Oblivion = hit = Sci Fi + Tom Cruise

MichaelJames
MichaelJames Posts: 2,034 Enthusiast
I really like how this looks. I think a future tutorial or demo video should "borrow" some elements from this trailer. If this is going to get released in April and they start the major ad campaign in March... Well a couple well placed videos showing off hitfilm's abilities could steal the show. Like that flying vehicle opening fire on a massive assault on the earth and when the dust settles you see Hitfilm 2 scorched into the earth and then splice in the shot of top cruise looking up

http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/universal/oblivion/
«1

Comments

  • guitar74
    guitar74 Posts: 506
    Movie looks good, but can HF2u blend elements in like that movie did. That is what I want to see is a pro using HF2u, I mean a person that does big budget movies effects and etc all the time
  • Aculag
    Aculag Posts: 708 Just Starting Out
    edited December 2012
    Movie looks pretty interesting. Sci-fi with Tom Cruise is pretty much always a good time, but I guess we'll find out. It almost looks like a Chronicles of Riddick movie, which can be good or bad.
    I don't think using elements from this film in advertising for HitFilm would be very smart, though. Doing similar stuff for tutorials, absolutely, but using footage from the trailer at all would be pretty misleading, I think. Though, the latest trailer for HitFilm 2 shows that the crew has a pretty good grasp on intelligent marketing anyway, so they probably wouldn't need to try to emulate anything else to be effective.
  • guitar74
    guitar74 Posts: 506
    You have to have premission to use a trailer from a motion picture in a commerical. Now, is anyone good enough with HF2U that can make a landscape like in the movie Oblivionand put it on this site. I wondered, if HF2U is powerful enough to do that kind of work? I'm not good enough yet, maybe one day, but not today.
  • Aculag
    Aculag Posts: 708 Just Starting Out

    You have to have premission to use a trailer from a motion picture in a commerical.
    You've got to back this up with something. Even if a trailer itself isn't copyrighted, surely the footage within it is.
  • MichaelJames
    MichaelJames Posts: 2,034 Enthusiast
    @Aculag... I just learned about his in class. As long as you are taking work and making substantial changes which results in a different interpretation that does not take away from the original you can make a case that you created new work and it does not infringe on the original artists work. An example is

    A fair use argument can easily be made due to it be free and presenting a different meaning and interpretation then the original work. Hitfilm doing a original video using similar models to what was observed in the film should be fine. Plus there are tons of lawyers who handle consultation on this stuff for free.
  • MichaelJames
    MichaelJames Posts: 2,034 Enthusiast
    Its all personal taste. Im not talking about hitfilm doing a shot for shot trailer... but a demo that takes a current movie that's getting hyped and shows off its capabilities would attract a lot of people. Just like certain board members loved the firefly and the Babylon 5 teaser images before hitfilm 2 was released.
  • guitar74
    guitar74 Posts: 506

    @Aculag... I just learned about his in class. As long as you are taking work and making substantial changes which results in a different interpretation that does not take away from the original you can make a case that you created new work and it does not infringe on the original artists work. An example is

    A fair use argument can easily be made due to it be free and presenting a different meaning and interpretation then the original work. Hitfilm doing a original video using similar models to what was observed in the film should be fine. Plus there are tons of lawyers who handle consultation on this stuff for free.
    In your comment earlier, you said using the oblivion trailer. I doubt you remember this case, but there is a error in your class. Vanillia Ice, Rapper Hiphop music. He used the intro to a song from Queen called under pressure, they made a 1 note change. Mr. Ice had to pay the band queen a large sum of money over that. In music, you cannot exceed 4 bars or if so you have copyright violation. A movie or commerical, you better make everything different from the original movie or you can get sued. I have filled out a lot of copyright forms for people so I had to did in the law and info to get it done right. Renting or buying a movie, making a copy of it and giving it away, that is also Illegal, it infringes on the copyright law and yes, if someone wanted to turn people in or arrest them in doing that, they could, except most police officers are doing the same thing so they dont.
  • guitar74
    guitar74 Posts: 506

    You've got to back this up with something. Even if a trailer itself isn't copyrighted, surely the footage within it is.
    The copyright law at the us gov. A trailer dont have to be copyrighted itself. The material in the movie that is in the trailer is copyrighted which in turn the actual trailer is not copyrighted, the movie is so you cannot use that trailer in a commerical. Now if a person contacted say a studio and got sperical premission and they will want a fee, then after the paper work is signed you can use say that trailer. Like this, I put 30 seconds of my song that I wrote in a trailer and filmed a tree for 30 seconds. That does not give anyone the right to use my work without paying me. In a movie all those ships and the actor are copyrighted. Tom crusie dont want you to use his image for profit and he gets nothing. Would you want someone to take a ship you made a 3d model of and use it in a commerical for a product, that company makes billions dollars off of it, you get nothing. You would be made and your ship was copyrighted you could sue and get money or the commerical pulled and money. There is a very fine legal line when dealingwith movies. I saw a studio before get sued over a movie that was to simialiar to another movie and they won, so the studio lost had to pay up. If you understand some legal babble, the copyright law is for anyone to read, but it is long and confusing.
  • guitar74
    guitar74 Posts: 506
    Michael James that cartoon that people used a voice over the cartoon actors is a huge copyright violation. They are using Copyrighted Images for their own work. It is Illegal. Not sure what your professor told your class about copyright, but that is illegal for what they did. You would have to have premission to do that cartoon with different voices talking. It is in the copyright law.
  • Aculag
    Aculag Posts: 708 Just Starting Out
    edited December 2012
    Copyright stuff
    My apologies, when I initially read your post earlier, I thought you said "You have permission to use a trailer....", but you actually said, "You have to have permission..."
    I read your latest posts thinking, "Wait, so he's agreeing with me?" Haha, sorry about the confusion. It was late, and I was tired. I think we're all in total agreement here.
  • MichaelJames
    MichaelJames Posts: 2,034 Enthusiast
    @Guitar what has happened is a lot of companies will complain to youtube and they will remove content that does not violate the law. They figure you will not go through the hassle and challenge that you are not violating the law. Guitar you don't know what you are talking about when it comes to this stuff. There is a reason why that Disney content is on youtube and not even hidden.
    Here is an excerpt from the video below which you missed.
    This transformative remix work constitutes a fair-use of any copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US copyright law. "Right Wing Radio Duck" by Jonathan McIntosh is licensed under a Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 3.0 License - permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
    Now guitar after many debates with you Im sure youre going to make additional cases based on person experience instead of law. Here is from the US Federal government a site explaining Fair Use.
    http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
    More explaination with examples which may be relevant to you.
    http://www.videomaker.com/article/14261
    And good ol Wikipedia thrown in at the end. Yes it can be changed but that's why I started off with the most credible site and worked my way to moderately credible and then threw this in at the end.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
  • PhilWesson
    PhilWesson Posts: 241 Enthusiast
    I'm just jumping in here, but I agree with MichaelJames that using HF to learn to emulate effects that we see on trailers is perfectly fine. Ae.tutsplus.com does it all the time. The trailers and films we watch set a bar that we home to get close to, (and surpass in some cases).
    As far as the HF Team using it in their advertisements, I think they're already on the right track with what they're doing already.
  • MichaelJames
    MichaelJames Posts: 2,034 Enthusiast
    My main reason to suggest using it in their advertisements is to use the same energy and excitement that's already surrounding a film. When Avengers came out they did a superhero effect contest because there was a lot of hype around that movie. The advertisement would capitalize on the hype of non HF users and hopefully would draw people in.
  • guitar74
    guitar74 Posts: 506
    Michael James,
    That video of donald duck was not for education purposes. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work
    That line above is stating about the fair use act. A Copyright that no longer has a copy right can be used with the owner. A work that is talking about money and etc with donald duck running around is not education. We both know Wikipedia is not a good answer since they are not always right about things. Legally you cannot use that trailer for HF2U. See you throw me all of these off the wall things, but did you ever go and read the whole copyright laws at the gov site????????
    I'm not sure what . Ae.tutsplus.com is, but I'm sure they are breaking the law. So, you are telling me copying a movie and giving it away is not Illegal?? So, I can use one of your movie trailers for my own gain and you wont get mad????
    Like I said, songs you can use so many seconds, film-movie-etc, you can only use a few seconds of those, because it comes down to copyright laws, and HF2 is not for educational purposes. That video says non-commerical sharing, he shared it on youtube and youtube does show advertisments before some videos. The law and the fair use, that would not fall under. Go read the real copyright laws first. I know what I'm talking about. I respect the laws and dont violate a copyright. That is like me taking HF advertisment, putting a logo on the screen of mine, me talking. I think HF owners would be mad if I was out using it for my gain. You will do what you want, but in the end, the fair use act was mis-understood by you. You would be mad if I used one if your trailers, put a littl of my spice on there and used it for my gain in money, you would sue me and win.
    This is the site you need to read and understand.
    http://www.copyright.gov/title17/
  • MichaelJames
    MichaelJames Posts: 2,034 Enthusiast
    LOl read the article, do not skim.
    4 factors to be considered when determining fair use. here are 2 excepts which you need to keep in mind.
    1)including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for non profit educational purposes.
    2)The amount of substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole.
    There is a reason why southpark, simpsons, family guy and Saturday Night Live get away with basing things one people, products and copy written material.
    I didn't say copying a movie and giving it away is not illegal.
    When you are using someone elses work... if you cite them as the creator and do not make a profit its easy to make a fair use argument.
    You can misunderstand the laws and remain ignorant of the facts behind it, but from the site you presented here is the fair use section. http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html If you do not understand fair use and do not want to read up on it that's fine, but for the rest of us who are potentially making films, shorts, or projects which may use copy written material it would be in out best interests to know what we can and cannot use.
    Thank you for taking the time to engage me here on the forums, but I am no longer replying to you. Someone arguing using just opinion is very taxing. You are free to believe whatever you'd like and it is not my job to try to prove anything to you.
  • Har
    Har Posts: 401 Enthusiast
    edited December 2012

    Like I said, songs you can use so many seconds, film-movie-etc, you can only use a few seconds of those
    As far as the US LOC is concerned, in theory not really even that - the idea that there is a set "X" number or percentage of seconds/notes/amount of footage etc that you can always legally use safely is an old myth. There is no hard/fast defined allowed amount that's always OK to use freely, and is variable based on circumstance. See: http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html#howmuch
    [quote]"There are no legal rules permitting the use of a specific number of words, a certain number of musical notes, or percentage of a work. Whether a particular use qualifies as fair use depends on all the circumstances."[/quote]
    Further explained by an attorney specializing in Entertainment Law, Publishing and Writing Law, Copyrights at: http://www.ivanhoffman.com/fairusemusic.html ...which details an example of a legal action where 3 notes lasting just two seconds and was significantly altered from the original was found by the court to not fall under Fair Use:
    [quote]There is no fixed amount of permitted usage that is set forth in the fair use statute and the cases do not define any fixed amount of usage. For those who continue to believe in the absolutely false and incorrect belief that there is any fixed amount of usage that will be acceptable under the fair use doctrine .... a case from the Sixth Circuit should give you nightmares.[/quote]
    Attributing/citing the original creator or source doesn't necessarily make things a guaranteed clear safe shot either, per http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html (nor does slapping on a section 107 Fair Use notice after you've done it, followed by a CC license which only covers further use of the derivative work itself. Just because you're OK with someone copying your copy for non-comm use with attribution, doesn't mean the original copyright owners are gonna be thrilled with it too).
    It still remains up to the copyright owner as to whether or not to take legal action since they reserve the right to do so, and it comes down to whether it's worth the risk of your fair-user argument based on that if the owner does decide to legally pursue. Sometimes they won't...sometimes they will. It's ultimately up to the copyright owner to decide if it's worth it to them or not. Some copyright owners are happy for the extra publicity a derivative work might provide for them...sometimes they're not.
    [quote]The distinction between what is fair use and what is infringement in a particular case will not always be clear or easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.[/quote]
    Of course, the entire commercial use/non-commercial use factors come into play as well and are understandably significant...but is still a variable depending on who's works is being used and how they feel like dealing with it or not.
    Some artists/musicians/filmmakers will launch the barrage of lawyers on a whim for even seemingly innocuous non-commercial activities using their works (and keep in mind that the RIAA, SoundEx, ASCAP (which I'm a former member of), BMI, etc have been known to take legal action against everyone from children to grandparents primarily to muscle-flex and prove their point, just for sharing copywritten music for non-commercial personal use, let alone actually using the music for something. Similarly, ASCAP expects its members to do things like find and rat on small venues like coffee shops that aren't paying publishing-rights groups like themselves where live musicians might be performing cover versions of music they handle an annual fee - even if you're an ASCAP member playing your own music there...one of many reasons why I resigned from them. But publishing rights matters is a whole other ball of wax).
    Others might not mind or care at all, or don't feel that the legal firestorm required to address it is worth the time, lawyer fees and effort to pursue for something as relatively small-scale as their works showing up on someone's YouTube clip. In some cases with usage-tracking services like Rumblefish, they even recommend to artist-members that they actually encourage people to make fan-videos using their music and post them on YouTube, so they can then track the usage and try to engage ad-based monitization (Rumblefish and CDBaby have told me that in theory YouTube's tracking mechanism can determine the use of a member's audio track on someone's posted video with as little as 30 seconds worth of audio based on its sonic "fingerprint"...whether or not that figure is actually accurate or not is up for grabs) .
    Long story short (sorry for being so verbose :)) ): it's not something that can always be assumed is safe to use, all the time.
  • Har
    Har Posts: 401 Enthusiast
    But all that said and back on topic: yeah, "Oblivion" looks pretty damn cool! :)
  • MichaelJames
    MichaelJames Posts: 2,034 Enthusiast
    Har thank you, I can say I actually understood that.
  • Har
    Har Posts: 401 Enthusiast
    edited December 2012
    No problem! :)
    Understanding copyright can be pretty tough, especially with the huge amount of mis-information on the topic online, even from sources who should know better. For example, I know of an online music label that tells its members in its FAQ that registering copyrights for their music with the US LOC is a "waste of time and money" and instead recommends people use the old "poor man's copyright" method - i.e. seal your work in an envelope and then snail-mail it to yourself - which the LOC has stated again and again will not (and has not when attempted) hold up in a court of law if put to the test (though outside the US, it might depending on other country's own laws).
    My (kinda mundane ;)) day job has often in the past had me working directly with corporate legal counsel when overzealous Marketing execs insisted it was "OK to steal a paragraph or two" of copyrighted material from another website to put onto their own...luckily the lawyer was not only savvy enough to understand how badly that can (and does) go wrong, but gutsy enough to jump down the throats of C-level execs when they try to pull that kind of thing. :))
    At my last company I saw a copyright misunderstanding go horribly wrong when the owner made nothing more than a handshake agreement with a motion-graphics artist to use his videos on the company website as examples of what they can do (event/roadshow management). When they had a falling out and the designer had his lawyer send a cease-and-desist to pull down all copies of his video work from their webserver, the owner had me work with his lawyers to try to find a legal loophole...and I had to tell the guy the bad news that the company didn't have a leg to stand on after he said there was no written "work for hire" contracts with the artist, only a verbal "yeah, that'll be cool" agreement over the phone. D'oh! 8-|
    It definitely can be tricky stuff! I've always found the general rule of thumb for me to be: if you don't think you can afford the costs of legal fees if someone actually does decide to make an example of you, it's not worth it to roll them dice. :)
  • MichaelJames
    MichaelJames Posts: 2,034 Enthusiast
    I've been buying tons of film and producing books and was surprised when they mentioned that people use to try to use the poor man's technique.
  • Har
    Har Posts: 401 Enthusiast
    edited December 2012
    Yah, that one's been really entrenched for years. I was always amazed how many people really thought that was somehow a foolproof method just because it was postmarked with a date (here's LOC's official take on it, BTW: http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#poorman). @-)
    My sister (who's a writer) had told me about it years ago when she was working on a book, and the look on her face was really funny when I just said "OK, so you do understand that someone could just steam open that supposedly 'permanently sealed' envelope and then glue it shut again after they screwed with it, right?" :))
  • AxelWilkinson
    AxelWilkinson Posts: 5,259 Staff
    edited December 2012
    Thanks for those posts, Har, that's great information. Very useful. However...
    copywritten music
    Y ou mean copyrighted music. The root word is "right", not "write", and copyrighting has nothing to do with writing, but rather with establishing who has the rights to make copies. Sorry, that's just a pet peeve of mine.
  • Har
    Har Posts: 401 Enthusiast
    edited December 2012
    Yah, my bad...that's what I get for splitting my brain in half and trying to write posts while still at work; the spelling sometimes goes out the window. :))
    (ironically, that kind of thing is a pet peeve of mine as well - many of my friends refer to me as "The Grammar/Spelling Nazi"...)
  • Andrew
    Andrew Posts: 379 Enthusiast
    I don't understand this place at all anymore.
    Why on earth are you guys arguing the semantics of copyright code in a thread about an awesome new trailer for Oblivion? Why would or should you care how- if at all- that related to Hitfilm 2- and why would that even be a conversation worth entertaining if it hasn't even been addressed by a member of the staff?
    Come on, now.
    In other news, this looks awesome. Lots of well-edited, great trailers the past few days. Very excited for the industry in-general because of all of it.
  • AxelWilkinson
    AxelWilkinson Posts: 5,259 Staff
    The original post was discussing the possibility of 'borrowing' elements from this trailer for Hitfilm tutorials, Andrew, which is where the copyright discussion came from. It is on-topic, though I agree that the trailer itself is a much more interesting and exciting topic for discussion. This looks really good, and hits a terrific balance of forcing me to wonder what exactly is going on, and getting me excited to find out, when the film is released.
  • Har
    Har Posts: 401 Enthusiast
    edited December 2012
    Agree - back on topic! The trailer really does look great. I'm not a huge Tom Cruise fan for the most part myself, but I like what I'm seeing here so far a lot.
  • MichaelJames
    MichaelJames Posts: 2,034 Enthusiast
    Lol @ Andrew... hey it happens.
    I just think some cool vfx demos timed well would make use of pre payed for advertisement would be good. People always like visually stunning displays, and hitfilm 2 is powerful. I want vfx studios and consumers to just marvel at Hitfilm. Some highly detailed models + Hitfilm 2 = Global domination.
    I know they are busy at fxhome and I just make it sound like they can do that this stuff tomorrow. I just want FX home to have everyones money, and Hitfilm 2 to gain wide acceptance.
  • guitar74
    guitar74 Posts: 506

    As far as the US LOC is concerned, in theory not really even that - the idea that there is a set "X" number or percentage of seconds/notes/amount of footage etc that you can always legally use safely is an old myth. There is no hard/fast defined allowed amount that's always OK to use freely, and is variable based on circumstance. See: http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html#howmuch

    Further explained by an attorney specializing in Entertainment Law, Publishing and Writing Law, Copyrights at: http://www.ivanhoffman.com/fairusemusic.html ...which details an example of a legal action where 3 notes lasting just two seconds and was significantly altered from the original was found by the court to not fall under Fair Use:

    Attributing/citing the original creator or source doesn't necessarily make things a guaranteed clear safe shot either, per http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html (nor does slapping on a section 107 Fair Use notice after you've done it, followed by a CC license which only covers further use of the derivative work itself. Just because you're OK with someone copying your copy for non-comm use with attribution, doesn't mean the original copyright owners are gonna be thrilled with it too).
    It still remains up to the copyright owner as to whether or not to take legal action since they reserve the right to do so, and it comes down to whether it's worth the risk of your fair-user argument based on that if the owner does decide to legally pursue. Sometimes they won't...sometimes they will. It's ultimately up to the copyright owner to decide if it's worth it to them or not. Some copyright owners are happy for the extra publicity a derivative work might provide for them...sometimes they're not.

    Of course, the entire commercial use/non-commercial use factors come into play as well and are understandably significant...but is still a variable depending on who's works is being used and how they feel like dealing with it or not.
    Some artists/musicians/filmmakers will launch the barrage of lawyers on a whim for even seemingly innocuous non-commercial activities using their works (and keep in mind that the RIAA, SoundEx, ASCAP (which I'm a former member of), BMI, etc have been known to take legal action against everyone from children to grandparents primarily to muscle-flex and prove their point, just for sharing copywritten music for non-commercial personal use, let alone actually using the music for something. Similarly, ASCAP expects its members to do things like find and rat on small venues like coffee shops that aren't paying publishing-rights groups like themselves where live musicians might be performing cover versions of music they handle an annual fee - even if you're an ASCAP member playing your own music there...one of many reasons why I resigned from them. But publishing rights matters is a whole other ball of wax).
    Others might not mind or care at all, or don't feel that the legal firestorm required to address it is worth the time, lawyer fees and effort to pursue for something as relatively small-scale as their works showing up on someone's YouTube clip. In some cases with usage-tracking services like Rumblefish, they even recommend to artist-members that they actually encourage people to make fan-videos using their music and post them on YouTube, so they can then track the usage and try to engage ad-based monitization (Rumblefish and CDBaby have told me that in theory YouTube's tracking mechanism can determine the use of a member's audio track on someone's posted video with as little as 30 seconds worth of audio based on its sonic "fingerprint"...whether or not that figure is actually accurate or not is up for grabs) .
    Long story short (sorry for being so verbose :)) ): it's not something that can always be assumed is safe to use, all the time.
    Music you legally play is I think around 4 bars which can be a few seconds, not sure the actual amount since I never needed it, video same way. I know that tv shows and news shows can only play a few second seg then they have to apy for it.
  • guitar74
    guitar74 Posts: 506
    edited December 2012

    LOl read the article, do not skim.
    4 factors to be considered when determining fair use. here are 2 excepts which you need to keep in mind.
    1)including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for non profit educational purposes.
    2)The amount of substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole.
    There is a reason why southpark, simpsons, family guy and Saturday Night Live get away with basing things one people, products and copy written material.
    I didn't say copying a movie and giving it away is not illegal.
    When you are using someone elses work... if you cite them as the creator and do not make a profit its easy to make a fair use argument.
    You can misunderstand the laws and remain ignorant of the facts behind it, but from the site you presented here is the fair use section. http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html If you do not understand fair use and do not want to read up on it that's fine, but for the rest of us who are potentially making films, shorts, or projects which may use copy written material it would be in out best interests to know what we can and cannot use.
    Thank you for taking the time to engage me here on the forums, but I am no longer replying to you. Someone arguing using just opinion is very taxing. You are free to believe whatever you'd like and it is not my job to try to prove anything to you.
    Last time I mention this, Har said it best, It is up to the Person or company that owns the copyright if they want to take legal action. I read the fair use act and I could bend a lot of copyrighted things in my mind to say it is fair use, but Har said it best, It is up to the copyright owner. I'm not ignorant of the facts, you should not say that to me either. For the people making shorts and etc, I encourage you and others to do your own work without having to deal with fair act or other peoples work. I write music and I never used any ideas from actual melody, chords, lyrics.
    I know what I believe is right, it is, that is the fact. You did not agree with me, is fine, but never call me ignorant again!
  • guitar74
    guitar74 Posts: 506
    For the record movie trailer looks great and a original idea from what I can tell.