In article ,
_Unknown_Freelancer_ /dev/null wrote:
I note your opinion, but suspect it would simply be an excuse trotted
out by the media company. Might not stand up.
By 'media company' are you referring you 'broadcaster'??
No. The company who made the film in question. When doing so, they would
have made contracts with the actors, etc.
If so, imagine Disney vs ITV ....doubt the broadcaster would ignore it.
If not, then which do you refer to in the use of 'media company'?
See above to clarify your misapprehension.
I doubt we'll know one way or the other, though, as the large media
companies would simply ignore anyone not big enough to sue them.
That's probably the real root of any "impracticality" I suspect.
As Ive written before, no film channel, subscription service, by
whatever means, does anything with the end credits. ALL of them allow
the end credits to run in full, untouched.... because theyre a film
But would a 1-pixel 1-frame 'showing' be regarded in court as an actual
'showing of the credits'? You don't know the answer to that with any more
certainty than myself because it hasn't been tested. But it seems at least
likely they'd say it *wasn't* actually fulfiling the clear purpose of the
credits as indicated in the original contracts. Thus there will be some
minimum requirements in terms of scaling, speed, etc, if these depart from
the default size and speed.
Unless you, Jim, actually represent the actors guild, or Equity, then it
too is highly unlikely there will be any such court case this century.
Erm, I've already said I expect it is unlikely because those most affected
are least able to afford to go to court to seek a ruling. They lack the
cash, and would probably fear blacklisting. Understandable enough for
people faced with big aggressive companies who might also determine how
easily they can get any future employment.
As Ive already written, if there were, and the film producers/actors
won, then broadcasters would find some new means of screwing the film
industry over. Its a balance of power.
Again, I think I already accepted that.
But none of that changes my basic point above.
Thus, whats the point of any such court case. Leave it as is, then both
Not so. One party 'wins'. The others lack the cash and strength to argue.
That's common enough in UK situations.
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html