Prometheus Set & Location Pictures

[Deuterium]

The material being photographed is the property of another. This isn't the middle of a street, these photos are of intellectual / physical property. It makes sense. Fox owns the exclusive rights to all of it.

Are you saying, that when if I go to Disneyworld, and take a picture of Mickey Mouse or Donald Duck, posing with my family, that I am violating Copyright laws?  Certainly, Walt Disney Corp. owns the exclusive rights to MM and DD.

And as I stated in my post, if a film production is shooting on location (say a National Park), or some other public place, what exactly is their legal recourse to prevent me from photographing any of the actors, the sets, props, etc., while they are filming or displayed in public, and publishing them freely on the WWW?

I agree with you, that if all of these photos were taken on the physical site of the studios private property, then yes, they obviously have recourse to cite violations and infringements.  However, if some of these photos were taken with a telescopic lens, by a private individual who was standing outside of their property, then I think this is another matter entirely.

I am not trying to argue...I am simply questioning the validity of Fox's claims on Copyright infringement.  Again, I do not pretend to have the legal answer, I am just raising the question for discussion.

And yes, obviously any of the pics taken on an enclosed set (e.g. the pics of the urns and the sculpture of the face, etc.) must have been taken on the premises, with the implication it was either trespassing or illegaly obtained by the photographer.  But location set pics, or telescopic shots of a studios backlot (taken from outside the property) should be fair game.

[Glaive]

The material being photographed is the property of another. This isn't the middle of a street, these photos are of intellectual / physical property. It makes sense. Fox owns the exclusive rights to all of it.

It's also CHEAPER for a studio to have some no-name cinema guy from Podunk/No-Where give a DESCRIPTION of an alledged TRAILER, than have to actually PAY for the trailer to be made!! WHY did a VAGUE DESCRIPTION of a SO-CALLED TRAILER need to be pulled from so many sites? How can some RANDOM DUDE'S supposed viewing of a STRANGELY QUICK TURNAROUNDED TEASER be grounds for LEGAL ACTION???

...it AIN'T.

And THAT'S why Fox are the best of studios, and the worst of studios...

"Chariots of the Gods, man. They practically own South America. I mean, they taught the Incas everything they know."

[Vulhala]

Legal or not, if they tell us to take it down, we do it. What choice do we have?

[ikarop]

C&A desist orders are meant to scare people and news sites off. You rarely see anyone getting sued for posting cam recordings or leaked set photos. It's basically a legal tool used by studios to prevent further leaks more than anything. Which is completely understandable IMO.

[Deuterium]

Legal or not, if they tell us to take it down, we do it. What choice do we have?

No, I hear you, and completely understand.  I am not questioning your response to studio "pressure".  I would do the same.  I am just raising the question in a general sense, divorced from any specific action or case here on AvP forum.

[Glaive]

Legal or not, if they tell us to take it down, we do it. What choice do we have?

I can understand the pics...but the trailer description?
Even if the guy signed an NDA, it's HIS ass on the line, not yours.

It just sounds like a plant to create buzz, with the bare minimum of effort...and it works.

[Glaive]

...and for the record...
(and before my tin-foil hat falls off...(damn, WHY didn't I design in chin-straps?))
I am of the belief that 'Alien: Harvest' was purposefully leaked some time ago...and it WAS actually written by Jon Spaights, just to gauge the fans' reactions...

There will be 1.7 more...One between October and November, and one toward the beginning of March. Both will knit new images/videos to be leaked/legit over the following months...

It's what I would do.

[SM]

Erm filming practical and doing cgi prices work out the same in the end. If you want the level of realism you are discussing for a movie on this scale would be expensive. And would work out being the same price is they did it by practical sets. So that statement is invalid.

Yes cgi may be cheaper, but i don't think you've taken into account on what you get for that money. For a cheaper price you also get cheaper looking effects. For the best on screen appearance of a set your gonna have to build the sets. Otherwise you loose the sense of it being real, which in a film like this could be its downfall.

TBh it sounds like you basing you opinion on an area in film making you don't fully understand.

Cheap sets look just that too.

[SiL]

Good looking sets can be built cheaply.

Cheaply done CGI sets look like cheaply done CGI sets. Which can be fine if that's a look you're going for.

[Inner Jaw]

if you look at films like Star Wars Ep 1-3, you can really tell how authentic everything can look with modern computer tech.

Ash, I am blocking you. just kidding. I think the AVP fans that appreciate CGI over practical FX are younger in age and were raised on CGI. Just a theory. Older fans were raised on Ray Harryhousen and stop-motion and minatures, and I still prefer those. I hated those SW prequels as the CGI just felt like a video game. CGI never seems believable and to have real 'weight' if that makes sense. imo.

I would echo the sentiments of others here and imo say that physical sets and monsters, with CGI enhancements, beat pure CGI any day. I like the puppetry in Alien 3. The layered matte has been cleaned up in the new versions. You still get a sense of physical threat and danger when it is chasing the prisoners through the tunnels . The is something in the brain that just doesn't allow me to not believe CGI. Nature's physics and weight and movement cannot be duplicated exactly by CGI, no matter how hard they try. Physical anatomy and physics truth is stranger and more beautifully complicated than computer duplicated fiction. 

[NUB DESTROYER]

I'm all for progress even if it means shitty CGI, but so as long as programmers and animators are sincerely tryin'.

[SM]

The compositing of the Alien looked fake in1992 and still looks fake now.

Blanket statements about 'all CGI is crap and all practical effects are good' are beyond ignorant.

[Pn2501]

if you look at films like Star Wars Ep 1-3, you can really tell how authentic everything can look with modern computer tech.

Ash, I am blocking you. just kidding. I think the AVP fans that appreciate CGI over practical FX are younger in age and were raised on CGI. Just a theory. Older fans were raised on Ray Harryhousen and stop-motion and minatures, and I still prefer those. I hated those SW prequels as the CGI just felt like a video game. CGI never seems believable and to have real 'weight' if that makes sense. imo.

I put myself in the older fan catergory but it's not so
much the cgi in the prequels i have a problem with, just the characters, direction and overall story, I like pixar films typically and they are completely cgi.

[Ash 937]

if you look at films like Star Wars Ep 1-3, you can really tell how authentic everything can look with modern computer tech.

Ash, I am blocking you.

NOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooo!!!   

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tim5nU3DwIE#ws

[Deuterium]

While I am a big proponent of old-school, practical SFX, I do not dismiss the revolution that CG imagery has made to the art of cinema.  Unfortunately, it get's a bad rap for the large number of cases in which it is abused...usually with sub-par effects work done by second or third tier effects houses.  Even ILM has lost some of their edge, and have released numerous examples of less then stellar CGI work (most recent case that comes to mind is Indy 4).  Luckily, their heritage, as well as their ability to still knock one out of the parks, keeps them relevent.  Here, I am thinking about recent films such as Pirates 2 & 3 (especially effects with Bill Nighy character).  Nowadays, it seems that WETA's computer graphics division is the standard bearer, and has contributed to some of the very best, completely seemless CGI.  While I am not a big fan of Avatar, the effects are impressive.  And let's not forget their pioneering efforts with Gollum in LOTR, as well as subsequent evolution with King Kong and most recently Rise of the Planet of the Apes.  Finally, their are some other really good CGI houses doing remarkable work, such as Imagine Engine Inc. (District 9).

I think that when CGI works the best, it is when their is a blend and BALANCE between CGI and practical...and the best example I can think of is also the water-shed movie in which the effects still are amazing and completely convincing --> Jurrasic Park.