Suicide Squad: General Discussion and Speculation - Part 8

[John-An]

That has been pointed out a billion times. Keep up, John-An!

However as you've said... It could then be applied later in the film or in another scene or whatever. Sorry I couldn't stop being a happy man seeing this Joker with the only detail I would nitpick, althought if it's there at some point or scene I wouldn't complain.

 

[Kane52630]

cool.

 

[Boom]

So I'm stupid, and this question is strictly out of curiosity (not trying to be a smartass).

If a video is captured of a movie scene being shot on a public street by someone outside of the designated set area, how is that a copyright violation?

I'm seeing WB pulling these websites and I'm admittedly confused on the legality issues here.

 

[Greens]

So I'm stupid, and this question is strictly out of curiosity (not trying to be a smartass).

If a video is captured of a movie scene being shot on a public street by someone outside of the designated set area, how is that a copyright violation?

I'm seeing WB pulling these websites and I'm admittedly confused on the legality issues here.

I'm 99% sure it's perfectly legal to take pictures. They're shooting in a public space, the onus is on them to make sure their "secrets" aren't out in the open.

Profiting off of set pictures and/or videos could be another matter, but I'm pretty sure it's fine. Especially in this day and age, trying to stop set pics from spreading is futile.

I think these websites comply because they fear they could be sued and that costs ****loads of money, even if the website is in the right. I could be wrong here.

 

[Baneis8feettall]

So I'm stupid, and this question is strictly out of curiosity (not trying to be a smartass).

If a video is captured of a movie scene being shot on a public street by someone outside of the designated set area, how is that a copyright violation?

I'm seeing WB pulling these websites and I'm admittedly confused on the legality issues here.

I'm not sure if it's legal to publish something about a person (or work) without their knowledge/ permission. Most of the cases people just don't bother (or don't have power) to stop it. But this is big budget movie by a huge company. So they might care.

Those websites making money/free advertisement because of capturing something they didn't have permit for it. It's illegal enough.

I'm not a lawyer but i think it should be illegal even taking a photo of someone/event without authorities permission to publish.

 

[Greens]

I'm not sure if it's legal to publish something about a person (or work) without their knowledge/ permission. Most of the cases people just don't bother (or don't have power) to stop it.

I think it's legal, unless it's defamation.

Those websites making money/free advertisement because of capturing something they didn't have permit for it. It's illegal enough.

Since when do you need written approval to take a picture of something in a public space? The production crew has a permit to close a certain area to traffic. I don't think they "own" whatever happens in that area, except the material they film.

I'm not a lawyer but i think it should be illegal even taking a photo of someone/event without authorities permission to publish.

That sounds ridiculous. If I take a picture of a building and some random person happens to be in frame, they should be able to sue me?

 

[Travesty]

copy/pasting here if anybody is interested:

Someone pointed out to me that the car is definitely a Infinity G35 with a Vaydor bodykit on it. Here's a video of another one that's a different color, but as you can see, they're almost identical.

[YT]TFR2IDDACEI[/YT]

 

[Pickleweasel]

I'm not sure if it's legal to publish something about a person (or work) without their knowledge/ permission. Most of the cases people just don't bother (or don't have power) to stop it. But this is big budget movie by a huge company. So they might care.

Those websites making money/free advertisement because of capturing something they didn't have permit for it. It's illegal enough.

I'm not a lawyer but i think it should be illegal even taking a photo of someone/event without authorities permission to publish.

So if I am at a football game or something and take a pic with my people I need to send it into the authorities so they can track down all those people in the background and give me permission before I publish it on my Facebook?

That would be ridiculous

 

[MasterChief2829]

So I'm stupid, and this question is strictly out of curiosity (not trying to be a smartass).

If a video is captured of a movie scene being shot on a public street by someone outside of the designated set area, how is that a copyright violation?

I'm seeing WB pulling these websites and I'm admittedly confused on the legality issues here.

idk they can try and appeal, I've had videos of other stuff taken down before just because someone was ******** about it I guess, but got them restored because they were invalid claims.

 

[Broseph44]

I think it's legal, unless it's defamation.



Since when do you need written approval to take a picture of something in a public space? The production crew has a permit to close a certain area to traffic. I don't think they "own" whatever happens in that area, except the material they film.



That sounds ridiculous. If I take a picture of a building and some random person happens to be in frame, they should be able to sue me?

So if I am at a football game or something and take a pic with my people I need to send it into the authorities so they can track down all those people in the background and give me permission before I publish it on my Facebook?

That would be ridiculous

Just a heads up but most of what Baneis8feet says is ridiculous.

 

[QueenChaos]

I don't care one way or another as long as I get to see it all before it's taken away

Just selfish that way

 

[Boom]

Somehow I get the feeling the Joker reveal would've gone over better had he been wearing this outfit.

 

[Mrs. Wayne]

^ no doubt!

 

[Baneis8feettall]

Just a heads up but most of what Baneis8feet says is ridiculous.

Stop what you are intending before mods go:

 

[LegendaryCaleb]

I might be the only one...but I'm not crazy about the car, or the shirtless suit combo by the joker

 

[Astro13Zombie]

I might be the only one...but I'm not crazy about the car, or the shirtless suit combo by the joker

He's wearing a shirt..
It's just got a few buttons undone.

 

[Boom]

So we have Gangster Joker (Nicholson), Anarchist Joker (Ledger), and Rocker Joker (Leto).

 

[Greens]

I ain't complaining!

 

[Spider-Aziz]

copy/pasting here if anybody is interested:

Someone pointed out to me that the car is definitely a Infinity G35 with a Vaydor bodykit on it. Here's a video of another one that's a different color, but as you can see, they're almost identical.

[YT]TFR2IDDACEI[/YT]

Nerd.
Though, that's a cool thing to point out.
Joker has lots of money, or he steals a lot.

 

[elsewhere]

So we have Gangster Joker (Nicholson), Anarchist Joker (Ledger), and Rocker Joker (Leto).

I was thinking more along the lines of pimp, but rocker works too.

 

[John-An]

Cosmicbooknews?

Is this ok to you then

https://***********/CInfinitas/status/600347867627270144

MORE PICS OF JOKER AND HARLEY...

 

[Astro13Zombie]

welp
Forehead tattoo is definitely there.


He looks amazing though.

 

[John-An]

Yeah... forehead tatto is there... And I can't complain. I almost didn't noticed.

 

[Travesty]

Yeah, you can definitely see it there.

Overall, I really don't like the look of this Joker.

 

[Zur-en-Arrh]

other than the head tat, i'm loving it.