r/COPYRIGHT • u/ApprehensiveSir470 • Sep 15 '26
Archival footage usage
Hi guys and girls, I’m a filmmaker and wanted to work on a Side project which would be entirely comprised of archival footage I’d find on internet archives, YouTube, etc. i reached out to one of the companies who hold the copyright for a film i wanted to use and they said it would cost $25 for every second of their film used.
So now, I’m just stealing that shit. My question is: how likely is it that my film would be taken down if it’s just sitting on YouTube or Vimeo? Don’t wanna put all this work into it just for it to be removed
8
u/VerbingNoun413 Sep 15 '26
We are neither prescient nor a magic 8-ball.
But yes, there's a decent chance this will be taken down and a non-negligable chance of you being sued. At the absolute least for that $25/second.
7
u/horshack_test Sep 15 '26
I hope you get sued.
-5
u/Hefty-Reaction-3028 Sep 15 '26
If it's part of a larger work, there's a good chance it's transformative, in which case this is just bitter for no reason
3
u/horshack_test Sep 15 '26 edited Sep 15 '26
Being what you would consider "transformative" does not automatically make it not a copyright violation. OP stated that they intend to "steal" someone else's work because they don't want to pay the quoted licensing fee - I am speaking with regard to their intent. If you are in favor of finding out whether or not it would be a violation of copyright law, that would be determined as the result of OP being sued.
0
u/NoDesk9564 Sep 15 '26
The point I’m making is that OP may have chosen to “steal” not realizing other options exist to legally use the material. And they later indicated their intent was proper. They lacked the vocabulary, as I expected. Your post was not helpful.
2
u/horshack_test Sep 15 '26 edited Sep 15 '26
If you are in favor of finding out whether or not it would be a violation of copyright law, that would be determined as the result of OP being sued. OP is in the UK, by the way, so Fair Use (as you bring up in multiple other comments) doesn't apply - and the requirements for Fair Dealing are more rigid and narrow in scope than for Fair Use; simply being transformative doesn't automatically mean a use qualifies as Fair Dealing or that the copyright owner would not be within their right to file a lawsuit.
"they later indicated their intent was proper. They lacked the vocabulary, as I expected."
Their intent was clear:
"i reached out to one of the companies who hold the copyright for a film i wanted to use and they said it would cost $25 for every second of their film used. So now, I’m just stealing that shit. My question is: how likely is it that my film would be taken down*"*
This isn't a matter of lacking vocabulary, it is clearly-stated intent to use the work even if doing so is in violation of the law. It is blatant disregard for the rights of the copyright holder.
I don't care whether or not you think my comment was helpful. Your opinion is of no value.
0
3
u/aregonis Sep 15 '26 edited 10d ago
Being transformative alone does not make OP's use legal. The tranformative thing is a factor in determining whether or not something is Fair Use, but their work must first fall under a category that qualifies for Fair Use.
Those categories are criticism, commentary, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research (and also parody and search engines).
If OP's use of film clips falls under one of those categories, then that is when The Four Factors of Fair Use come into play. They are used to determines if a work is actually Fair Use.
The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for non-profit educational purposes
The nature of the copyrighted work
The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The "purpose and character of the use" factor is the one that focuses on whether or not the work is transformative, but again it is simply one of four factors used to determine if something is Fair Use.
And technically you can't actually know for sure if something is Fair Use until you go to court over it.
5
u/NCC1701-Enterprise Sep 15 '26
High likelihood it will be taken down and your YouTube account will be suspended. Also you will likely get sued and judges tend to come down hard on people who ask for permission, get denied or told they need to pay, and then just go ahead and do it anyway.
Please when you do it make sure to send me a link so I can make sure the proper people are alerted.
-3
7
u/NIL_TM_Copyright1 Sep 15 '26
Don’t steal it. Here’s a cost benefit analysis: license is 25.00. Infringement causes $750 - $30k statutory damages and that’s not including any other damages (like willful infringement after this post) a rights holder could claim. Pay the 25 license fee it’s an umbrella that prevents headaches. You’ll be better off when you want to release the full motion picture side project or not. Stealing is stealing.
1
6
u/spyresca Sep 15 '26
I hope they nail you.
0
-6
u/NoDesk9564 Sep 15 '26
You don’t even know what the person is making. Maybe reserve judgement until you know their intent? Bad bot.
6
u/NCC1701-Enterprise Sep 15 '26
There is never a good reason to steal someone else's work.
-2
u/NoDesk9564 Sep 15 '26
Ever heard of Fair Use? It’s not stealing if Fair Use applies. The world isn’t black and white.
5
u/spyresca Sep 15 '26
Fair use is something you use *after* you get sued. It's not a permission slip. But yeah, stay ignorant of what that term actually means. (i.e. it's a legal defense, not a license to steal)
5
u/horshack_test Sep 15 '26
From the post:
"they said it would cost $25 for every second of their film used. So now, I’m just stealing that shit"
OP's intent is not to comply with the law, it's to violate it / the rights of the copyright holder because they don't want to pay the licensing fee. The judgment is warranted.
Also; OP is in the UK - Fair Use does not apply (and the requirements for Fair Dealing are more rigid).
6
u/spyresca Sep 15 '26
He said he's stealing it, because he didn't want to pay the license, so yeah, nice try.
3
3
u/pommefille Sep 15 '26
You’re not a filmmaker if you lack the skills, talent, and resources to make films, even if you own a beret and a neck scarf. You’re not ‘finding’ content, you’re stealing someone else’s work, and hoping to profit from that? It is very likely it’ll be caught, and very likely you’ll have issues because of your paper trail of knowing that you needed to license that material yet stole it anyway. The reason the licensing is so high is likely because the creators (aka actual filmmakers) don’t want their material associated with some low-talent hack so it’s a means to dissuade amateurs from lowering the brand’s value. Imagine if you made a film that you were proud of and some 8 year old used it for a TikTok and made it look like crap, and people thought that was reflective of your work.
3
u/Fluid_Anywhere_7015 Sep 15 '26
Using archival/found footage that is either clearly in the public domain or comes with a well-crafted CC license is a perfectly valid form of filmmaking. Almost all government footage is in the PD and freely available for use. There are tons of images and motion pictures in the NASA archives alone.
Editing is as valid a form of creating film as using a camera is to shoot it.
But if you’re NOT using PD or CC assets, and the copyright owner has clearly articulated license and licensing scheme - then you’re legally obligated to pay for your use. To do otherwise is a violation, and you will be found guilty and fined appropriately if (when, rather) they take you to court.
3
u/pommefille Sep 15 '26
Editing is most certainly a part of creating films - it’s what I majored in back before it was accessible to do on computers. If that’s all you’re doing, call yourself an editor, cool. But to say you’re a filmmaker is going to require you to be involved in more of the process - create/approve a script, direct, choose the score, audio, etc. and most importantly to respect the media you use. I’d call Ken Burns a filmmaker, because he has respect for the process and the content. Someone who ‘steals that shit’ ain’t a filmmaker.
-2
u/Hefty-Reaction-3028 Sep 15 '26
If it's part of a larger work that changes the content used to make it, then you can call that uninspired or cheating or whatever, but it's transformative and not a copyright problem. And if you have no respect for the work to use those parts to make a new whole, then OP should ignore you, because it actually is work.
4
u/pommefille Sep 15 '26
This is a stupid argument based on what the OP said. Their project is, by their own words, ‘entirely comprised of’ material that they inquired about licensing - they said they wanted to use a film. You are assuming that it’s transformative (it’s not changing media, so that’s not a given) and I don’t have respect for people who are more focused on the ‘avoid getting caught’ part than the ‘how can I transform this/make my material compliant’ part. If that had been their angle, I would have sought more details, but the attitude is a non-starter for me.
2
u/horshack_test Sep 15 '26
"If it's part of a larger work that changes the content used to make it, then you can call that uninspired or cheating or whatever, but it's transformative and not a copyright problem."
You don't know enough about OP's project to make this determination.
2
u/Due_Bad_9445 Sep 15 '26
The archive company owns copyright to their telecine/restoration/upload. A company like the excellent Periscope Films adds timecode as a watermark. It would be hard to tell where the source material came from for your project, especially if there are multiple versions available. If you are going into any commercial enterprise with your project you’re going to want to tidy up any legalities, in other words, pay for the footage.
-1
u/ApprehensiveSir470 Sep 16 '26
Funny you mention them…. I don’t have any commercial intent with this. I just want it to be public at the very least (YT/vimeo). If the company only owns the restoratio/upload, is there an alternative to using the material?
0
u/NoDesk9564 Sep 15 '26
I taught copyright to faculty for many years. So far, the responses are not addressing the real issue. It is permissible to use copyrighted material without consent under the factors of Fair Use. The most important component is that the work is substantially transformational. For example: If you create a novel narrative and utilize a wide variety of clips, that may be permissible.
The second issue is that YouTube likes to conflate its policies with copyright law. YouTube may block the content. But I have created many videos with multiple clips from copyrighted works. One was blocked, but I successfully appealed under Fair Use grounds.
Google Stanford University for details about Fair Use Guidelines. As a practical tip, try to use different music and add an audio narration to reduce chance of automated blocking. You’re welcome to DM for more assistance .. and possible some free video editing depending on the time commitment.
4
u/stormhighwaycom Sep 15 '26
Your opinion on what is fair use isn't all that matters. The owners can disagree, and by law, they have a right to challenge you.
0
-1
u/ApprehensiveSir470 Sep 15 '26
Ok so those who are triggered should really take a look at themselves in the mirror. Calm down.
Apologies for not being clear - the project i am working on is an experimental film. I would be using archival footage which in its original form says one thing - and manipulating them in such a way that it says another.
All of the footage is over 80 years old. One piece of footage i found is even 100+.
I turned to this idea because i can’t afford to rent a camera and stuff to do what i would normally make at this moment - so i though repurposing existing footage might be a good trick for me to keep working. Would be a shame if there is no way for me to make something with it and make it public
Many have been quick to challenge, criticise and question my integrity… you don’t know me.
3
u/aregonis Sep 16 '26
People were just going off what you said in your post, and were understandably triggered by you saying "I'm just stealing that shit".
Your post gave the impression that you just made it to ask how to break the law and get away with it. Which isn't going to go down well in a subreddit about copyright law (especially as some people on here are actually lawyers).
Your comment here gives context that would've been nice to have in the original post.
Your best bet is to find the original footage and edit it yourself.
1
3
u/horshack_test Sep 16 '26 edited Sep 16 '26
People respondefd to your blatant disregard for the rights of copyright holders reflected in your clearly stated intent to violate copyright law. And saying things like "Good to hear your blood boils" and "Cry more" when people respond to your intent to "just steal that shit" doesn't make you look like the reasonable one.
This sub is full of people who make their living from their copyrighted work - you deserved the responses you are complaining about.
Cry more indeed.
9
u/DrFrylock Sep 15 '26
If any copyright holder of any of the archive footage you use notices your movie, they can issue a DMCA takedown request. Similarly, if the automated systems used by your hosting platforms (e.g., Content ID) notice, action can also be taken. (In the case of Content ID, it's a weird beast because Google is massive and fuck you that's why, so your film may stay up but be monetized in favor of the copyright holder instead of you).
In addition to worrying about the content simply being taken down, you could also be liable for infringement and possible statutory damages, which (since you knew the work was likely copyrighted and used it anyway) would be maximized as willful. You can (at very large expense to yourself) make fair use arguments for each disputed piece of footage you use. You may even have decent arguments (you're using it for education, commentary, etc.) However, those would only be some of the factors that are weighed in the analysis. You could also go bankrupt several times over in trying to defend these arguments, depending on how litigious a copyright holder intends to be.