Episodes
- My So-Called Life (Pi... - #1 »
- Dancing in the Dark - #2 »
- Guns and Gossip - #3 »
- Father Figures - #4 »
- The Zit - #5 »
- The Substitute - #6 »
- Why Jordan Can't Read - #7 »
- Strangers in the Hous... - #8 »
- Halloween - #9 »
- Other People's Daught... - #10 »
- Life of Brian - #11 »
- Self-Esteem - #12 »
- Pressure - #13 »
- On the Wagon - #14 »
- So-Called Angels - #15 »
- Resolutions - #16 »
- Betrayal - #17 »
- Weekend - #18 »
- In Dreams Begin Respo... - #19 »
Cast
Forum
Yet more news. Again, not surprising.Yet more news. Again, not surprising.The company that filmed the bonus material at Bedford Falls has not been paid.
![]() Re: Yet more news. Again, not surprising.Does AU possess the footage? If so, then it will appear on the bonus disc and Bedford Falls is as screwed as we are. Since AU is making the disc themselves, it doesn't matter if they actually own the material or not.
Re: Yet more news. Again, not surprising.Um, actually it does. So lets get this straight, so far the lunchbox is in serious trouble. And now it seems as though the bonus disk is as well. Now is it worth staying with AU?
Re: Yet more news. Again, not surprising.Bedford Falls isn't getting screwed - the company who filmed the footage is. And I think it DOES matter if they were paid because technically whoever filmed it still has the copyright - kinda like those photographers at prom - which means that AU can't use it until they have paid for services rendered. Then again, legality hasn't stopped AU thus far. I'm just talking out of my ass and making some assumptions since I know very little about ownership in a situation like this.
Re: Yet more news. Again, not surprising.With everything Ross has done so far, do you think a little copyright infringement will stand in his way? IF AU produces the disc themselves completely, then they can get someone to make 3000 copies without asking too many questions.
Re: Yet more news. Again, not surprising.I wouldn't put anything past Ross after the last few weeks of revelations, but I think that he isn't stupid enough to want his company to be slapped with a huge copyright infringement lawsuit. That's a little more open and shut than what he has done to us. Ross: But we contracted THEM to film for us, your honor. Judge: Did you pay them? Ross: No, but we were going to. Eventually. Judge: And did you then use the footage without paying them? Ross: Yes, but we were going to pay them. Judge: Have you ever seen Oz? Ross: As in "The Wizard of"? Judge: No, as in the HBO series. Ross: Why yes, and as a matter of fact we at Another Universe would like to sell them at our website. As soon as we raise some more capital by double charging our customers, we will have some in stock. Judge: Rusty, take him away!
Last edited by Natasha (candygirl) on Oct 18th 2002, 8:40 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Re: Yet more news. Again, not surprising.Actually, I believe that if they were hired to film the footage, whoever hired them probably owns the copyright. Kinda like a session musician playing on an album. He just goes in and does his job for a fee; he doesn't have any right to the performance.
Does the Bedford Falls footage include the interview the press release mentions?
Last edited by phelix on Oct 18th 2002, 8:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I'd say he or she could sue for payment, but that wouldn't entitle them to any copyright privileges unless a judge ruled that the works' copyright royalties could be used as a form of payment or something. ![]() In other words, Jason may want to draft some iron-clad agreements before he seriously seeks help from us on that AU song. ![]()
Who is onlineUsers browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests |