What law makes a Movie &quot;Nicht Feiertagsfrei&quot;? Top Gun, Life of Brian and Heidi (2001) don't seem to have anything in common, but in Germany they are all declared &quot;Nicht Feiertagsfrei&quot; and may not be shown in a cinema on some days. Among them is the Friday before Easter (Karfreitag), Volkstrauertag (14th November), and Buß- und Bettag (17th November). It is the FSK that declares a movie &quot;Nicht Feiertragsfrei&quot;, but what legal basis do they have?
Federal law protecting public holidays This explains that this has been the law since 1952 when the FRG was granted autonomy following World War 2. They are films that contradict the &quot;serious nature&quot; of these holidays and which are to be feared that they violate &quot;religious and moral feelings&quot;, according to the guideline of the FSK . Which holidays fall into the category is a matter for the states, which films fall into the category is a matter for the Federal FSK. As social attitudes have changed, fewer and fewer films are categorised as Nicht Feiertragsfrei; over 60% were in the 1950s, less than 1% were in the 2010s.
One reason could be because of the scènes à faire doctrine. Many of the things you notice as similarities are not infringement. I don't know the counts of lawsuits for music infringement vs screenwriting infringement. There may just be more songs than screenplays. Screenwriters/producers do get sued, though. See Cinar Corporation v. Robinson 2012 SCC 25.
I'm pretty sure in France you have moral rights and copyrights. I am writing from New Zealand, but we have some similar intellectual property laws due to being member countries of the World Intellectual Property Organisation. We are also both member countries of the World Trade Organisation (WTO has the TRIPS agreement which relates to IP). So my answer may or may not be right &ndash; check what it says in France's copyright acts: you should be able to search for terms like first owner, and moral rights, films/videos, etc. The school isn't your employer, and so the basic rule is that you as the author are automatically the first owner. Since you're not really at school to create anything or research for the school, I don't think the court would enforce a blanket term that you had to agree to that the school owns intellectual property in what you create. You probably own the copyright. You also have moral rights in what you have created, which means even if the school does own the copyright in your work, you can request they attribute it to you if they show it in public (online). Not all works have moral rights. However, in NZ if you create a film/video you do have moral rights in it.
Such an image is copyrighted, as part of the movie. You cannot legally use it without permission from the copyright holder, unless the use of the image falls under fair use (note that fair use is a strictly US legal concept. It does not apply anywhere else) or a similar exception to copyright, such as "fair dealing". There are multiple factors which must be considered in making a fair use judgement. No one factor ever totally controls the decision. It is a case-by-case decision. But several things about your proposed use suggest to me that it will not qualify as a fair use. The image is part of a creative work, not a work of non-fiction such as a news report or a textbook. That weighs against fair use. You seem to be using the whole image, although it is only part of the movie. That probably weighs against fair use to some extent. A use in "a social media post regarding a sales vacancy" sounds commercial to me. If so, that would weigh against fair use. The copyright owner might well wish to market images from the film. If so, and if many people used images from the film as you propose to use this one, that might harm the market. This weighs against fair use. You don't seem to be making any comment on the image, or using it in any significantly transformational way. That weighs against fair use. Use of the image does not seem vital or even important to the message you intend to communicate. That also weighs against fair use. In short, I think you would be wiser to use an image that you have or can get permission to use in this way. If you use this image, it is possible that the copyright holder would sue for copyright infringement, or issue a DMCA take-down notice, or both.
It is not decided whether such, in areas, filming can be prohibited. In a &quot;public forum&quot;, First Amendment rights are maximally protected, and this includes filing (Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 in particular §A(1) for a summary of the law on this question). In Perry Educ. Ass'n v. Perry Educators' Ass'n, 460 U.S. 37 the court refined public forum doctrine to distinguish quintessential, limited, and nonpublic fora. In a nonpublic forum, the government may &quot;reserve the forum for its intended purposes&quot;: but, such a reservation must be viewpoint-neutral. Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 states that &quot;The crucial question is whether the manner of expression is basically incompatible with the normal activity of a particular place at a particular time&quot;. In a nonpublic forum, demonstrations can be forbidden, especially when demonstrations are incompatible with the purpose of the forum (example: military bases). The particular question you raise has not ended up in court. One may be tempted to reason that First Amendment rights can be arbitrarily curtailed in a non-public forum, but such a restriction would have to have appropriate justification – the restriction would be subject to strict scrutiny. Simply saying &quot;We don't want people filming inside the holding area&quot; is not a valid justification. But, the police are not required to announce their legal argument in advance. If you get busted and film, and they make you stop, you can sue for violation of your First Amendment rights. Your attorney would then need to make a good argument that this restriction is to be subject to strict scrutiny, and that it fails.
Germany If we actually talk about criminal law, your question is answered by §§ 1 and 2 StGB (the German penal code) – official but of course not binding translation: § 1 [No punishment without law] An act may only be punished if criminal liability had been established by law before the act was committed. § 2 [Jurisdiction ratione temporis; lex mitior] (1) The penalty and any ancillary measures shall be determined by the law which is in force at the time of the act. (2) If the penalty is amended during the commission of the act, the law in force at the time the act is completed shall be applied. (3) If the law in force at the time of the completion of the act is amended before judgment, the most lenient law shall be applied. (4) A law intended to be in force only for a determinate time shall be continued to be applied to acts committed while it was in force even after it ceases to be in force, unless otherwise provided by law. (5) Subsections (1) to (4) shall apply mutatis mutandis to confiscation, deprivation and destruction. (6) Unless otherwise provided by law, measures of rehabilitation and incapacitation shall be determined according to the law in force at the time of the decision. (Note that the last section has been voided in part by the Federal Constitutional Court but this is not relevant here.) which is a legal principle given by the German constitution, in particular by Article 103 para. 2: An act may be punished only if it was defined by a law as a criminal offence before the act was committed. To answer your specific questions with the above rules in mind: The law you are sued for is deleted while your process is going In that case you would not be punished. The law you are sued for is deleted before a case is raised against you (what you did was illegal while you did it) Same answer, you would not be punished. The law you are sued for is deleted after your process is finished (could you question the judgement?) You are out of luck. Only if there would be a new decision for an unrelated reason, your punishment would be taken back. There is a new law while your process is going The new law has no relevance at all. There is a new law after your process is finished (could you question the judgement?) Again, no relevance to your case. In another areas of the law the answers to your questions could actually be different but there would be too many cases to consider for a comprehensive answer.
According to a blog post (written by a lawyer who actually has had multiple people ask about that), it depends on several things. The gist is that they're not getting away with this "brilliant plan" unless they take so many steps to make it look legitimate that it will, in fact, become a legitimate porn production enterprise — in which case, why bother with the ruse in the first place? To find you guilty of prostitution, a jury would have to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that you were guilty of prostitution and not just making porn. But putting a camera in the room doesn't necessarily make it First-Amendment-protected porn; sometimes it just means you're giving them evidence of your crime. Since juries can differ, there's not really a bright line. But some things look bad to judges and juries. If the director is also doing sexual acts in the film, that looks bad. If he's also never directed or acted in porn before, that looks bad. If a person in the film is paying for the "actresses" instead of getting paid for "acting", that looks very bad; see United States v. Roeder, 526 F.2d 736, 737 (10th Cir. 1975). Having an actual script, on the other hand, may look good. Keep in mind that if the film is not just pornographic but actually obscene, obscenity laws could still apply even if you convince them it isn't prostitution. The First Amendment does not protect obscene materials. Additionally, if you claim it's porn, you will need to properly keep records of the names (and all former names/aliases) and dates of birth of your "actors" and "actresses", unless you want to be guilty of a federal felony. This includes making a copy of their photo ID. The records must also made available for inspection by the Attorney General and his inspectors for a minimum of 20 hours per week, with no advance notice given by them. Is everyone involved really going to be OK with all of this - especially since the law specifically notes that the records may be used as evidence in a federal obscenity prosecution?
You have four questions. This made me wonder, do the laws of war say anything about misinformation or psychological warfare? Yes, a little. Mostly in the form of specific prohibitions. Is it e.g. a war crime to claim that the political or military leaders of the country you are at war with have ordered their troops to surrender, in order to mislead those troops? No, not as far as I could find. Is it a war crime to lie about the actions and declared intentions of your enemy to motivate your own troops? No, as far as I could find. Is there in fact anything that binds a country at war to factual representation of their own and their enemy's actions, declarations, capabilities and intentions? Yes, but only in a very limited context; indeed, misinformation is explicitly allowed, under the 1977 Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, Article 37, Section 2, which states that &quot;ruses of war&quot; that do not rely upon the protections of the Convention to succeed, including &quot;he use of camouflage, decoys, mock operations and misinformation&quot; are explicitly allowed. Some prohibited ruses include feigning protected status(non-combatant, surrendering, neutral party, United Nations, sick/wounded), feigning neutral status*, or feigning being part of the enemy*. (Source, ibid, Article 39). *Except when conducted as part of naval combat operations(which have their own traditions, and generally allow pretending to be the enemy for purposes of transit, escape, etc. but require to fly one's true colors before taking offensive actions, as well as honoring surrender), and espionage (which is generally treated as a &quot;crime&quot; rather than an &quot;act of war&quot; under international law, when one is not wearing the uniform of one's own forces).