If I&#39;m the director of photography for a project, does the production company need a model release from me if I film myself in the project? I am the DP (director of photography) on a streaming TV show filmed in New York state. I am not employed by the production company, but rather work as a contractor with them. The production company gets model releases for all the actors and actresses that play roles in the show. I ended up playing a bit part in the show as a news camera man that I personally captured the scene using an aerial camera while I was in shot. This brought up an interesting legal question for me. Does the production company need a model release for my appearing in the show or does my DP agreement already cover it through my transfer of copyright ownership? As I understand it, as the cameraman, owner of the production equipment being used and the individual making the artistic decisions about the photography, the footage inherently is my copyright, which is then transferred automatically to the production company by contract. Since I am filming myself, it would seem to imply consent to be filmed. I'm unsure, however, if this consent would transfer along with the copyright or not.
Copyright and Model Releases are separate legal concepts Copyright belongs to the "author" of a "literary" work - the person(s) who first fixed the the work in permanent form (or possibly not - copyright in spoken words is possible in some jurisdictions). For a product of multiple authors (like a film) they are each an author for the purposes of copyright. Producers, directors, camera operators, cinematographers, sound technicians, screenwriters, editors, actors etc. are all authors of a film. A Model release is a different creature entirely - it is permission from the subject of a photo, video or sound recording to use their likeness for commercial purposes. They will need one of these.
You might be able to use a site like the Internet Archive to preserve the TOC even after the site is shut down. The real liability trap here is if the site does not have the authority to give you this license. If a user uploads a photo that they do not own, and you use it, you are infringing the copyright of the original owner. Innocent infringement is not a defense to liability (although it may reduce damages in some cases.)
It depends. Wikipedia is quite strict on its policies, and it only allows uploading images (and other media) that either are in the public domain or with a licence that allows to be reproduced (often, Creative Commons, CC). If you go to the details of the image it claims that the picture is licenced under CC, with attribution to Saffron Blaze. So most probably Saffron Blaze got permision to take the picture, and he distributed it with the CC-Attribution licence. When scrapping a web site for data, Google and other engines usually search for metadata (the robots.txt file) that tells them what to index and what to not. If a user gives them permission to index a picture by not stating restrictions in the robots.txt, they can do index it. Of course, in both cases it might be that someone uploads a picture that he does not have permission to share. In this case the situation will, of course, depend on jurisdiction, but many laws have provisions that ensure that, if the content provider is dilligent in addressing copyright issues caused by the users, they are protected. For example in the USA the Digital Millenium Copyright Act establishes &quot;safe harbor&quot; provisions that protects content providers if they give a way to denounce copyright infringiments and address those in a given timeframe.
No. The images are copyrighted, and you are using them in a way that would leave you with virtually no argument for fair use. The factors for fair use are set out in 17 USC 107, and they indicate that the courts would reject your use: The purpose and character of the use, including whether it is of a commercial nature or for nonprofit educational purposes: There's no indication that your use would be for nonprofit or educational purposes. The nature of the copyrighted work: Works of fiction and art are highly creative works at the heart of the policy for copyright protection. The amount of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole: You are apparently copying entire images, though I suppose you could argue that each image is just one small portion of a larger book or website. The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work: You are trying to create a board game, putting yourselves basically in direct competition with the makers of D&amp;D. I generally prefer a pretty liberal interpretation of what constitutes fair use, but this just has virtually nothing that would make me comfortable arguing in your favor.
united-states The flowchart included in the question is trying to summarize a rather large amount of legal uncertainty into one image. It must be emphasized that each decision point represents an unsettled area of law. Nobody knows which path through that flowchart the law will take, or even if different forms or implementations of AI might take different paths. The short and disappointing answer to your question is that nobody knows what is or isn't legal yet. To further elaborate on each decision point: The first point is asking whether the training process requires a license at all. There are two possible reasons to think that it does not: AI training is protected by fair use (see 17 USC 107). This is a case-by-case inquiry that would have to be decided by a judge. AI training is nothing more than the collection of statistical information relating to a work, and does not involve &quot;copying&quot; the work within the meaning of 17 USC 106 (except for a de minimis period which is similar to the caching done by a web browser, and therefore subject to a fair use defense). The second point is, I think, asking whether the model is subject to copyright protection under Feist v. Rural and related caselaw. Because the model is trained by a purely automated process, there's a case to be made that the model is not the product of human creativity, and is therefore unprotected by copyright altogether. Dicta in Feist suggest that the person or entity directing the training might be able to obtain a &quot;thin&quot; copyright in the &quot;selection or organization&quot; of training data, but no court has ever addressed this to my knowledge. This branch can also be read as asking whether the output of the model is copyrightable, when the model is run with some prompt or input. The Copyright Office seems to think the answer to that question is &quot;no, because a human didn't create it.&quot; The third decision point is, uniquely, not a legal question, but a practical question: Do you intend to distribute anything, or are you just using it for your own private entertainment? This determines whether you need to consult the rest of the flowchart or not. The final decision point is whether the &quot;output&quot; (i.e. either the model itself, or its output) is a derivative work of the training input. This would likely be decided on the basis of substantial similarity, which is a rather complicated area of law. To grossly oversimplify, the trier of fact would be shown both the training input and the allegedly infringing output, and asked to determine whether the two items have enough copyrightable elements in common that copying can reasonably be inferred.
Consent in the GDPR sense? No. Consent in the more general sense of “agreement”? Sure. Under the GDPR, consent is only one of many legal bases for processing personal data. Consent requires an unambiguous indication of the data subject's wishes through a clear statement or affirmative action. Thus, consent cannot be “hidden” in another document – it would be ambiguous whether the data subject just wanted to agree to boilerplate terms of service or specifically consent to a particular purpose of processing. Indeed, Art 7(2) GDPR explicitly requires that “the request for consent shall be presented in a manner which is clearly distinguishable from the other matters”. Another legal basis is Art 6(1)(f) legitimate interest. A legitimate interest requires some interest that outweighs the data subject's rights and interests. This balancing test must consider whether the data subject can reasonably expect the processing to occur, given the data subject's relationship with the data controller. I would argue that an event venue does have a legitimate interest to film and photograph events, and that this interest outweighs the data subject's rights and interests at least for larger shots, but not necessarily for close-ups, portraits, etc. The event participants can reasonably expect the audience to be filmed and photographed. Indeed, the linked privacy policy (linked just after the part that you quoted) is very thorough and explains in detail what is happening. The table starting on page 9 describes the purposes of processing, the data being used for that purpose, and the legal basis for that purpose. Here, the relevant entry is: Purpose: Photographs of crowds at our festivals and/or events Type of data: (a) Identity Legal basis: (a) Necessary for our legitimate interests (to capture footage of artists performing at our festivals and events which feature crowd or to record images of our festivals and events for showreel and marketing purposes) This means: they are not asking for consent in the GDPR sense. They are relying on a “legitimate interest” instead. They have to inform you in advance about the processing of personal data – which they evidently did by providing the privacy notice – but they don't have to ask you. So what is that consent about then? The consent you quoted is more about personality rights: you would consent to “being photographed, filmed and sound recorded as an audience without payment, and to [your] image being exploited in any and all media for any purpose at any time throughout the world”. This is essentially a model release.
You can do whatever you like with posts made after you change the rules - you have to leave the previous stuff alone. The contributors' have accepted the terms of the licence: They own the copyright or have permission from the copyright holder to post it (the promise) They agree that it can be edited altered or removed CC-BY-SA allows people to copy the stuff off the website and republish it - this is way outside what the contributors agreed to. These people have given permission for their work to be altered but not copied.
This is a heavily fact-dependent question. Exactly how and how much your work "evokes" the original will matter. That said, your belief that "My understanding is that as this doesn't contain any mechanical part of the original movie it is fine." is not at all correct. If your new work is clearly based on the original work, it would be a derivative work. For example, if Shakespear's Romeo and Juliet were still in copyright, West Side story would have been a derivative work, and would have required permission. You would do well to consult a lawyer knowledgeable in this specific area, in your specific jurisdiction, as the detailed rules vary by country, although the general principles are pretty much world-wide.