# dvd screenshots and copyright violations **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [July 30, 2010, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dvd-screenshots-and-copyright-violations/548629 "2010-07-30T22:53:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Arnold\_Winkelried](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Arnold\_Winkelried](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arnold_Winkelried)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2010, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dvd-screenshots-and-copyright-violations/548629/1 "2010-07-30T22:53:37Z")
If I play a DVD of a movie (let’s say, for the sake of discussion, Hollywood blockbuster) on my computer, take a screenshot, and post the screenshot on a webpage, is that a copyright violation? There are probably two answers to this: - Is it technically a copyright violation, and - Would a Hollywood studio bother trying to e-mail me to ask me to take down the picture. I am guessing that the answers are No and No. I suppose this is somewhat of a legal question, so moderators, feel free to close if necessary, but I don’t have a lawyer on retainer to ask. ---
**Author:** ![Markxxx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5daacb/32.png) [@Markxxx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Markxxx)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2010, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dvd-screenshots-and-copyright-violations/548629/2 "2010-07-30T23:58:31Z")
If it’s fair use the answer is you can do it. The problem is a judge decides what is fair use. With copyright law there is no preset list of qualifications for fair use. What happens usually when you post something on your website, the studio would email you telling you that you need to take that down or they’ll sue you. It’s usually a very strongly worded email designed to scare you. You can take it down and that’s that. If you don’t, the studio files a DMCA notice with the webhost. The webhost will say they’ve been served and you’re site will be taken down unless you respond within a certain amount of days. If you respond the studio then has a set time period to sue to and get the offending picture taken down. If not that’s that and the webhost must put back the website. Now that is if it is YOUR website. If you’re using a blog owned by someone else, they usually just take it down. They simply don’t want a fight. This has led to charges by people the DMCA is being used incorrectly. You also have to note that Google usually just honors DMCA notices blindly For instance let’s say my website [Markxxx.Com](http://Markxxx.Com) (example not real) is served. I respond and the company filing the DMCA notice backs down. The company will then file the DMCA notice with Google and Google almost always will just pull your site out of the search engine. Since Google controls over half the searches if your site is depends on a Google search, you can be screwed even if you’re right. ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Robson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gary_robson/32/3448_2.png) [@Gary\_Robson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Robson)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2010, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dvd-screenshots-and-copyright-violations/548629/3 "2010-07-31T00:12:14Z")
It’s a bit fuzzy, but not quite as fuzzy as Markxxx makes it sound. If you’re writing a movie review, critique, new story, or satire, it’s fair use to include a screenshot. If it’s a fan page, or if you clipped part of it for an avatar or website logo, it’s not. ---
**Author:** ![Superhal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Superhal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superhal)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2010, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dvd-screenshots-and-copyright-violations/548629/4 "2010-07-31T00:38:14Z")
Couple points: 1. “Fair use” is not a catch-all, verb or noun. It refers to a specific clause in the Copyright Act of 1976. Here’s [the Wikipedia section](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1976#Fair_use) (the actual act is much harder to read): "Additionally, the fair use defense to copyright infringement was codified for the first time in section 107 of the 1976 Act. Fair use was not a novel proposition in 1976, however, as federal courts had been using a common law form of the doctrine since the 1840s (an English version of fair use appeared much earlier). The Act codified this common law doctrine with little modification. Under section 107, the fair use of a copyrighted work is not copyright infringement, even if such use technically violates section 106. While fair use explicitly applies to use of copyrighted work for criticism, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research purposes, the defense is not limited to these areas. The Act gives four factors to be considered to determine whether a particular use is a fair use: 1. the purpose and character of the use (commercial or educational, transformative or reproductive); 2. the nature of the copyrighted work (fictional or factual, the degree of creativity); 3. the amount and substantiality of the portion of the original work used; and 4. the effect of the use upon the market (or potential market) for the original work.[4] The Act was later amended to extend the fair use defense to unpublished works." There are a specific number of purposes where the Fair Use clause applies, just like how in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, there is a specific list of “protected classes.” “Fair use” does not mean “what I think is fair.” 1. Educational use is also included in the Gary’s list. However, the “effect on the market” clause must be considered, even by educators. If the use would prevent legitimate sales of the materials, it is illegal. 2. Regarding the OP, the Copyright Act of 1976, of course, did not cover blogs. I believe there are new laws that cover the Internet, but I have not kept up with the newest developments. The last one I recall was the predecessor to the [DMCA](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act) being overturned back in 1993 or so. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2010, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dvd-screenshots-and-copyright-violations/548629/5 "2010-08-01T02:16:06Z")
#4 is usually the reason that screenshots from DVDs are said to be fair use. A screenshot is nowhere near a replacement for the movie. Then they throw in #3, as a screenshot is a very small portion of the work. (Even a 30 minute movie has 43200 frames.) Then they throw in #1, which allows for use in reviews, and consider merely saying “See how good this is?” or “How stupid is that?” as being substantial reviews. I am, of course, not commenting on the legitimacy of those claims, as I am not a copyright expert. ETA: But I do know that YouTube does not respect fair use at all. If a company tells them to take it down, they do. Most reviewers that started on YouTube wind up having to leave. Heck, I know a show where the director himself stated they had permission to show a trailer for a movie (you know, something that would actually increase views), and the video got taken down. But only on the YouTube version. ---
**Author:** ![RealityChuck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/realitychuck/32/195_2.png) [@RealityChuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RealityChuck)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2010, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dvd-screenshots-and-copyright-violations/548629/6 "2010-08-01T02:28:56Z")
Youtube’s reaction is simply due to the fact that they cannot determine fair use (only a court can), and it’s not worth the effort to argue against a takedown notice, especially since they can be held liable if they don’t comply. From a corporate point of view, they need to take it down. ---
**Author:** ![VernWinterbottom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/c67d28/32.png) [@VernWinterbottom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VernWinterbottom)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2010, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dvd-screenshots-and-copyright-violations/548629/7 "2010-08-02T02:29:18Z")
You realize, I imagine, that any relatively contemporary image or other creative work that you did not create yourself most likely does belong to somebody else. To use it without permission is stealing another’s property, unless a court decides that the “fair use” section of the copyright law applies. It’s all well and good to say 1 single frame of a film is an insignificant percentage of the number of frames in the entire film. But it cost somebody millions of dollars to create that shot. A bottle of beer is an insignificant percentage of the inventory of a liquor store, too, but if you take it without permission, even if it’s to use in a classroom for educational purposes, you’re facing trouble. Use stuff that belongs to you. Don’t use stuff that doesn’t. It’s so simple. ---
**Author:** ![qazwart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/5fc32e/32.png) [@qazwart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/qazwart)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2010, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dvd-screenshots-and-copyright-violations/548629/8 "2010-08-02T03:17:10Z")
It all depends what you’re doing with the screen shot. This is where _Fair Use_ comes into play. If you’re doing a review, you are allowed to due to fair use. If you are doing satire. For example, you are putting funny captions on the pictures a la Mad Magazine, you’re covered by fair use. If you’re talking about camera work, or writing an article about how lighting in movies are done, you’re protected by fair use. In all of these situations, you are doing something beyond merely using the images to show. You’re adding value and content. On the other hand, if you’re using the pictures for a fan page, you’re not protected under fair use. You are not adding anything of content to the images. And, if you are using the images for commercial purposes or to promote a product, you are definitely not under fair use. Now, if you are doing something that falls under the terms of Fair Use, will you get a nasty-gram from a lawyer? Guaranteed! If you refuse to take down the pictures, will they go after your web hosting service and give them a takedown notice? Guaranteed! You, of course, can take them to court, a hire an expensive attorney, and pay all the legal expenses. You might even win. Sure, you’ll be in debt for the rest of your life and spend your declining years living out of a old refrigerator boxes in a back alley, but the important part is that you’ve scored a moral victory, and that’s what counts! ---
**Author:** ![MsRobyn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/90ced4/32.png) [@MsRobyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MsRobyn)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2010, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dvd-screenshots-and-copyright-violations/548629/9 "2010-08-02T03:54:39Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > Heck, I know a show where the director himself stated they had permission to show a trailer for a movie (you know, something that would actually increase views), and the video got taken down. But only on the YouTube version. The director may not own the copyright, and therefore had no right to allow another person to use it. Or he did not have the right to allow a third person to publicize his show because of his contract with the production company. It seems counter-intuitive, because any publicity is good publicity, but there you are. I have a friend who made a movie as his graduate-school project. A local distributor wanted to pick up the movie for distribution, but wanted absolute control over the publicity and marketing. Since that meant that my friend would not be allowed to use it in his professional portfolio or show it without the distributor’s permission (e.g., at a film festival), he decided not to pursue it. The film meant more to him than any money he might have earned from its sale. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2010, 5:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dvd-screenshots-and-copyright-violations/548629/10 "2010-08-02T05:17:56Z")
The stuff about YouTube is belied by the fact that no other company works that way. There are companies out there that will not kill screenshots in a review. Heck, not even Wikipedia, who is obsessed with copyright, will do it. The thing is, Fair Use is very well laid out for even non lawyers. Parody, educational use, or review are perfectly well protected. But does YouTube care about that? No. If they get a takedown notice, it’s gone. And illegal takedown notices are sent all the time. What’s so frustrating about YouTube is that they are owned by Google. They can easily afford to go to court to establish a precedent, and get these other shitty companies off their backs. But, as you admit, it is not in their own best interests, just the interests of their customers. You know what being selfish to the point that it hurts others is called? It’s the very definition of what Google says they are not: EVIL. As for the guy who wants us not to use other people’s content: I’ll be sure to point that out the next time I see you quote anything. Hope you never use the quote button here. Or maybe it isn’t that easy. If it were, the law wouldn’t have a fair use exception. ---
**Author:** ![Arnold\_Winkelried](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Arnold\_Winkelried](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arnold_Winkelried)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2010, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dvd-screenshots-and-copyright-violations/548629/11 "2010-08-02T18:09:02Z")
> [@VernWinterbottom](#): > > It’s all well and good to say 1 single frame of a film is an insignificant percentage of the number of frames in the entire film. But it cost somebody millions of dollars to create that shot. > > A bottle of beer is an insignificant percentage of the inventory of a liquor store, too, but if you take it without permission, even if it’s to use in a classroom for educational purposes, you’re facing trouble. > > Use stuff that belongs to you. Don’t use stuff that doesn’t. It’s so simple. Just curious - if someone quotes directly a sentence out of a book, do you think it’s wrong? ---
**Author:** ![Arnold\_Winkelried](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Arnold\_Winkelried](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arnold_Winkelried)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2010, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dvd-screenshots-and-copyright-violations/548629/12 "2010-08-02T18:18:46Z")
To get back to my OP: From what I understand, reading the posts here, if I set up a website like this: version 1) List of Al Pacino’s movie gangster roles: Michael Corleone Sonny Wortzik Tony Montana Big Boy Caprice Carlito Brigante Benjamin Ruggiero etc… The text on the page says “I love these movies, here’s a list of Al Pacino’s various gangster roles, with a picture of him in each role” - plus short synopsis of the story of each movie. That would be a fan page, not allowed. If I set up a website like this: version 2) List of Al Pacino’s movie gangster roles: Michael Corleone Sonny Wortzik Tony Montana Big Boy Caprice Carlito Brigante Benjamin Ruggiero etc… The text on the page says “Here is a list of Al Pacino’s movie gangster roles, with a discussion of why some of the portrayals showed good acting craft, and in the others he didn’t perform the role well” - that would be a critique page, therefore OK to include screenshots of him in his various roles. Is that approximately right? Another example: My webpage says “I’ve read all the Harry Potter books and love the movies. Here are the actors playing Harry, Ron and Hermione: Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Gint, Emma Watson” plus a screenshot from one of the movies - that would not be legal use. ---
**Author:** ![VernWinterbottom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/c67d28/32.png) [@VernWinterbottom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VernWinterbottom)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2010, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dvd-screenshots-and-copyright-violations/548629/13 "2010-08-02T19:39:52Z")
> [@Arnold\_Winkelried](#): > > Just curious - if someone quotes directly a sentence out of a book, do you think it’s wrong? If proper credit is given, of course not. If you were trying to pass the thought off as your own, not so good. I may seem pissy, but much of what one finds online is, in fact, protected from unauthorized use by our copyright law. Protection against use without permission is why we have a copyright law. Someone created that work and the rights may belong to the creator or to someone who paid for the right to use it, either by paying for it as work for hire or by legitimately gaining the rights by agreement, inheritance, etc. It BELONGS to somebody. Just because it conveniently appears on your computer screen as a collection of electronically generated pixels in no way alters that fact. Would you print a book on movies and illustrate it with photos clipped from magazines or other books? ---
**Author:** ![VernWinterbottom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/c67d28/32.png) [@VernWinterbottom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VernWinterbottom)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2010, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dvd-screenshots-and-copyright-violations/548629/14 "2010-08-02T19:48:02Z")
> [@Superhal](#): > > Regarding the OP, the Copyright Act of 1976, of course, did not cover blogs. As soon as a work is created it is copyrighted by the creator or someone the creator is working for. It has nothing to do with the way a work is published or transmitted. Why would it not apply to blogs? ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2010, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dvd-screenshots-and-copyright-violations/548629/15 "2010-08-02T19:56:36Z")
> [@Arnold\_Winkelried](#): > > To get back to my OP: > From what I understand, reading the posts here, if I set up a website like this: > version 1) List of Al Pacino’s movie gangster roles: > Michael Corleone > Sonny Wortzik > Tony Montana > Big Boy Caprice > Carlito Brigante > Benjamin Ruggiero > etc.. > The text on the page says “I love these movies, here’s a list of Al Pacino’s various gangster roles, with a picture of him in each role” - plus short synopsis of the story of each movie. > > That would be a fan page, not allowed. > > If I set up a website like this: > version 2) List of Al Pacino’s movie gangster roles: > Michael Corleone > Sonny Wortzik > Tony Montana > Big Boy Caprice > Carlito Brigante > Benjamin Ruggiero > etc.. > The text on the page says “Here is a list of Al Pacino’s movie gangster roles, with a discussion of why some of the portrayals showed good acting craft, and in the others he didn’t perform the role well” - that would be a critique page, therefore OK to include screenshots of him in his various roles. > > Is that approximately right? > > Another example: > My webpage says “I’ve read all the Harry Potter books and love the movies. Here are the actors playing Harry, Ron and Hermione: Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Gint, Emma Watson” plus a screenshot from one of the movies - that would not be legal use. Both would probably be allowed. As would the third example. Am a lawyer BTW. ---
**Author:** ![Superhal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Superhal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superhal)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2010, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dvd-screenshots-and-copyright-violations/548629/16 "2010-08-03T01:04:31Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > Both would probably be allowed. As would the third example. > > Am a lawyer BTW. Although I would add that whether you are making a profit or not should be a consideration. JK Rowling was fine with fansites until one of them tried to publish “The Harry Potter Encyclopedia.” She she took them to court and won. ---
**Author:** ![Arnold\_Winkelried](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Arnold\_Winkelried](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arnold_Winkelried)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2010, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dvd-screenshots-and-copyright-violations/548629/17 "2010-08-03T13:59:00Z")
> [@VernWinterbottom](#): > > If proper credit is given, of course not. Then wouldn’t the same apply to a single scene from a movie? I’m not sure how I could pass that off as my own. I wouldn’t put up a screenshot from Gone With the Wind and say “this is a photo I took when I was in Atlanta”. > [@](#): > > Would you print a book on movies and illustrate it with photos clipped from magazines or other books? If I’m writing a book on movies, I’m not going to go make my own movie to include photos from it in a book. I would be writing about existing movies, and I would use photos from existing movies. AK84: Thank you for your response. ---
**Author:** ![Cliffy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/59ef9b/32.png) [@Cliffy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cliffy)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2010, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dvd-screenshots-and-copyright-violations/548629/18 "2010-08-03T16:14:34Z")
I agree with **AK84**. The thing about fair use is it is NOT, as you surmised in the OP, a way of saying “this is such a de minimis violation we’re not going to care.” Rather, it’s a way of saying “this is such a de minimis _copying_ that _it’s not a violation_.” Small pieces of a work can be fairly used even if they’re not in a formal critique. “Fan pages” are, typically, fine – if they’re using small pieces. A critique doesn’t necessarily have to be formal, professional, or even well written to still be critique. And while criticism is an important rationale for fair use, as noted above, it is not a necessary component for a use to be fair. Especially if the use isn’t generating revenue (but again, that’s not the be all and end all – movie review sites that show clips are doing so for commercial gain; their clips can still be fair use if it meets the rest of the test). As for **Vern** ’s admonition to only use stuff that belongs to you, I mostly agree as a matter of principle. There’s a lot of casual, illegal cpyright violation on the Internet, sure, and I agree that this is a bad thing. But that doesn’t mean that every partial copy of any protected work is an illegal copy; _fair use is the law_. A small copying that falls under fair use is not infringement, and it’s not illegal, and you shouldn’t feel that there’s anything wrong with doing it. –Cliffy P.S. This thread is a good example of what happens when people ask legal questions in GQ. ---
**Author:** ![Arnold\_Winkelried](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Arnold\_Winkelried](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arnold_Winkelried)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2010, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dvd-screenshots-and-copyright-violations/548629/19 "2010-08-03T17:51:37Z")
> [@Cliffy](#): > > The thing about fair use is it is NOT, as you surmised in the OP, a way of saying “this is such a de minimis violation we’re not going to care.” I wasn’t clear enough in my OP. I was trying to say “there are two ways to answer the question, what is legal and what you can get away with.” I’m interested in what is legal. > [@](#): > > Especially if the use isn’t generating revenue (but again, that’s not the be all and end all – movie review sites that show clips are doing so for commercial gain; their clips can still be fair use if it meets the rest of the test). In my case, my personal family website is not for profit (no Google ads, I’m not selling anything.) > [@](#): > > P.S. This thread is a good example of what happens when people ask legal questions in GQ. And what does happen? I don’t know if you mean 🙂 or ☹ or :mad: or :rolleyes: . ---
**Author:** ![VernWinterbottom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/c67d28/32.png) [@VernWinterbottom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VernWinterbottom)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2010, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dvd-screenshots-and-copyright-violations/548629/20 "2010-08-04T02:58:23Z")
> [@Arnold\_Winkelried](#): > > If I’m writing a book on movies, I’m not going to go make my own movie to include photos from it in a book. I would be writing about existing movies, and I would use photos from existing movies. And you will be seeking permission in writing from the owners of those photos and possibly paying for their use or else no commercial publisher in America is going to print your book. You seriously don’t know how this works? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dvd-screenshots-and-copyright-violations/548629.md?page=2)