Copyright Questions: Movie Characters and Quotes used in Songs

[will]

Some interesting copyright discussions have taken place here. I hope this is another one. Law experts/enthusiasts/anyone please chime in!

Let's say I have created a pop song and accompanying video clip called “The Terminator Song” - inspired by James Cameron's “Terminator” franchise.

Is copyright being infringed in 1., 2., 3., 4.or 5.?
If so, what could be changed at each number so it does not break copyright?

1. The song is called “The Terminator Song”.
2. The song has lyrics that describe the plot of “The Terminator” and specifically refers to characters/concepts from the film (such as Sarah Connor, Cyberdyne Systems etc.)
3. The song uses direct quotes from the film as lyrics (with sung lines of “I'll be back” and “Hasta la Vista, Baby!”)
4. The video clip recreates scenes/characters from the film. The locations and characters are made to look the same as they do in the films.
5. The opening of the video clip uses the same style of titles, text and imagery as “The Terminator” opening sequence, however the actual words have been changed.

Any advice would be super.

Thanks,
(currently researching parody law) Will.

[ahinton]

Some interesting copyright discussions have taken place here. I hope this is another one. Law experts/enthusiasts/anyone please chime in!

Let's say I have created a pop song and accompanying video clip called “The Terminator Song” - inspired by James Cameron's “Terminator” franchise.

Is copyright being infringed in 1., 2., 3., 4.or 5. below?
If so, what could be changed at each number so it does not break copyright?

1. The song is called “The Terminator Song”.
2. The song has lyrics that describe the plot of “The Terminator” and specifically refers to characters/concepts from the film (such as Sarah Connor, Cyberdyne Systems etc.)
3. The song uses direct quotes from the film as lyrics (with sung lines of “I'll be back” and “Hasta la Vista, Baby!”)
4. The video clip recreates scenes/characters from the film. The locations and characters are made to look the same as they do in the films.
5. The opening of the video clip uses the same style of titles, text and imagery as “The Terminator” opening sequence, however the actual words have been changed.

Any advice would be super.

Thanks,
(currently researching parody law) Will.

There's only one sensible piece of advice to be offered here, especially in the absence of the actual material that you propose - and that would be to contact the copyright holders to ask all necessary questions (supported by evidence in the form of a copy of your material), to seek independent legal advice from a firm of specialist intellectual property lawyers and then to make an intelligent decision based upon the outcome of these approaches; some of what you write above looks as though you could otherwise risk getting yourself into some trouble if you were to publish / distribute it as set out by you here.

Best,

Alistair

[will]

Thanks for the quick response, though I was hoping you could entertain the hypothetical a little more (I did try to be quite specific)

It is near impossible for me to contact the copyright holders.

Thanks again,
Will

[Bob]

If it's based on something it's a derivative work.  The copyright owner controls derivative works.

Parodies are completely open though.  You can mock anything anything you want without breaking copyright.

Although copyright is always a grey area.  Someone can always claim you used the heart of their work or deprived them of money somehow and sue.

The copyright owners for Terminator would be easy to contact.  They probably just won't bother to reply.  In that case, you're stuck if you want to be legal.

[ahinton]

Thanks for the quick response, though I was hoping you could entertain the hypothetical a little more (I did try to be quite specific)

I understand that, but the reason why I fell short of doing so is that (a) I've not seen exactly what would be the results of your proposal (as any copyright holders and intellectual property rights specialist lawyers would have to do in order to formulate a considered response) and (b) your points 1. - 5. added together did make it appear on the face of it thst you might run into problems were you to proceed without making the most appropriate approaches in advance.

That said, I'll try to provide more detail as best I am able, as you ask. You wrote
Let's say I have created a pop song and accompanying video clip called “The Terminator Song” - inspired by James Cameron's “Terminator” franchise.

Is copyright being infringed in 1., 2., 3., 4.or 5. below?
If so, what could be changed at each number so it does not break copyright?

1. The song is called “The Terminator Song”.[/quote]
I imagine that it's unlikely that you could have action taken against you just for that, since it is not usually possible to assert intellectual rights over words that are well established in the English language

2. The song has lyrics that describe the plot of “The Terminator” and specifically refers to characters/concepts from the film (such as Sarah Connor, Cyberdyne Systems etc.)

You could fnd yourself on less steady ground here if you are trying to pass off your end product as being exclusively your own work; whilst you might be able to get away with such references (and I stress "might"), you might also be obliged to provide due credit to those sources that are not solely your own.

3. The song uses direct quotes from the film as lyrics (with sung lines of “I'll be back” and “Hasta la Vista, Baby!”)

Much here would depend upon the extent to which you quote; it is usual, for example, to be able to quote from other people's published work provided that you make due credit to the originators thereof, as long as you do not exceed a reasonable proportion of the whole; you could therefore be on dangerous ground here.

4. The video clip recreates scenes/characters from the film. The locations and characters are made to look the same as they do in the films.

This looks to be the closest to rampant plagiarism and you would almost certainly fall foul of copyright infringement should you seek to pass this off as your own work.

5. The opening of the video clip uses the same style of titles, text and imagery as “The Terminator” opening sequence, however the actual words have been changed.

Again, very risky territory.

There's a fine line to be drawn between outright copyright theft and use without copyright owners' prior written permission and compliance with any formal legal agreement to which such copyright holders might have the right to demand of you by law.

Why do you write "It is near impossible for me to contact the copyright holders"? That should be easy under the circumstances and, if in doubt, your best option is to contqact the copyright royalty collection and distribution organisation in your contry for this information (i.e. GEMA in Germany, ASCAP in US, PRS/MCPS in UK, etc.)

I am also puzzled as to what your motives might be in doing this if you were indeed intending to proceed with it; clearly, you intend to make very obvious and copious references to someone else's visual, verbal and musical material and so any attempts to pass the end results off as your own work would be open to all manner of challenge.

Finally, seeking specialist legal advice can prove very costly; you'd therefore be far better advised first to ascertainwho owns the rights in what aspects of the work to which you propose to refer and then submit to them a detailed written proposal in order to find out what kind of response you would expect to receive and figure out how best to act in accordance with such a response.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

The copyright owners for Terminator would be easy to contact.  They probably just won't bother to reply.  In that case, you're stuck if you want to be legal.

The first and perhaps also the second part of this are correct but the third is not necessarily so; provided that sufficient evidence can be shown that correct and comprehensive bona fide approaches in writing to the correct people/organisations have been made in advance (by which I mean evidence sufficiently watertight to stand up in court) and that no written responses have been forthcoming within a reasonable timescale, it might wee be determined that, even if copyright may in principle have been breached, the copyright infringer's legal defence is sufficient; if the defendant is a private individual and the copyright holder is a large organiszation, however, the utmost wariness and the most adept copyright lawyers would be needed in order to stand a chance of getting away with this!

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Captain Copyright strikes again.

Thal

[ahinton]

Captain Copyright strikes again.

In copyright there are no captains. Anyway, might you care to give the instigator of this thread the benefit of your wisdom on the subject rather than merely invoking rank?

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Anyway, might you care to give the instigator of this thread the benefit of your wisdom on the subject rather than merely invoking rank?

No, I am simply not in your "league".

Thal

[j_menz]

The first and perhaps also the second part of this are correct but the third is not necessarily so; provided that sufficient evidence can be shown that correct and comprehensive bona fide approaches in writing to the correct people/organisations have been made in advance (by which I mean evidence sufficiently watertight to stand up in court) and that no written responses have been forthcoming within a reasonable timescale, it might wee be determined that, even if copyright may in principle have been breached, the copyright infringer's legal defence is sufficient; if the defendant is a private individual and the copyright holder is a large organiszation, however, the utmost wariness and the most adept copyright lawyers would be needed in order to stand a chance of getting away with this!

The copyright infringer's bona fides are not relevant in determining any liability.  The owner of a copyright does not have to respond to any request, and it's failure to do so does not in any way restrict it's rights.

As regards the OP question, what is proposed looks like it would be an infringement of copyright.  The individual parts of the question are in a sense not relevant as it is the overall effect that is at issue.  If it is clearly a parody of the material, you should be OK, but if it's a straight treatment then no way!  Of course, all of this assumes to an extent that the song/video is to be a public/commercial release. The original post does not make it clear that this is the case.

PS - I am a qualified lawyer who worked for quite some years in the area of intellectual property.  My comments relate specifically to the law of copyright in Australia, but I do not believe that you would find material differences in most jurisdictions.

[will]

So many quality replies, thanks everyone
Will respond soon.

Regards,
Will.

[will]

I am also puzzled as to what your motives might be in doing this

if it's a straight treatment then no way!

I should have said this from the start
I would call the work a parody. Ideally, “The Terminator Song” would be a public/commercial release.
It is intended to be humorous. The quality of the film and the actual scene content should make it obvious that “The Terminator Song” is a send-up of “The Terminator” and that they are produced by different people.
Some scenes/characters look the same but, for the most part, it should still be obviously different. For example, the Terminator normally rides a motorbike and is a serious character.
In “The Terminator Song” the character rides a glittery kick scooter and does the moonwalk.....

1. Would adding a disclaimer, stating the work is not endorsed or affiliated by/to James Cameron's “The Terminator”, help/hinder possible copyright issues?

Much here would depend upon the extent to which you quote; it is usual, for example, to be able to quote from other people's published work provided that you make due credit to the originators thereof, as long as you do not exceed a reasonable proportion of the whole

2. In the James Cameron's films, the Terminator does not say much. However, I have taken his most famous quotes and used them as lyrics, including in the chorus of the song. Is that “reasonable”?

The copyright infringer's bona fides are not relevant in determining any liability.  The owner of a copyright does not have to respond to any request, and it's failure to do so does not in any way restrict it's rights.

3. Added to this the copyright holder is a very large company. I highly doubt they would even reply to, let alone grant my request. Would you agree there is little point in trying to contact them? 

If it is clearly a parody of the material, you should be OK

4. With the extra information I have provided, does it seem "OK"?

Regards,
Will.

[j_menz]

With the extra information I have provided, does it seem "OK"?

Sounds fine.   

If it's a big success, you might get a letter from his lawyers, though. Probably not, and a polite "get stuffed" reply should be sufficient response.

James Cameron has been sued himself for copyright infringements many times. His own cases will probably provide enough material for your defence if worst comes to worst. 

[will]

If it's a big success, you might get a letter from his lawyers, though. Probably not, and a polite "get stuffed" reply should be sufficient response.

Oh, sounds like a few people I know would make good lawyers

James Cameron has been sued himself for copyright infringements many times. His own cases will probably provide enough material for your defence if worst comes to worst. 

Haha, yes, I remember hearing about Mr. Cameron being sued. I will certainly see a lawyer if I decide to follow through with this.
Having helpful people like yourself and other contributors here is helping me make an informed decision as to what steps to take next.

So, in summary, because “The Terminator Song” is a parody the music video clip can:
- Use characters and scenes very similar to "The Terminator"
- Use any and all of the script, including famous quotes, as lyrics of the song
- Use references to any and all concepts unique to “The Terminator” universe
- Use text, graphics and imagery that are similar to the film's opening scene
- Be released commercially

All of this is possible without breaking copyright so long as it is a parody?

[j_menz]

Use any and all of the script

Not all, surely!! Only short excerpts, and not more that say 15% overall should be your guide.

It also needs to be clearly a parody.  The less clear the parody, the less clear the position.

a few people I know would make good lawyers

You need to re-evaluate the company you keep. 

[ahinton]

The copyright infringer's bona fides are not relevant in determining any liability.  The owner of a copyright does not have to respond to any request, and it's failure to do so does not in any way restrict it's rights.

Whilst that is indeed true, the circumstance that I cited can make a difference to a copyright holder's powers to exercise those rights. I can only cite from persponal experience a case in British law and it was some time ago but, on the basis that a publisher's duty is to publish, I tried to obtain from the publisher a copy of the score and parts for Frank Bridge's Piano Trio No. 2 (one of his finest works, in my view) which was out of print at the time, although the composer was still in copyright then. I could have made a photocopy at a university library, although that would have infringed not only copyright but also the university's rules governing such matters, so I did the proper thing and wrote to the publishers. Having had no success over a period of time, I sought advice from a London based intellectual property lawyer who advised that I should send my written request to the publisher three times by a signed for service and then advise that I would make a copy elsewhere and that, if no response was forthcoming, I could make and use that photocopy with the certainty that if a copyright infringement case were ever to be brought against me, my evidence would offer me legal protection without affecting anyone's rights in law. The publishers finally made me a very poor quality photocopy of a used copy of the score in their possession and charged me a king's ransom for it.

On this basis, my argument to seek advice from such a lawyer before proceeding makes sense because, if that advice ever proved to be wrong in practice, you could sue the lawyer.

As regards the OP question, what is proposed looks like it would be an infringement of copyright.  The individual parts of the question are in a sense not relevant as it is the overall effect that is at issue.  If it is clearly a parody of the material, you should be OK, but if it's a straight treatment then no way!  Of course, all of this assumes to an extent that the song/video is to be a public/commercial release. The original post does not make it clear that this is the case.

I agree with all of this except that I'm less certain than you are that the assertion of parodistic intent would necessarily be sufficient of itself to exonerate a copyright infringer, especially if the copyright owners sought also to bring a case that the parody brought the original into disrepute, which is a separate issue from copyright infringement itself; I would be extremely wary of proceeding with anything of this nature without sound, reliable and comprehensive legal advice.

PS - I am a qualified lawyer who worked for quite some years in the area of intellectual property.  My comments relate specifically to the law of copyright in Australia, but I do not believe that you would find material differences in most jurisdictions.

Probably not, although intellectual property laws do change in all admistrations that have them; for example, the copyright term in Britain was 50 years at the time of my experience above but it increased to 70 thereafter, wikth the result that some music that had entered the public domain at the end of its 50-year term reacquired copyright status for the remainder of the 70-year one.

It's good to have some qualified comment here; thanks for this!

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

I should have said this from the start
I would call the work a parody. Ideally, “The Terminator Song” would be a public/commercial release.
It is intended to be humorous. The quality of the film and the actual scene content should make it obvious that “The Terminator Song” is a send-up of “The Terminator” and that they are produced by different people.
Some scenes/characters look the same but, for the most part, it should still be obviously different. For example, the Terminator normally rides a motorbike and is a serious character.
In “The Terminator Song” the character rides a glittery kick scooter and does the moonwalk.....

1. Would adding a disclaimer, stating the work is not endorsed or affiliated by/to James Cameron's “The Terminator”, help/hinder possible copyright issues?

It might, but only a court of law could decide that on the merits or otherwise of the particular case concerned; as I mentioned above, it might also get you into a different kind of trouble if the originators and/or current copyright holders chose to being a case against you for bringing the original material into disrepute, which is a quite separate issue from that of copyright infringement.

2. In the James Cameron's films, the Terminator does not say much. However, I have taken his most famous quotes and used them as lyrics, including in the chorus of the song. Is that “reasonable”?

Much depends upon the proportion of the original that you use and how you credit the originators within the end product that you issue.

3. Added to this the copyright holder is a very large company. I highly doubt they would even reply to, let alone grant my request. Would you agree there is little point in trying to contact them?

No, because if you do so via a singned-for service a few times, you can at least prove that you've done it; however, your best bet, apart from (or rather in addition to) approaching a lawyer for advice is to contact the copyright organisation in your country, as I said before - i.e. MCPS/PRS, ASCAP, SACEM of whatever, depending upon where you're located.

4. With the extra information I have provided, does it seem "OK"?

In my view, the straight answer to that is a resounding "NO"! I can only recommend that you make the checks that I suggest before you consider going ahead with this.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Sounds fine.   

If it's a big success, you might get a letter from his lawyers, though. Probably not, and a polite "get stuffed" reply should be sufficient response.

James Cameron has been sued himself for copyright infringements many times. His own cases will probably provide enough material for your defence if worst comes to worst. 

It might inded help (and I didn;t know about this), but two wrongs don't make a (copy)right. I must admit that, were I in Will's position, I'd be extremely wary of proceeding with a project like this without first arming myself with some get-outs; at least lawyers are protected by professional indemnity insurance and subject to regulation!

One other potential problem might be that, even if the current copyright holders might ignore the entire thing, the copyright ownership might in future change hands through sale or bequest during the copyright term and the new owners might take a less lenient view. I have experienced this kind of thing - albeit fortunately in reverse - with the estate of a famous German composer in respect of a transcription of an extract from one of his works made during the composer's lifetime but in the absence of any evidence of the composer's written permission; I'll not recount the protracted and frustrating tale of this here, but suffice it to say that obtaining the requisite permission took almost 14 years...

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Oh, sounds like a few people I know would make good lawyers

Perhaps so - but you would be well advised not to seek their advice in preference to that of actual qualified and registered lawyers until and unless they become proper lawyers themselves!...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Essential reading for insomniacs.

Thal

[ahinton]

Essential reading for insomniacs.

What is? "Copyright Questions"? "Movie Characters"? "Quotes used in Songs"? And on what specific grounds do you make such an assertion? I think that the least that you could do for the benefit of Will who initiated this thread is specify which of these you're referring to and why! That said, if the topic doesn't particularly interest you in any case, you're under no obligation to read it, let alone participate in the discussion!

Best,

Alistair

[will]

Essential reading for insomniacs.

I couldn't agree less!

I find this is a brilliant thread and appreciate both the on- and off-topic replies.

The ratio of words posted per person who have read this topic is great!

[thalbergmad]

The ratio of words posted per person who have read this topic is great!

Whatever thread Hinty is in, the word ratio tends to increase He could write a thesis on uncorking a wine bottle.

Thal

[ahinton]

Whatever thread Hinty is in, the word ratio tends to increase He could write a thesis on uncorking a wine bottle.

Will instigated this thread. It's therefore up to him as much if not more than anyone else here how he regards the responses that he receives. Others besides me have also responded with some advice and thoughts. Furthermore - and for the record - I could not write a thesis such as you suggest, nor indeed would I waste time in doing so even if I could.

You may of course write whatever you like here, within reason, but what you've written so far demonstrates little interest in the subject that Will has raised and involves no helpful information for Will's benefit.

Best,

Alistair

[ronde_des_sylphes]

Let's say I have created a pop song and accompanying video clip called “The Sorabji Song” - inspired by Alistair Hinton's “Sorabji Archive” franchise.

Is copyright being infringed in 1., 2., 3., 4.or 5. below?
If so, what could be changed at each number so it does not break copyright?

1. The song is called “The Sorabji Song”.
2. The song has lyrics that describe the life of “The Sorabji” and specifically refer to compositions from his life (such as Opus Clavicembalisticum, Gulistan etc.)
3. The song uses direct quotes from his life as lyrics (with sung lines of “I'll be Bach: Chromatic Fantasy” and "Mi Contra Fa, Baby!”)
4. The video clip recreates scenes/characters from the life of Sorabji. The locations and characters are made to look the same as they did in real life.
5. The opening of the video clip uses the same style of spectacles, text and imagery as “The Sorabji Archive” home page, however the actual words have been changed.

Any advice would be super.

Thanks.

[j_menz]

1. The song is called “The Sorabji Song”.

You do'nt have copyright in your name.  There is no question of passing off in anything listed, so OK.

2. The song has lyrics that describe the life of “The Sorabji” and specifically refer to compositions from his life (such as Opus Clavicembalisticum, Gulistan etc.)

You don't have copyright in your life.

3. The song uses direct quotes from his life as lyrics (with sung lines of “I'll be Bach: Chromatic Fantasy” and "Mi Contra Fa, Baby!”)

Not a problem, unless the quite are extended extracts (say of speeches or works)

4. The video clip recreates scenes/characters from the life of Sorabji. The locations and characters are made to look the same as they did in real life.

Not a problem.  Who do propose plays Alistair Hinton?

5. The opening of the video clip uses the same style of spectacles, text and imagery as “The Sorabji Archive” home page, however the actual words have been changed.

This is a likely copyright infringement.

[j_menz]

Whilst that is indeed true, the circumstance that I cited can make a difference to a copyright holder's powers to exercise those rights. I can only cite from persponal experience a case in British law and it was some time ago but, on the basis that a publisher's duty is to publish, I tried to obtain from the publisher a copy of the score and parts for Frank Bridge's Piano Trio No. 2 (one of his finest works, in my view) which was out of print at the time, although the composer was still in copyright then. I could have made a photocopy at a university library, although that would have infringed not only copyright but also the university'w rules in such matters, so I did the proper thing and wrote to the publishers. Having had no success over a period of time, I sought advice from a London based intellectual property lawyer who advised that I should send my written request to the publisher three times by a signed for service and then advise that I would make a copy elsewhere and that, if no response was forthcoming, I could make and use that photocopy with the certainty that if a copyright infringement case were ever to be brought against me, my evidence would offer me legal protection without affecting anyone's rights in law. The publishers finally made me a very poor quality photocopy of a used copy of the score in their possession and charged me a king's ransom for it.

There is a difference between making a copy of an out of print work and creating a new derivative work. The cases are not equivalent.

if that advice ever provide to be wrong in practice, you could sue the lawyer.

Wash your mouth out!!

Seriously, it's usually pretty hard to sue lawyers, and very expensive.

[j_menz]

Furthermore - and for the record - I could not write a thesis such as you suggest, nor indeed would I waste time in doing so even if I could.

 


I'd buy it. Fascinating subject.

[thalbergmad]

Let's say I have created a pop song and accompanying video clip called “The Sorabji Song” - inspired by Alistair Hinton's “Sorabji Archive” franchise.

You would be infringing my copyright as I have already done this with a rap vibe. Here is the first verse.

Me name is Dudly
I wrote Gulistan
I am a Zoroastrian
Me works is complex
Never passive
I used to belong to the Chingford Massive

Thal

[Bob]

It has to be in a fixed form -- on paper, recorded, etc. -- in order to have copyright.

There's probably something along the lines of a trademark, patent... some kind of "likeness" thing if someone is creating works based on your life. 

For the situation where no one knows who the copyright holder is anymore, the work is called an an orphaned work.  Still under copyright though.  Last I heard it was still unresolved but people were talking about creating a set up where people could take steps to still use the work and be covered legally if they showed they made enough of an attempt to go through the copyright process.  Like Alistair mentioned.

[j_menz]

If noone knows who the copyright holder is, easiest way to find out is breach that copyright.  They'll be the ones suing you. Et voila! Problem solved. 

[Bob]

That's true.  Start making money off it.  Someone will figure out it's their intellectual property.

[will]

On this basis, my argument to seek advice from such a lawyer before proceeding makes sense because, if that advice ever provide to be wrong in practice, you could sue the lawyer.

As j_menz suggests I imagine this would be a very difficult and expensive undertaking.
Still, it seems a sensible suggestion. Are there any famous cases where this has happened?

I'd be extremely wary of proceeding with a project like this without first arming myself with some get-outs; at least lawyers are protected by professional indemnity insurance and subject to regulation!

Alistair, what get-outs do you suggest?
Also, could you please explain what you mean by "at least lawyers are protected by professional indemnity insurance and subject to regulation!"?

Regards,
Will.

[ahinton]

Let's say I have created a pop song and accompanying video clip called “The Sorabji Song” - inspired by Alistair Hinton's “Sorabji Archive” franchise.

Is copyright being infringed in 1., 2., 3., 4.or 5. below?
If so, what could be changed at each number so it does not break copyright?

1. The song is called “The Sorabji Song”.
2. The song has lyrics that describe the life of “The Sorabji” and specifically refer to compositions from his life (such as Opus Clavicembalisticum, Gulistan etc.)
3. The song uses direct quotes from his life as lyrics (with sung lines of “I'll be Bach: Chromatic Fantasy” and "Mi Contra Fa, Baby!”)
4. The video clip recreates scenes/characters from the life of Sorabji. The locations and characters are made to look the same as they did in real life.
5. The opening of the video clip uses the same style of spectacles, text and imagery as “The Sorabji Archive” home page, however the actual words have been changed.

Any advice would be super.

Thanks.

This is a markedly different set of circumstances than the one originally proposed by Will at the top of this thread and I agree with j_menz's answers to your five points; that said, there is no "Sorabji franchise". Quite why you'd want to do any such thing remains well and truly open to question, however.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

There is a difference between making a copy of an out of print work and creating a new derivative work. The cases are not equivalent.

They are not precisely so but they contain common factors is the out of print work concerned is still in copyright; copying an out of print work that's in the public domain is a quite different matter. The commonality is that of copyright infringement, to the extent that each such example (i.e. copying an out of print copyright work and creating a new derivative one) risks breaching copyright and this was the reason for my citing a case of the former.

Wash your mouth out!!

Seriously, it's usually pretty hard to sue lawyers, and very expensive.

There are ways to reduce these costs, such as
(a) taking a complaint about a lawyer to the Legal Ombudsman or equivalent service outside Britain
(b) applying for legal aid if the complainnant qualifies for it or
(c) having the case handled by another law firm on a no win no fee basis.
I have unfortunately had to do (a) myself in the case of a negligent law firm and my case was supported by the opinion of the Legal Ombudsman.

No offence is intended towards your profession in my suggesting this, however - but even lawyers aren't always necessarily perfect!

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

If noone knows who the copyright holder is, easiest way to find out is breach that copyright.  They'll be the ones suing you. Et voila! Problem solved. 

Not at all. Firstly, the best way to try to find out is, as I have said before, to approach the appropriate organisation in the country concerned (see above) and, in any case, breaching copyright does not even mean that the copyright owner necessarily gets to find out or to sue for such breach if he/she does find out.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

As j_menz suggests I imagine this would be a very difficult and expensive undertaking.
Still, it seems a sensible suggestion. Are there any famous cases where this has happened?

The extent of the costs of legal advice about copyright infringement will very immensely from case to case depending on the ciurcumstances of each, especially whether a lawyer's letter upbraiding a copyright breacher for his/her activity might bring about a resolution whereas if a case has to come to court it will obviously be much more expensive. As to suing a lawyer, what I mean is taking action against one for the provision of inadequate or inappropriate advice which can be done in a number of ways as outlined above.

Alistair, what get-outs do you suggest?

If what you are about to do might risk contravening copyright, you take appropriate legal advice and/or approach the copyright holder/s first and then make an intelligent and informed decision based upon your findings - but I thought that I'd already written that!

Also, could you please explain what you mean by "at least lawyers are protected by professional indemnity insurance and subject to regulation!"?

Quite simply that if the legal advice process goes horribly wrong through the fault of the lawyer, law firms have insurance to cover the possible cost of action being taken in the light of such eventualities and lawyers have codes of pracitgce and conduct to which they must adhere or else risk being upbraided or even struck off the register by the legal services regulator.

Best,

Alistair

[will]

Some very interesting stories and advice in this thread. Thanks to everyone for your contributions.

Regards,
Will.