# Screening a film for "criticism and review"
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screening-a-film-for-criticism-and-review/350542
**Category:** Factual Questions
**Created:** [March 30, 2006, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screening-a-film-for-criticism-and-review/350542 "2006-03-30T13:50:43Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@psychonaut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psychonaut)
#### Post date: [March 30, 2006, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screening-a-film-for-criticism-and-review/350542/1 "2006-03-30T13:50:43Z")
I’m interested in holding a free, public, educational meeting/lecture to screen a film and then critically discuss it. I am not interested in paying the copyright holders of the film for this privilege if it can be avoided.
On the one hand, most purchased and rented DVDs have a notice prohibiting public screenings. On the other hand, the copyright law of most jurisdictions says that anyone can reproduce a work, or sections thereof, for the purposes of “criticism and review”. I am personally aware of cases where critics have reproduced and republished entire poems and books, and are able to get away with it so long as their annotations/commentaries are thorough enough to justify it.
So my question is, does copyright law apply to screening films? That is, does screening a film constitute reproduction of a work? If so, I imagine the criticism/review exemption can be used to avoid paying licensing fees to the copyright owner. If not, on what legal basis are the copyright owners allowed to enjoin people from screening a legally rented or purchased DVD?
FWIW, my jurisdiction is England, but copyright law derives from international treaties and therefore tends to be similar all over the world.
---
### Author:  [@RealityChuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RealityChuck)
#### Post date: [March 30, 2006, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screening-a-film-for-criticism-and-review/350542/2 "2006-03-30T14:57:41Z")
It’s not a copyright issue, but it is a licensing issue.
The terms of license are on every DVD: for personal use only and public performances are prohibited. When you purchase or rent the DVD, you are agreeing to abide by this stipulation.
Since this isn’t a copy, copyright isn’t the issue, and even if it were, the fair use defense you are claiming only applies to _portions_ of the work, not the entire work. You could not reprint an entire book for the purposes of adding a critical essay afterwards (without permission); you can, however, quote from paragraphs in order to make your points without copyright concerns.
Similarly, showing small snippets of the DVD for critical discussion might fall under fair use, but showing the entire film definitely would not. If it could, any movie theater could run “critic’s night,” get one of their employees (or a volunteer!) to agree to talk about the film afterwards, and refuse to pay their licensing fees.
---
### Author:  [@Waenara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waenara)
#### Post date: [March 30, 2006, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screening-a-film-for-criticism-and-review/350542/3 "2006-03-30T20:27:59Z")
> [@RealityChuck](#):
>
> Similarly, showing small snippets of the DVD for critical discussion might fall under fair use, but showing the entire film definitely would not. If it could, any movie theater could run “critic’s night,” get one of their employees (or a volunteer!) to agree to talk about the film afterwards, and refuse to pay their licensing fees.
Your scenario sounds like the movie theatre would _charge_ people for the viewing, and then try to get out of the licensing fee.
If this screening is for critism/review and no admission/viewing fee is charged, would that be allowable? I’ve sometimes wondered if the “public performances prohibited” warning applies to free performances, or only if you’re trying to make money off of it.
---
### Author:  [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)
#### Post date: [March 30, 2006, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screening-a-film-for-criticism-and-review/350542/4 "2006-03-30T21:42:16Z")
Making or charging money is entirely irrelevant to copyright law, at least in the U.S. (Despite what **Psychonaut** says, the law varies considerably from country to country, especially with prohibitions.)
You cannot show a licensed film outside your house to a group of random viewers. Even if you do it for free, are a non-profit institution, or are making it available as a public service. The prohibition is as close to absolute as anything I know in copyright law.
[http://www.film-center.com/ppr.html](http://www.film-center.com/ppr.html)
> [@](#):
>
> What Are “Public Performances”?
>
> Suppose you invite a few personal friends over for dinner and a movie. You purchase or rent a copy of a movie from the local video store, and you view the film in your home that night. Have you violated the copyright law by illegally “publicly performing” the movie? Probably not.
>
> But suppose you took the same videocassette and showed it at a club or bar that you happen to manage. In this case you have infringed the copyright of the movie. Simply put: videocassettes obtained through a video store are not licensed for exhibition. Home video means just that: viewing of a movie at home by the family or close circle of friends.
>
> What the Law Says
>
> The Federal Copyright Act (Title 17 of the United States Code) governs how copyrighted materials, such as movies, may be used.
>
> Neither the rental nor purchase of a videocassette carries with it the right to show the tape outside of the home. No license is required to view a videotape inside the home by a family or social acquaintances, and home videocassettes may also be shown, without a license, in certain narrowly defined face-to-face teaching activities (Federal Copyright Act, Title 17, section 110).
>
> Taverns, restaurants, private clubs, prisons, lodges, factories, summer camps, public libraries, day-care facilities, parks and recreation departments, churches, and non-classroom use at schools and universities are all examples of situations where a public performance license must be obtained. This legal requirement applies regardless of whether an admission fee is charged, whether the institution or organization is commercial or non-profit, or whether a federal or state agency is involved.
---
### Author:  [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)
#### Post date: [March 30, 2006, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screening-a-film-for-criticism-and-review/350542/5 "2006-03-30T22:07:06Z")
> [@RealityChuck](#):
>
> It’s not a copyright issue, but it is a licensing issue.
>
> Since this isn’t a copy, copyright isn’t the issue, and even if it were, the fair use defense you are claiming only applies to _portions_ of the work, not the entire work. You could not reprint an entire book for the purposes of adding a critical essay afterwards (without permission); you can, however, quote from paragraphs in order to make your points without copyright concerns.
With all due respect, I disagree (or at least I want to clarify). The copyright holder has more rights than just copying. The exclusive rights in a copyrighted work include:
> [@](#):
>
> (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
> (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
> (3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
> (4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;
> (5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and
> (6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.
> **[17 U.S. Code § 106 - Exclusive rights in copyrighted works](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/106)**
Subsection (5) is the one that counts here. Even if the dvd you bought was silent on the subject, you couldn’t display the movie publicly. It is the lack of a license that matters here. Without the permission of the copyright holder, you just can’t show the film. To do so would probably be infringement. As **Exapno** ’s quote indicates, the exceptions to the rule are found here: [17 U.S. Code § 110 - Limitations on exclusive rights: Exemption of certain performances and displays | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute](http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000110----000-.html)
---
### Author:  [@psychonaut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psychonaut)
#### Post date: [March 31, 2006, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screening-a-film-for-criticism-and-review/350542/6 "2006-03-31T04:03:28Z")
> [@RealityChuck](#):
>
> Since this isn’t a copy, copyright isn’t the issue, and even if it were, the fair use defense you are claiming only applies to _portions_ of the work, not the entire work. You could not reprint an entire book for the purposes of adding a critical essay afterwards (without permission); you can, however, quote from paragraphs in order to make your points without copyright concerns.
This is not true. You can reprint as much of the work as is necessary for your criticism. It’s true that you cannot reprint a whole book if your criticism consists only of a relatively brief essay at the end, because in that case it was not necessary to reproduce the entire book; you could have instead just quoted or referred to the parts you were criticizing. However, I am aware of several cases where an entire document (in one case book-length) has been reprinted where the critic has made extensive marginal annotations on almost every single paragraph. It is clear that in such cases it is necessary to reproduce the entire work in order to review it.
Similarly, whether an oral discussion of a film requires the entire film to be reproduced depends on the discussion. If you are doing a shot-by-shot analysis, as many film critics and historians do, then clearly you need to show the entire film.
---
### Author:  [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)
#### Post date: [March 31, 2006, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screening-a-film-for-criticism-and-review/350542/7 "2006-03-31T04:40:05Z")
> [@psychonaut](#):
>
> However, I am aware of several cases where an entire document (in one case book-length) has been reprinted where the critic has made extensive marginal annotations on almost every single paragraph. It is clear that in such cases it is necessary to reproduce the entire work in order to review it.
I’m curious about these. Can you give the titles?
---
### Author:  [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)
#### Post date: [March 31, 2006, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screening-a-film-for-criticism-and-review/350542/8 "2006-03-31T05:00:36Z")
> [@psychonaut](#):
>
> This is not true. You can reprint as much of the work as is necessary for your criticism. It’s true that you cannot reprint a whole book if your criticism consists only of a relatively brief essay at the end, because in that case it was not necessary to reproduce the entire book; you could have instead just quoted or referred to the parts you were criticizing. However, I am aware of several cases where an entire document (in one case book-length) has been reprinted where the critic has made extensive marginal annotations on almost every single paragraph. It is clear that in such cases it is necessary to reproduce the entire work in order to review it.
>
> Similarly, whether an oral discussion of a film requires the entire film to be reproduced depends on the discussion. If you are doing a shot-by-shot analysis, as many film critics and historians do, then clearly you need to show the entire film.
Even if you can come up with the titles of such works, which both **Exapno** and I would love to see, it still wouldn’t prove that it is legal to do such a thing. What are you basing your opinion upon?
---
### Author:  [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)
#### Post date: [March 31, 2006, 5:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screening-a-film-for-criticism-and-review/350542/9 "2006-03-31T05:07:04Z")
> [@Exapno Mapcase](#):
>
> I’m curious about these. Can you give the titles?
I don’t know about the cases **psychonaut** is referring to, but there are cases that say wholesale copying is not necessarily fatal to a fair use defense. Courts say that such copying militates against a finding of fair use.
[http://www.utsystem.edu/ogc/intellectualProperty/l-respri.htm#tx2](http://www.utsystem.edu/ogc/intellectualProperty/l-respri.htm#tx2)
[http://fairuse.stanford.edu/primary\_materials/cases/c487F2d1345.html](http://fairuse.stanford.edu/primary_materials/cases/c487F2d1345.html)
> **[Copyright](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/copyright)**
> **[FindLaw's United States Ninth Circuit case and opinions.](https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1456066.html)**
>
> FindLaw's searchable database of United States Ninth Circuit decisions since
[http://www.techlawjournal.com/courts/freerep/19991108.htm](http://www.techlawjournal.com/courts/freerep/19991108.htm)
---
### Author:  [@psychonaut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psychonaut)
#### Post date: [March 31, 2006, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screening-a-film-for-criticism-and-review/350542/10 "2006-03-31T05:23:53Z")
> [@Exapno Mapcase](#):
>
> I’m curious about these. Can you give the titles?
Some works I’ve had in mind are Herbert Schildt’s _Annotated ANSI C Standard_, and Eric S. Raymond’s annotated Halloween Memos. In the former case, I’m not sure whether or not Schildt obtained permision to reproduce the work, but I suspect not, for several reasons:[ol]
[li]Schildt’s book is not published by ANSI or in conjunction with ANSI.[/li][li]Schildt’s annotated version sells for considerably less than the ANSI Standard itself. ANSI has probably lost untold thousands of dollars as a result of programmers buying Schildt’s book instead of the official standard.[/li][li]Schildt omits a few pages from the Standard, presumably because he had no annotations to make on those pages. If he had permission from ANSI to produce this edition, it’s unlikely he would have had to omit anything.[/li][li][Schildt’s annotations are widely considered misinformed, incorrect, nonsensical, and/or useless.](http://www.lysator.liu.se/c/schildt.html) It’s unlikely that ANSI, ordinarily sticklers for correctness, would have authorized this error-filled annotated edition.[/li][/ol]
In the latter case, Raymond’s review explicitly mentions that he has no permission from Microsoft to reproduce the memos, and that he does so only for the purposes of criticising and reviewing them point by point. That Microsoft has opted not to sue Raymond probably indicates that Microsoft accepts that Raymond’s use is allowed by copyright law, though alternatively it could simply be that they don’t care about the reproduction. Given Microsoft’s track record of hunting down and suing, prosecuting, or demanding license fees from those who produce or use unauthorized editions of their works, the latter case seems unlikely.
---
### Author:  [@psychonaut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psychonaut)
#### Post date: [March 31, 2006, 5:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screening-a-film-for-criticism-and-review/350542/11 "2006-03-31T05:44:12Z")
> [@samclem](#):
>
> Even if you can come up with the titles of such works, which both **Exapno** and I would love to see, it still wouldn’t prove that it is legal to do such a thing. What are you basing your opinion upon?
Copying a work, or any portion thereof, is legal insofar as that copy is made for the purpose of criticism and review. (See, for example, the [Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988](http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880048_en_4.htm#mdiv30).) In the absence of a specific statute (or precedent) prohibiting copying an _entire_ work, we must assume that it is legal.
Unfortunately, there is usually no statutory definition of fair use; this must be judged on a case-by-case basis. Thus if a copyright holder objects to a particular work of hers being copied in its entirety by a critic, then she must prove that it was not necessary for the critic to have reproduced the entire work in order to make his point, or alternatively, the critic must prove that it was necessary to reproduce the entire work in order to make his point (depending on with whom the statute says the burden of proof lies). In summary, a copyright holder cannot object to reproduction for criticism or review on the sole basis that it is the entire work rather than a portion being copied. Rather, she can object only on the basis that the work, or a portion thereof, is not being criticised at all.
---
### Author:  [@psychonaut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psychonaut)
#### Post date: [March 31, 2006, 5:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screening-a-film-for-criticism-and-review/350542/12 "2006-03-31T05:51:06Z")
I just found [a legal opinion from Lancaster University’s solicitors](http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fass/projects/stylistics/eversheds.doc) which cites a judge as follows (emphasis mine):
> [@](#):
>
> the extent of the dealing must be tied to the criticism or review being undertaken. Whether the amount taken was fair would depend therefore on the circumstances; **the critic is entitled to take sufficient material to make or support his criticism.** The test is objective. It is of course not the criticism which is tested for fairness, but the extent of copying, in all the circumstances, so as to illustrate or support the criticisms being made.
Unfortunately, the document doesn’t provide a reference, so I can’t verify the source and whether the judge said this in an official ruling. Nonetheless, the document as a whole deals with the criticism/review question in detail and provides references to many other sources.
---
### Author:  [@RealityChuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RealityChuck)
#### Post date: [March 31, 2006, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screening-a-film-for-criticism-and-review/350542/13 "2006-03-31T13:29:22Z")
> [@](#):
>
> In the latter case, Raymond’s review explicitly mentions that he has no permission from Microsoft to reproduce the memos, and that he does so only for the purposes of criticising and reviewing them point by point. That Microsoft has opted not to sue Raymond probably indicates that Microsoft accepts that Raymond’s use is allowed by copyright law, though alternatively it could simply be that they don’t care about the reproduction. Given Microsoft’s track record of hunting down and suing, prosecuting, or demanding license fees from those who produce or use unauthorized editions of their works, the latter case seems unlikely.
Speculation is proof of nothing. If Microsoft chooses not to sue, that’s their right, and until a court rules, it is not law. Microsoft probably just doesn’t want to give Raymond any publicity. But the fact that they haven’t does not prove that Raymond had the legal right to do what he did.
But, as I mentioned, the issue raised here isn’t copyright. It licensing. You are only allowed to show the film if you meet the conditions specified when you buy or rent it: no public performances. The purpose of the performance is not a factor (read the licensing statement in any DVD you have); by showing it in public, you are breaking the terms of your agreement and can be sued for doing so.
---
### Author:  [@psychonaut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psychonaut)
#### Post date: [March 31, 2006, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screening-a-film-for-criticism-and-review/350542/14 "2006-03-31T15:05:16Z")
> [@RealityChuck](#):
>
> Speculation is proof of nothing.
I never said it was. I spoke only of probabilities.
> [@](#):
>
> But, as I mentioned, the issue raised here isn’t copyright. It licensing. You are only allowed to show the film if you meet the conditions specified when you buy or rent it: no public performances. The purpose of the performance is not a factor (read the licensing statement in any DVD you have); by showing it in public, you are breaking the terms of your agreement and can be sued for doing so.
Really? Companies routinely add terms in license agreements which are legally unenforceable. I’ve seen license agreements which explicitly prohibit certain uses of the product, such as reverse-engineering and making backup copies, but the statute trumps the license. That is, in some jurisdictions there are certain statutory rights you can’t sign away, and I suspect that includes fair use rights. Otherwise, publishers would routinely distribute works with ridiculously restrictive stipulations, like “This work is licensed for your use on the condition that you do not reproduce any portion of it for the purposes of criticism or review, where such review contains, in the publisher’s sole opinion, any negative comments about the work”, or even “This work is licensed for your use on the condition that you do not publish a negative review of it, whether or not the review reproduces any excerpt of it.”
---
### Author:  [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)
#### Post date: [March 31, 2006, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screening-a-film-for-criticism-and-review/350542/15 "2006-03-31T15:30:58Z")
> [@psychonaut](#):
>
> Unfortunately, there is usually no statutory definition of fair use; this must be judged on a case-by-case basis. Thus if a copyright holder objects to a particular work of hers being copied in its entirety by a critic, then she must prove that it was not necessary for the critic to have reproduced the entire work in order to make his point, or alternatively, the critic must prove that it was necessary to reproduce the entire work in order to make his point (depending on with whom the statute says the burden of proof lies). In summary, a copyright holder cannot object to reproduction for criticism or review on the sole basis that it is the entire work rather than a portion being copied. Rather, she can object only on the basis that the work, or a portion thereof, is not being criticised at all.
This is plainly false.
“Definition” of fair use:
> [@](#):
>
> the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—
> (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
> (2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
> (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
> (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
> The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
> **[17 U.S. Code § 107 - Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107)**
Fair use is an affirmative defense. The defendant has the burden of proving that it applies.
> **[FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.](https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/510/569.html)**
>
> FindLaw's searchable database of United States Supreme Court decisions since
[http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/2nd/929341.html](http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/2nd/929341.html)
> **[Court of Appeal Decision](https://fairuse.stanford.edu/michigan/decision/)**
>
> RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 24ELECTRONIC CITATION: 1996 FED App. 0357P (6th Cir.) File Name: 96a0357p.06 No. 94-1778 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR ...
If you copy somebody’s work, they can sue you; even if you only copy some of it. If you want to argue fair use, you have to prove it. If you fail, you lose. As I pointed out earlier, cases say that copying an entire work is not necessarily fatal to a fair use defense, but it “militates against” such a finding. You will have to convince the court that the use is fair.
> [@RealityChuck](#):
>
> But, as I mentioned, the issue raised here isn’t copyright.
I’ve already cited a statute that says the opposite.
---
### Author:  [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)
#### Post date: [March 31, 2006, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screening-a-film-for-criticism-and-review/350542/16 "2006-03-31T16:02:15Z")
Talk to your local university’s media library. I believe they hold the proper licenses, or at least it was not unusual for our professors to screen selections straight from the library.
---
### Author:  [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)
#### Post date: [March 31, 2006, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screening-a-film-for-criticism-and-review/350542/17 "2006-03-31T17:18:19Z")
> [@even sven](#):
>
> Talk to your local university’s media library. I believe they hold the proper licenses, or at least it was not unusual for our professors to screen selections straight from the library.
This is the one exception to the law. Teachers can screen films _for their classes_. This is not the same thing as doing so outside the classroom for anybody who would like to partake.
---
### Author:  [@psychonaut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psychonaut)
#### Post date: [March 31, 2006, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screening-a-film-for-criticism-and-review/350542/18 "2006-03-31T18:09:24Z")
> [@Gfactor](#):
>
> This is plainly false.
>
> “Definition” of fair use:
I meant that there’s no definition of fair use in the statute that provides precise, objective criteria for all cases. For example, no statute says “Copying _x_ words from a book is fair use for the purposes of criticism, provided that the criticism is _y_ words in length.” Sorry for not being more clear. Your citation actually backs up my point that whether or not something is fair use often has to be decided on a case-by-case basis.
---
### Author:  [@psychonaut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psychonaut)
#### Post date: [March 31, 2006, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screening-a-film-for-criticism-and-review/350542/19 "2006-03-31T18:21:45Z")
> [@Exapno Mapcase](#):
>
> This is the one exception to the law. Teachers can screen films _for their classes_. This is not the same thing as doing so outside the classroom for anybody who would like to partake.
Teachers don’t have blanket permission to screen films for their classes—at least not in any jursdiction I’m aware of. They must satisfy fair use provisions of the copyright law, which normally looks at the purpose of the screening. If it’s for the purposes of study and research, or criticism and review, and no more of the film is shown than is necessary for that purpose, then it’s OK. If it’s just to entertain the students while the teacher marks papers, then it’s not.
Curtin University has an extensive [website dealing with Australian copyright law as it applies to copying and public performance of works for the purposes of teaching, study, research, criticism, and review](http://library.curtin.edu.au/copyright/).
---
### Author:  [@psychonaut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psychonaut)
#### Post date: [March 31, 2006, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screening-a-film-for-criticism-and-review/350542/20 "2006-03-31T18:26:07Z")
> [@even sven](#):
>
> Talk to your local university’s media library. I believe they hold the proper licenses, or at least it was not unusual for our professors to screen selections straight from the library.
All the DVDs I borrowed from my university’s library were the same versions as those offered for sale to the general public, and included the standard nag screens about unauthorized exhibition.
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/screening-a-film-for-criticism-and-review/350542.md?page=2)