"Fair use" for movie reviews?

[Beagle]

For one of my websites (noncommercial except for some affiliate links) I write movie commentaries, not on "just-released" movies but on ones already being sold on DVD. Of course, DVDs bring up the prospect of screencaptures from copyrighted movies. Sometimes a picture really can be worth 1000 words, especially for an audience that's as interested in movie-making details as mine is. (A specific use of lighting in one scene, a camera angle and how it relates to the actor's body posture in another...)

I know that in reviewing or commenting on a book, it's considered fair use to include short quotes from the book itself. But I've never seen this addressed regarding movies. If you're talking about, say, a two-hour film that's made up of maybe 35,000-40,000 frames, does fair use allow showing a small percentage of them when they're being specifically referred to in a commentary? And I guess that begs the question of what would be considered a "small percentage." This wouldn't include any audio or filmclips: just stills of specific frames. And there's no danger of it impacting sales of any of the DVDs, except for possibly causing a few more people to buy them.

Has this question ever been addressed?

[BigDave]

Yes, short clips and screen shots can be considered fair use for commentary or review.

That does not mean that they are always fair use for those purposes, nor does it mean that they will not try and sue you anyway.

You should find a good IP attorney and run the exact idea past him. then if any legal deparment tries any scare tactics, you send them to your attorney.

When you are a review site that takes advantage of fair use, you would be much better off if you already have a relationship with a lawyer than trying to find one later. They will do a much better job of defending their own opinion of whether it was fair use, instead of trying to defend your opinion of whether your action was fair use.

Or you could always try asking for permission to use certain shots. Sometimes you might be surprised how helpful publicity hungry companies can be.

[Beagle]

Thanks for the advice, BigDave. We've already had some permissions success with the company whose movies we review the most. So I think we'll try the same with other copyright holders as we expand. When it gets to dealing with individual movies held by smaller copyright holders, I'd expect it to get more cumbersome and slow things down, but probably worth it in the long run.

[Webwork]

Talk to a lawyer. You might have other unanticipated issues. For instance, if the image you choose is an actor's face, will you hear from the actor's lawyer or agency? There mere fact that an actor appeared in a film may not result in unrestricted rights to reproduce that image.

Talk to an experienced lawyer.

[Beagle]

Good point, Webwork. Thanks. I think that's even affected by some state laws. In California, an actor's face is considered "owned" by him or her, which affects people who want to make t-shirts, etc. I hadn't thought of that particular law involving film stills, but it almost certainly would, depending on what rights the actor assigns to the movie's copyright holder.

When the web's involved, along with variation among states' laws, that gets too complicated for the lay person (me). I don't live in California and just happen to know about that law from talking to a t-shirt manufacturer. I'm sure there are plenty that I don't know about.