Back

Protecting Filmmakers’ Rights in the Digital Age

October 14, 2024

Created using canvas a person standing near weights with film and contract

By Shruti Vadada

Introduction

In an era where technology has blurred the lines between professional and amateur filmmaking, the digital age has redefined how stories are told and who gets to tell them. Platforms like Kickstarter and YouTube have democratized the filmmaking industry, allowing anyone with a camera and an idea to enter the spotlight. But with this newfound accessibility comes a myriad of legal questions: Who truly owns a film that was crowdfunded by thousands of anonymous backers? What happens when user-generated content crosses the line from homage to infringement?

The filmmaking landscape has undergone a dramatic transformation in recent years. Once the exclusive domain of major studios with deep pockets, the industry has opened up to a broader range of creators, thanks to the rise of crowdsourced content platforms. Since its inception in 2005, YouTube has become a global stage for everything from fan-made parodies to original content that rivals Hollywood productions. Also, Kickstarter is a crowdfunding platform home to music, film, theater, art, photography, and more, bringing “creative projects to life.” Today, Kickstarter campaigns fund films that might never have seen the light of day in the traditional studio system. The tools of the trade—cameras, editing software, even distribution channels—are more accessible than ever, allowing a new generation of filmmakers to bring their visions to life.

At the heart of this shift are crowdsourcing and user-generated content (UGC), two phenomena that have redefined what it means to create and share media in the 21st century. Crowdsourcing, exemplified by platforms like Kickstarter, allows filmmakers to bypass traditional funding routes by appealing directly to their audience for financial support. This model not only democratizes the funding process but also creates a sense of community and investment in the final product. User-generated content, meanwhile, flourishes on platforms like YouTube, where millions of users contribute to a vast, ever-expanding library of videos. From remixes to fan-made films, UGC has become a cornerstone of modern media, blurring the lines between creator and consumer.

However, the increased reliance on crowdsourcing and UGC has introduced significant challenges for filmmakers, particularly in the realm of intellectual property (IP) rights. As content creation and distribution become more democratized, filmmakers face the risk of losing creative control over their work and falling victim to copyright infringement. Protecting IP is no longer just a legal necessity—it is essential to safeguarding the creative and financial interests of filmmakers in this new digital landscape. How can filmmakers safeguard their rights and maintain control over their creative works in an increasingly democratized industry?

Legal Protections for Filmmakers

The three main legal considerations for filmmakers are copyright, trademark, and right of publicity. Copyright law is a fundamental pillar of intellectual property protection, offering creators the exclusive rights to control the use of their original works of authorship, including films, scripts, and music. Under U.S. law, copyright protection automatically attaches to an original work as soon as it is fixed in a tangible medium of expression. However, to fully enforce these rights, filmmakers are strongly encouraged to register their copyrights with the U.S. Copyright Office.[1] Registration not only serves as prima facie evidence of ownership in legal disputes but also enables the copyright holder to seek statutory damages and attorney’s fees in cases of infringement, making litigation more straightforward and cost-effective.[2] One of the primary dangers of crowdsourcing platforms like Kickstarter is the potential exposure of unprotected ideas, which could be copied or exploited by others. Filmmakers should ensure their works are registered for copyright before launching any crowdfunding campaign. This proactive step mitigates the risk of idea theft and reinforces the filmmaker’s legal standing should any disputes arise. Additionally, filmmakers should be cautious about disclosing too much detail about their projects on these platforms without securing the appropriate intellectual property protections. This can include filing a provisional patent for unique technologies used in production or registering copyrights for scripts and other creative elements before launching a crowdfunding campaign.[3]

YouTube’s Content ID system provides an automated way for filmmakers to manage and protect their content on the platform. When a video is uploaded to YouTube, the Content ID system scans it against a database of copyrighted material. If a match is found, the copyright owner can choose to block the video, monetize it by running ads, or track its viewership statistics. While Content ID can be an effective tool for protecting filmmakers from unauthorized use of their content, it is not without its limitations. False claims can arise when the system incorrectly identifies a match, and the sheer volume of content on YouTube makes comprehensive monitoring difficult. Filmmakers should be aware of these challenges and consider additional legal protections, such as direct copyright enforcement, which involves filing lawsuits or seeking injunctions to stop unauthorized use of their work when less formal takedown requests or cease-and-desist letters prove ineffective.[4]

Furthermore, trademarks are another critical aspect of intellectual property law that filmmakers should leverage to protect their brand identity. A trademark can encompass film titles, logos, and other branding elements that distinguish a filmmaker’s work from others.[5] By registering a trademark with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), filmmakers gain the exclusive right to use the mark in commerce and the ability to enforce this right against infringers. This protection is vital in a crowded marketplace where brand recognition can significantly impact a film’s success. For example, the producers of the Star Wars franchise have aggressively defended their trademarks against unauthorized uses, ensuring that the franchise’s branding remains intact and exclusive.[6] However, filmmakers must also be mindful of potential pitfalls, such as trademark dilution, which occurs when a mark’s distinctiveness is weakened, or unintentional infringement by fan-made content.[7] To avoid such issues, filmmakers should register their trademarks early and monitor fan creations to ensure they don’t unintentionally infringe on intellectual property.

Moreover, the right of publicity protects an individual’s name, likeness, or persona from being used without permission, particularly in commercial contexts like films and related merchandise. This right is especially important for filmmakers who feature real individuals in their work, as it ensures that these individuals retain control over how their identity is portrayed and used. Without proper clearance, filmmakers risk legal action from individuals whose rights of publicity have been violated.[8] In White v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Vanna White successfully sued Samsung for using a robot that resembled her in an advertisement, arguing that it violated her right to publicity.[9] To mitigate the risk of the right of publicity claims, filmmakers should always obtain releases and permissions from individuals featured in their films. These legal documents grant the filmmaker the right to use the person’s name, likeness, or other identifying characteristics in the film and any associated promotional materials. This practice is not only a legal safeguard but also a professional courtesy that respects the rights and contributions of the individuals involved in the filmmaking process.

Platforms and Legal Implications

Navigating digital platforms like YouTube and Kickstarter offers filmmakers unparalleled opportunities for exposure and monetization, but it also comes with complex legal implications. YouTube’s user agreements and terms of service significantly impact filmmakers’ rights, dictating how content can be used, shared, and monetized.[10] For instance, YouTube’s policy on copyright strikes allows rights holders to remove infringing content, but this system is not without its challenges.[11] Filmmakers can face false claims or wrongful takedowns, leading to disputes that may require legal intervention to resolve. The legal complexities of copyright enforcement on YouTube were highlighted in Garcia v. Google, where the Ninth Circuit dealt with a takedown request over a film clip, emphasizing the difficulty creators can face in controlling their work once uploaded to digital platforms. Ultimately, the court ruled against Garcia, stating that she did not hold a valid copyright claim over the brief appearance in the film.[12] Moreover, YouTube’s ad revenue model, which includes earnings from advertisements, Super Chat, and channel memberships, requires careful navigation. Filmmakers must understand how ad placements work and how revenue is shared between YouTube and creators to protect their financial interests and avoid disagreements over revenue distribution.[13]

Kickstarter, on the other hand, presents different legal challenges related to project ownership and IP. When filmmakers seek funding on Kickstarter, they must be aware that while they retain ownership of their project, they must also consider the rights of their backers. The platform’s policies stipulate that creators are responsible for fulfilling rewards and completing their projects as promised, which can lead to legal complications if disputes over ownership or creative control arise.[14] Protecting one’s IP before launching a campaign is vital, as cases of idea theft or infringement have occurred. Filmmakers can take preventative measures, such as utilizing non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) or provisional patents, to safeguard their creative work.[15]

Legal Challenges Specific to User-Generated Content

In the digital era, the proliferation of user-generated content (UGC) has presented significant legal challenges for filmmakers, particularly in the realms of copyright and intellectual property protection. For instance, legal disputes have arisen over fan-made content that incorporates clips or music from popular films. As UGC continues to evolve, filmmakers must navigate the complexities of the Fair Use Doctrine and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) to safeguard their creative works.

The Fair Use Doctrine plays a critical role as an affirmative defense in copyright infringement cases, allowing filmmakers or content creators to use copyrighted material under specific conditions without obtaining permission. However, it does not grant an automatic right to use such material but can be invoked as a defense when accused of infringement. This doctrine allows for limited use of copyrighted material for purposes such as criticism, commentary, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research.[16] However, the boundaries of fair use are often blurred, leading to legal disputes. A landmark case that helped define these boundaries is Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. (1994), where the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a commercial parody could qualify as fair use. This case set a precedent for the transformative use of copyrighted material, emphasizing that the purpose and character of the use—such as whether it adds new expression or meaning—are critical factors in determining fair use.[17]

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) provides filmmakers with a powerful tool to protect their work through takedown notices. Under the DMCA, copyright holders can request the removal of infringing content from digital platforms.[18] The process involves filing a takedown notice, which platforms like YouTube are required to act upon swiftly.[19] However, the DMCA process is not without challenges. Filmmakers must navigate the complexities of filing a DMCA notice, ensuring that all legal requirements are met to avoid rejection. Additionally, the rise of false DMCA claims has introduced a new set of challenges. There have been instances where individuals or companies have abused the DMCA to stifle competition or silence criticism, rather than to protect legitimate copyrights. Filmmakers who are victims of false DMCA claims may have legal recourse, but the process can be time-consuming and costly. For example, YouTube creators have faced copyright strikes and takedowns for using short clips of films, even when their use may qualify as fair use.[20] Conversely, some Kickstarter-funded films have encountered legal issues when backers or other third parties used the film’s intellectual property in ways not authorized by the creators, leading to disputes over ownership and profit-sharing.[21]

Conclusion

For filmmakers, the digital landscape presents both opportunities and challenges. To navigate these effectively, it is essential to establish clear contracts and agreements when using crowdsourced funding or distributing content on user-generated platforms. Protecting intellectual property (IP) through early copyright and trademark registration, alongside proactive legal strategies, can prevent disputes and safeguard creative works. Consulting with IP lawyers who understand the nuances of digital platforms is equally important, as they can offer guidance on licensing, monitoring content use, and addressing potential infringements. Filmmakers must remain vigilant and informed as they engage with platforms like YouTube and Kickstarter. By leveraging legal tools and resources, educating themselves on IP rights, and staying updated on technological and legislative changes, filmmakers can strike a balance between creative freedom and legal protection. As the digital landscape continues to evolve, a proactive approach to protecting rights will be key to sustaining a successful career in filmmaking.

Suggested Readings

About the Author

Shruti Vadada is an undergraduate senior at George Washington University, pursuing a double major in Public Affairs Philosophy and Business. Passionate about the intersection of law, media, and the arts, Shruti aspires to work in entertainment and art law. She has worked at the Vera Institute of Justice, the Business Council for International Understanding, and the KAW Project, advocating for minority rights and cultural diversity.

Bibliography:

  1. U.S. Copyright Office, Copyright Basics (2021), https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf. ↑
  2. U.S. Copyright Office, Registration of Copyright: Why Register a Copyright (2021), https://www.copyright.gov/registration/. ↑
  3. Christopher B. Seaman & Thuan Tran, Intellectual Property and Tabletop Games, Wash. & Lee Univ. Sch. L. Scholarly Commons (2023), https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1734&context=wlufac. ↑
  4. YouTube, How Content ID Works (2023), https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797370?hl=en. ↑
  5. U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, Trademark Basics (2021), https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/basics. ↑
  6. Intellectual Property Protection in the Star Wars Franchise, KASS International (Mar. 21, 2022), https://kass.com.my/articles/from-tatooine-to-naboo-intellectual-property-protection-in-the-star-wars-franchise/. ↑
  7. U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, Trademark, Patent, or Copyright? (2021), https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks-getting-started/trademark-basics/trademark-patent-or-copyright. ↑
  8. International Trademark Association, Right of Publicity, INTA (2024), https://www.inta.org/topics/right-of-publicity/. ↑
  9. White v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc., 971 F.2d 1395 (9th Cir. 1992), https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/971/1395/71823/ ↑
  10. YouTube, Terms of Service (2023), https://www.youtube.com/static?template=terms. ↑
  11. YouTube, Copyright Center (2023), https://www.youtube.com/intl/en_us/about/copyright/#support-and-troubleshooting. ↑
  12. Garcia v. Google, Inc., 786 F.3d 733 (9th Cir. 2015), https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/12-57302/12-57302-2014-02-26.html ↑
  13. YouTube, Monetization and Ad Revenue (2023), https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/1311392. ↑
  14. Kickstarter, Creator Handbook (2023), https://www.kickstarter.com/help/handbook. ↑
  15. U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, Provisional Application for Patent (2021), https://www.uspto.gov/patents/basics/types-patent-applications/provisional-application-patent. ↑
  16. U.S. Copyright Office, Fair Use (2023), https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/. ↑
  17. Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994), https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/510/569. ↑
  18. U.S. Copyright Office, The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (2023), https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf. ↑
  19. Electronic Frontier Foundation, Guide to YouTube Takedown Notices (2023), https://www.eff.org/issues/intellectual-property/guide-to-youtube-takedown-notices. ↑
  20. YouTube, Copyright Strikes (2023), https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2814000. ↑
  21. Kickstarter, Creator Handbook (2023), https://www.kickstarter.com/help/handbook ↑

 

Disclaimer: This article is for educational purposes only and is not meant to provide legal advice. Readers should not construe or rely on any comment or statement in this article as legal advice. For legal advice, readers should seek a consultation with an attorney.

Related Posts

Handover of antiquities to Italy, featuring several pieces seized from Shelby White’s collection. (source: Manhattan DA)

The Krater in Her Cupboard: Shelby White and the Grey Side of Private Antiquities Collections

October 27, 2023

Google book scanning: Cultural theft or freedom of information?

February 9, 2010

Art Law Visiting the Non-profit Side: On Qualifying for 501(c)(3) Status as an Arts Organization

May 27, 2014