Xref: utzoo comp.graphics:14471 misc.legal:22678
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!dali.cs.montana.edu!ogicse!unmvax!bbx!bbxsda!scott
From: scott@bbxsda.UUCP (Scott Amspoker)
Newsgroups: comp.graphics,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Copyright status of rotoscoping?
Message-ID: <1363@bbxsda.UUCP>
Date: 16 Nov 90 21:04:04 GMT
References: <39626@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Reply-To: scott@bbxsda.UUCP (Scott Amspoker)
Organization: Basis International,  Albuquerque, NM
Lines: 20

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   |