faustus@ygdrasil.Berkeley.EDU (Wayne A. Christopher) (11/17/90)
Rotoscoping is the practice of taking footage of live actors and using it as a guide for animated sequences. For example, one might analyse the walking movements of Marilyn Monroe and use it to guide a Jessica Rabbit type of character. (This is probably a more liberal usage of the term than usual.) What I'm curious about is the copyright status of the animated work. Can it be considered a derivative work of the original footage? Is there any legal precedent one way or another? Thanks, Wayne
gessel@carthage.cs.swarthmore.edu (Daniel Mark Gessel) (11/17/90)
In article <39626@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> faustus@ygdrasil.Berkeley.EDU (Wayne A. Christopher) writes:
Rotoscoping is the practice of taking footage of live actors and using
it as a guide for animated sequences. For example, one might analyse
the walking movements of Marilyn Monroe and use it to guide a Jessica
Rabbit type of character. (This is probably a more liberal usage of
the term than usual.) What I'm curious about is the copyright status
of the animated work. Can it be considered a derivative work of the
original footage? Is there any legal precedent one way or another?
Thanks,
Wayne
I expect it hasn't been decided. But most rotoscoping is done off of footage
that the animators shoot as part of production.
If you rotoscope off of somebody elses work, I would expect it would depend
on exactly how much you rip off. Doing a caricature of Marilyn Monroe is
not a violation (I wouldn't think) and you'd probably use old films as
reference, but If you trace it, I would expect trouble.
Dan
--
Daniel Mark Gessel Independent Software Consultant
Internet: gessel@cs.swarthmore.edu and Developer
My opinions are not necessarily representative of those of Swarthmore College.scott@bbxsda.UUCP (Scott Amspoker) (11/17/90)
In article <39626@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> faustus@ygdrasil.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (Wayne A. Christopher) writes: >Rotoscoping is the practice of taking footage of live actors and using >it as a guide for animated sequences. For example, one might analyse >the walking movements of Marilyn Monroe and use it to guide a Jessica >Rabbit type of character. (This is probably a more liberal usage of >the term than usual.) What I'm curious about is the copyright status >of the animated work. Can it be considered a derivative work of the >original footage? Is there any legal precedent one way or another? >Thanks, The only times I've seen rotoscoping used is where the original footage was shot for the sole purpose of creating the animation. Therefore, both the original footage and the animation belong to the same owner. Is there an example out there of somebody rotoscoping someone else's film? -- Scott Amspoker | Basis International, Albuquerque, NM | "I'm going out for a sandwich" (505) 345-5232 | - Ben unmvax.cs.unm.edu!bbx!bbxsda!scott |
marcc@yoyodyne.ncsa.uiuc.edu (Marc Cooper) (11/19/90)
In article <1363@bbxsda.UUCP> scott@bbxsda.UUCP (Scott Amspoker) writes: > >The only times I've seen rotoscoping used is where the original footage >was shot for the sole purpose of creating the animation. Therefore, >both the original footage and the animation belong to the same owner. >Is there an example out there of somebody rotoscoping someone else's film? > Look at some of Ralph Bakshi's work (most notably, _Wizards_ and _Lord of the Rings_). He uses posterized/rotoscoped clips from various movies including some WWII movie I can't place and Zulu Dawn... +-------------------------------------+---------------------------------------+ | "When the going gets weird, | Marc Cooper marcc@ncsa.uiuc.edu | | the weird turn pro." | | | | National Center for Supercomputing | | -Hunter S. Thompson | Applications | +-------------------------------------+---------------------------------------+ | The above opinoins are my own, and do not reflect those of NCSA. *Yawn* | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+