The gallery maker in that example reworked the content itself to turn it into something new (I'm talking the header here). So yes, secondary producer.Quote:
Originally Posted by basschick
Very true. But what about if I didn't touch the Picasso at all? Just like I wouldn't be touching the content.Quote:
Originally Posted by basschick
Not to be rude, but this is just beating a dead horse.
There is no room for "what-if''s" and hypotheticals. The new regs are here and whether they are being challeneged or not, we still have to abide by them until there is a final solution. Sitting here debating back and forth what constitutes who a producer is, etc. doen't do any good. The regs clearly state what a producer is and what a secondary producer is. There really is no room for debate amongst webmasters. That's what the lawyers are for and what they are doing to protect us. In the meantime, we need to have our shit together and ready to go in case little or no changes are made.
Rocky
Oh I pretty much agree. This is just for the sake of discussion. The only reason I brought it up is because they said distributors are exempt, but they did not give industry-specific examples of what a distributor was.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeachBoi_Rocky
http://www.fanartikel.de-a1.de/fanar...se_263x400.jpg
I could screen the Hollywood movie Striptease at a real theater. We'll assume for the sake of discussion that it's a sexually explicit movie, and maybe it really is.
Now as soon as I license that for an online theater, do I need to keep Demi Moore's drivers license on file? I am the secondary producer of a Hollywood film now, right? :wacko:
Oh hallelujah someone said it! You should go work for the DoJ because I don't think most of us are secondary producers. What a perfect analogy Matt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt 26z
dzinerbear