts!
As they say, there's no such thing as a free Relief!
What's more, the newly passed 'Covid Relief' act, which lawmakers only have 2 days to pass, and which doesn't give anyone enough to survive on, further complicates copyright law, shifting it to a separate court which isn't beholden to established copyright law determined by other courts!
Cite required. Though it wouldn't surprise me. It's far too soon for anyone to have figured out what's in that monstrosity.
Cite required. Though it wouldn't surprise me. It's far too soon for anyone to have figured out what's in that monstrosity.
I sorta thought I'd get flak for that off-hand comment, but at the time, it was just a quick news report, as none of the reporters had a chance to review the act yet. But here's a link from today's news, as brief as it is: Gizmodo: Copyright Cops Put a Gun to American's Heads With the Covid Relief Bill.
Sorry, but I'm not sure whether it's possible for non-Apple users to read Apple News stories, but if you search Gizmodo, or the general news, for the title, I'm sure it'll pop up.
further complicates copyright law, shifting it to a separate court which isn't beholden to established copyright law determined by other courts!
I believe that you are referring to this. And no, it won't have exclusive jurisdiction on all copyright claims as far as I can find out..
https://www.billboard.com/articles/business/9503848/congress-case-copyright-reforms-covid-19-relief-bill
I believe that you are referring to this. And no, it won't have exclusive jurisdiction on all copyright claims as far as I can find out..
The reporting, as I've seen, at least, is that it regulates it to a special 'private' tribunal, with no ability to take it to Federal court. Thus, you're restricted from getting a fair hearing before an impartial judge, and whoever files the case can simply run out the clock, bankrupting you long before you have a chance to prove that your use was justified.
But that's what happens when legislation is rushed through, especially when it's purposely help up until the very last moment, when they suddenly dump a bunch of crap into it. But, the copyright portion is supposedly the portion that Trump is now insisting that they yank from the bill (as he doesn't really care whether those impacted get $600 or $2,000).
The reporting, as I've seen, at least, is that it regulates it to a special 'private' tribunal, with no ability to take it to Federal court.
First from what I've seen, the tribunal won't be private, it will be part of the Patent & Copyright Office and the panel members will be employees of the government.
What I've seen is that the special tribunal is for "small copyright claims" and it does not have exclusive jurisdiction over all copyright claims to the exclusion of the federal courts.
While the tribunal is likely to be very popular with plaintiffs, it does further limit damages over what can be obtained in the federal courts, so corporate vs corporate cases are almost certain to continue going to the federal courts.
It's the copyright owner's (plaintiff's) choice whether to go to the tribunal or the federal courts. Likely a defendant won't have a choice of removing the case to an Article III court.
It will almost certainly be possible for a defendant with deep enough pockets to appeal a tribunal decision in to the Federal courts as can be done with other administrative law courts.
But for the most part this is a gift to "big entertainment" to let them go after individual file sharers which they have thus far utterly failed at in the federal courts.
What I've seen is that the special tribunal is for "small copyright claims" and it does not have exclusive jurisdiction over all copyright claims to the exclusion of the federal courts.
Except that it precludes those accused of copyright violations from taking the claims to Federal court, thus completely circumventing the 'official' Judicial system. But again, no one's published the actual bill's language yet, as it's subject to change and they're in a hurry to push it through before anyone can protest much.
Except that it precludes those accused of copyright violations from taking the claims to Federal court, thus completely circumventing the 'official' Judicial system.
Not necessarily. Rulings of administrative law courts are generally appealable to the federal courts.
Also, what's out there is that damages the tribunal can award will be limited. The copyright owners will likely continue to take deep pocket defendants to the federal courts.
You are wrong. Here is the provision dealing with participation in the small claims process:
1 ''§ 1504. Nature of proceedings
2 ''(a) VOLUNTARY PARTICIPATION.—Participation in
3 a Copyright Claims Board proceeding shall be on a vol-
4 untary basis in accordance with this chapter, and the right
5 of any party to instead pursue a claim, counterclaim, or
6 defense in a district court of the United States, any other
7 court, or any other forum, and to seek a jury trial, shall
8 be preserved. The rights, remedies, and limitations under
9 this section may not be waived except in accordance with
10 this chapter.
Both the plaintiff and defendant have to consent to jurisdiction by the new copyright tribunal. Either party can demand a traditional federal court action. Damages are limited to $15k.
But, the copyright portion is supposedly the portion that Trump is now insisting that they yank from the bill (as he doesn't really care whether those impacted get $600 or $2,000).
In this I agree, but only because I detest that they are playing games in the first place with relief efforts. Such additional bills should never be part of it in the first place.
Is why I wish they line item veto was still allowed. If Congress was serious about immediate relief, they would never attach on other things that might not pass otherwise.
Fair or Foul, using Donald Duck or any of his relatives (Daisy his girl, Huey, Louie, and Dewey his nephews, or his Uncle Scrooge) will turn out fowl.
Fair or Foul, using Donald Duck or any of his relatives (Daisy his girl, Huey, Louie, and Dewey his nephews, or his Uncle Scrooge) will turn out fowl.
And you'll definitely be Hanged out to dry over getting involved! ;)
For those of us in the US dealing with US copyrights, here are the factors in the Fair Use Doctrine boiled down
1. the purpose and character of your use.
2. the nature of the copyrighted work.
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion taken
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market.
You are pretty safe for 5 or 6 sentences from a full length movie in a written work. If you are using in dialog between characters as if it was something "common knowledge" to the story world you would probably be safer than having it as a joke between a narrator and the reader. Still as some others have pointed out different organizations/companies will be more sensitive about use of even fragments of their copyrights. If you are concerned about it use as little as possible and have a plan B if you catch more flack than you want
For those of us in the US dealing with US copyrights, here are the factors in the Fair Use Doctrine boiled down
1. the purpose and character of your use.
2. the nature of the copyrighted work.
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion taken
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market.
I'll add a note that 2 and 3 are somewhat interdependent.
Courts have determined the use of an entire photograph to be fair use.
I found that list online then compared it to what I found on the US Copyright Office website. It looked like a good summary. I agree 2 and 3 could definitely play off each other if your use is challenged.
I'll add a note that 2 and 3 are somewhat interdependent.
Courts have determined the use of an entire photograph to be fair use.
That makes sense, as without a full paragraph, there's no way to determine the context of the passage. Yet that won't stop an over zealous copyright claim from making an extreme claim--which the new law virtually guarantees will be virtually impossible to fight--unless you've got VERY deep pockets!
You are pretty safe for 5 or 6 sentences from a full length movie in a written work. If you are using in dialog between characters as if it was something "common knowledge" to the story world you would probably be safer than having it as a joke between a narrator and the reader.
But even that can be ignored, depending on the work.
For example, off of the top of my head there are 2 songs that can be quoted in their entirety, with almost no action taken.
Tequila
Pick Up the Pieces
Of course, it would be rather hard to sue, as those quite literally are pretty much the entire lyrics of those songs, and the rights holders would look rather silly suing for that use.
For example, off of the top of my head there are 2 songs that can be quoted in their entirety,
At least in the US, "Happy Birthday" has finally been determined to be in the public domain.
At least in the US, "Happy Birthday" has finally been determined to be in the public domain.
Because the copyright expired. While in the last years of its copyright there were a lot of lawsuits, those were all trying to slip in under the gun and ultimately simply had the work made public domain a year early, as questions of "rightful ownership" rose up.
This did not happen in the EU, where it quietly slipped into the public domain in 2017, with nobody noticing.
Because the copyright expired. While in the last years of its copyright there were a lot of lawsuits, those were all trying to slip in under the gun and ultimately simply had the work made public domain a year early, as questions of "rightful ownership" rose up.
It was mostly the questions around "rightful ownership" and questions about when and by whom it was created.
If it had been under valid live copyright when the copyright extension had been passed, it would have been retro-actively put under the life of creator + 70 years, which would have extend the US copyright 20 years beyond when it expired in the EU.
The US court decision was that the copyright had expired before the extension and nobody noticed.
There are literally porn Parodys of star wars where Lukes Father gives his sister the bone.
"Noooooooo"
There was an entire website devoted to a Sean Connery line in a movie "you're the man now, dog"
You may be overthinking a quote like this in that context..
There are literally porn Parodys of star wars where Lukes Father gives his sister the bone.
I think you will find most of those predate the Disney purchase of Lucasfilm. Not much Disney can do about them if Lucas didn't do anything.
Disney owns Lusasfilm, but Lucasfilm still exists as a wholly owned subsidiary. Partly to keep Star Wars and other Lucasfilm works aimed at an older (PG-13) audience separate from the Disney family friendly/children's brand so they will see that differently.
"Noooooooo"
Such a short quote isn't even protectable by copyright in the first instance, so "fair use" isn't relevant there.
I think you will find most of those predate the Disney purchase of Lucasfilm. Not much Disney can do about them if Lucas didn't do anything
Actually, it is long established in the law that parody is fair use, and there is little the creator can do about it. At most, they are entitled to royalties and can sue for that if they are not paid.
The problem is that most "fan fic" is not parody, but trying to portray itself as an extension of the original creation. That removes it from fair use as parody, and right into standard copyright issues.
"Noooooooo"
Such a short quote isn't even protectable by copyright in the first instance, so "fair use" isn't relevant there.
But, just to be safe, maybe you should either drop or add an extra "o" just to protect yourself, legally. ;)
There are literally porn Parodys of star wars where Lukes Father gives his sister the bone.
Incest is best, after all. Especially when you consider that Darth Vader / Anakin Skywalker IS Leia's father. The final scene when both Han and Luke are having Leia at the same time makes it ... special.
That particular movie was nominated for AVN Movie of the Year, won best Parody (Comedy) of the Year, and won Axel Braun Producer of the Year. Seth Gamble and Allie Haze were both nominated for Best Actor / Actress Awards.
If it had been under valid live copyright when the copyright extension had been passed, it would have been retro-actively put under the life of creator + 70 years, which would have extend the US copyright 20 years beyond when it expired in the EU.
Uhhh, no.
The final copyright issue was thrown out in 2015, when it was declared public domain.
2 years earlier than it would have naturally, as the author (Patty Hill) had died in 1946. Which means the copyright expired in 2017. That is the year it expired in the EU and US both naturally. Both the US and EU use the 70 year from the death as the standard for most works.
Do not confuse the rights in regards to a performance, with the rights about the work such a performance is based upon. They are 2 different things. One can be extended, the other can not.
In a few weeks for example, in both the US and EU the works of Edgar Rice Burroughs, Rex Ingram, George Orwell, Rafael Sabatini, and George Bernard Shaw all enter the Public Domain.
And because of this, expect a lot of movies based on their works to start to appear in the coming years.
However, that does not mean the works based on all of those works do the same. My Fair Lady is of course based on Shaw. But it was created in 1956, so retains its copyright until 2059. 70 years after the death of Fred Loewe.
Much of the speculation of the creation of the 2012 movie "John Carter" was that Disney had hoped to already have an established film series by the time the copyrights had all expired. And they are still following those, as a new reboot TV series is already in the works for Disney+. But it has been on hold, simply waiting for all of the copyrights to expire (the first books already expired, but that would limit any adaptations to only include materials from those 6 books and not the entire series).
Because the copyright expired. While in the last years of its copyright there were a lot of lawsuits, those were all trying to slip in under the gun and ultimately simply had the work made public domain a year early, as questions of "rightful ownership" rose up.
Actually, the 'owners' (relatives of the original author) were still filing lawsuits, but the Supreme Court actually weighed in--surprisingly enough--and declared it 'public domain', at least within the U.S. (NBCNews: Happy Birthday Decision, though that was decided in 2016.
Actually, the 'owners' (relatives of the original author) were still filing lawsuits, but the Supreme Court actually weighed in--surprisingly enough--and declared it 'public domain', at least within the U.S.
I know, but as I said all that did is adjust it be 2 years.