New Category
klipper
29 May 2008 04:30
Its an unfortunate fact of our legal culture that sometimes its not a question of what's right or wrong, but whether someone will sue you or not. The simple act of bringing a suit can cripple the target in so many ways.
As a result, decision-making is guided by an assesment of 'exposure' risk - the likelihood of being sued - rather than whether its right or wrong. Everybody knows about liability insurance. But now companies have to have insurance just to cover legal costs. But this isn't a venue to have that debate.
Regarding Half-Life2: I seem to remember hearing that Half-Life's EULA (and presumably Half-Life2's) were far less draconian than most other games. Its entirely possible that you can, legally, use its engine to render scenes using your own art or art you have the right to use and then uses those scenes commercially. That could be what the Gary'sMod stuff is doing. Or it could be a special-case, where the machinimists negotiated their own deal.
I sound like a broken record: read the EULA. It's the legally binding agreement (read: contract) between you and the publisher of the game in question and defines the limits of what is and isn't permissible for you to do with your licensed software.
I haven't heard about what they did with 'Narc', but I'd put the odds of the producer's releasing the film without getting signed releases from those two people you describe as hovering perilously close to zero. I'd guess they shot first and asked questions later. That way they get the natural unselfconscious reaction, and afterwards ask them to sign the release. They might have had to try the stunt on several people before they found two who would sign.
I have worked extensively in television, I can assure you, producers take releases very seriously. Nothing goes on the air before its vetted by the legal department, who scan every frame for possible infringements. I imagine its very similar in the motion picture industry.
As a result, decision-making is guided by an assesment of 'exposure' risk - the likelihood of being sued - rather than whether its right or wrong. Everybody knows about liability insurance. But now companies have to have insurance just to cover legal costs. But this isn't a venue to have that debate.
Regarding Half-Life2: I seem to remember hearing that Half-Life's EULA (and presumably Half-Life2's) were far less draconian than most other games. Its entirely possible that you can, legally, use its engine to render scenes using your own art or art you have the right to use and then uses those scenes commercially. That could be what the Gary'sMod stuff is doing. Or it could be a special-case, where the machinimists negotiated their own deal.
I sound like a broken record: read the EULA. It's the legally binding agreement (read: contract) between you and the publisher of the game in question and defines the limits of what is and isn't permissible for you to do with your licensed software.
I haven't heard about what they did with 'Narc', but I'd put the odds of the producer's releasing the film without getting signed releases from those two people you describe as hovering perilously close to zero. I'd guess they shot first and asked questions later. That way they get the natural unselfconscious reaction, and afterwards ask them to sign the release. They might have had to try the stunt on several people before they found two who would sign.
I have worked extensively in television, I can assure you, producers take releases very seriously. Nothing goes on the air before its vetted by the legal department, who scan every frame for possible infringements. I imagine its very similar in the motion picture industry.
ironstrike
29 May 2008 23:13
Yeah I was reading about the show 'cops' and they said they get a release form from everyone whos face isn't blurred. Apparently when most people are told that they will be on TV, most of the suspects agree to sign the release lol! I guess they think its cool... I always wondered about the show cheaters, I bet they get them to sign the release through some machiavellian method.
but yeah... all of the indie people know make everyone sign a release even if you aren't on camera.
but yeah... all of the indie people know make everyone sign a release even if you aren't on camera.
klipper
30 May 2008 00:42
Or maybe not so machiavellian.... they probably just offered them some cash. That's the usual method.
One reality show pilot I've seen (it didn't get picked up) offered the butt of the joke $30,000 to sign a release. The problem was, the guy was a millionaire, and the damage to his image was WAY worse then $30K's worth. He turned it down. And so - no show! All the money spent on the pilot went down the tube.
One reality show pilot I've seen (it didn't get picked up) offered the butt of the joke $30,000 to sign a release. The problem was, the guy was a millionaire, and the damage to his image was WAY worse then $30K's worth. He turned it down. And so - no show! All the money spent on the pilot went down the tube.