Film still

A film still (sometimes called a publicity still or a production still) is a photograph taken on or off the set of a movie or television program during production. The photos were taken by studio photographers for promotional purposes. Such stills consisted of posed portraits, used for public display or free fan handouts, which are sometimes autographed. They can also consist of posed or candid images taken on the set during production, and may include stars, crew members or directors at work.

The main purpose of such publicity stills is to help studios advertise and promote their new films and stars. Studios therefore send those photos along with press kits and free passes to as many movie-related publications as possible so as to gain free publicity. Such photos were then used by newspapers and magazines, for example, to write stories about the stars or the films themselves. Hence, the studio gains free publicity for its films, while the publication gains free stories for its readers.

Contents

Types of stills

Shots can be taken as part of the filming or separately posed.

Part of filming

Generally, a still photographer is present on the set, shooting alongside principal photography, using "Sound Blimp" to silence the noise of the SLR's shutter so that they do not interfere with the shooting.

Purposes

The major and minor film studios have always used still photos of stars, typically in a posed portrait, to send to the media to create "a buzz" for both their stars and any new films they were appearing in. Studios "sent out tens of thousands of scene stills and portraits to newpapers, magazines, and fans each year. Such photographs were rarely marked with the photographer's name or with a credit line."[1]

Accordingly, the studio publicity departments used the stills "to sell a product," namely, a "particular film or an individual actor or actress." The distinction is relevant: "While the scene stills and on-the-set candid shots would be used to sell the movie, the portraits could be used to introduce a would-be star to an international audience. . . . The portrait photographer's function was to create and sell the image created by a publicity department around the life and look of a real person." The photos portrayed a star "without a role to hide behind. . . [and the photographer] had to recognize the image which would serve as the essence of a lengthy publicity campaign, capturing it in a fraction of a second." The glamour close-up would become "Hollywood's principal contribution to still portraiture."[1]

Beyond basic publicity purposes, film stills were given to the actors themselves to send, signed or unsigned, to their fans and fan clubs. At various special events, stars might bring along a stack of these studio photos to sign in the presence of admirers, much like book signings by authors today.

In addition, directors and casting directors involved with placing appropriate actors in the film roles still rely on film stills to help them recall the detailed looks of actors. This is similar to the way magazine or TV advertisers rely on stills taken of professional models. Typically, a film still included a separate profile sheet describing the physical details of the actor along with a brief bio. The directors would then collect their best choices and schedule interviews and auditions.[2]

Artistic significance

Maxine Ducey, film archive director, has summarized the significance and contributions of the early film stills to the film industry:

The curtain has long been rung down on the golden age of Hollywood portraiture, but the portraits made by the Hollywood glamour photographers remain on stage. The photographs are a testimony to the photographers' skill and agility, as well as to their aesthetic sensibilities. Studying these portraits, we can never forget the talent of the photographers. We have proof of their consummate ability to capture in a single image the essence of a star, and to communicate that information to a film viewer, magazine reader or studio executive. Hollywood portrait photographers were not seen as artists or creators, yet one has only to examine their legacy to be convinced of the enduring quality of their vision as well as their craft.[1]

Copyright

Public domain

As explained by film production manager Eve Light Honthaner,[3] publicity photos taken to promote a film actor or other celebrity were not usually copyrighted and were intened to remain free for publications to use wherever possible:

"Publicity photos (star headshots) have traditionally not been copyrighted. Since they are disseminated to the public, they are generally considered public domain, and therefore clearance by the studio that produced them is not necessary...."[4]

Honathaner distinguishes "Publicity Photos (star headshots)" from "Production Stills (photos taken on the set of the film or TV show during the shooting)", noting that production stills "must be cleared with the studio".[4] Creative Clearance offers the same text as Honathaner, but adds that newer publicity stills may contain a copyright.[5]

In 2007, media lawyer Nancy Wolff,[6] wrote with respect to the "photo archive of entertainment industry publicity pictures, historic still images widely distributed by the studios to advertise and promote their then new releases":

It has been assumed that these images are most likely in the public domain or owned by studios that freely distributed the images without any expectation of compensation. Archives will lend these images for a fee to publishers and producers of documentaries for 'editorial' uses, in keeping with the original intent to publicize the movie or promote the actor. Seeing these images in print years later, some photographers, or their heirs, attempt to assert rights that most believed to be extinguished or abandoned.[7]

As a result, she indicates:

There is a vast body of photographs, including but not limited to publicity stills, that have no notice as to who may have created them.... Without knowing where the photos came from, or what long lost parent may appear and claim the 'orphaned work,' licensing the work becomes risky business. For publishers, museums, and other archives that are risk-averse, this leads to a large body of works that will never be published.[7]

Film historian Gerald Mast[8] explains how the new 1989 copyright revisions only protected publicity works that complied with all earlier requirements in addition to filing a copyright registration within 5 years of first publication:

According to the old copyright act, such production stills were not automatically copyrighted as part of the film and required separate copyrights as photographic stills. The new copyright act similarly excludes the production still from automatic copyright but gives the film's copyright owner a five-year period in which to copyright the stills. Most studios have never bothered to copyright these stills because they were happy to see them pass into the public domain, to be used by as many people in as many publications as possible."[9]

In a federal appeals case brought by Warner Bros. Entertainment, decided on July 5, 2011, the court recognized that the "publicity material images for the films [that] were distributed directly to the general public through newspapers and magazines" were public domain because they were not separately registered for copyright and their dissemination constituted general publication. It quoted from Nimmer on Copyright, the primary copyright treatise, which explains that, while films were generally registered for copyright protection, "much less care was typically exercised during production and in the publicity office" with photographs taken of the actors on set being "sent off to newspapers before the film’s release, in order to generate a buzz about its opening."[10][11][12]

Fair use

Kristin Thompson, committee chair of the Society for Cinema and Media Studies writes in the conclusion of a 1993 conference with cinema scholars and editors, that they "expressed the opinion that it is not necessary for authors to request permission to reproduce frame enlargements. . . [and] some trade presses that publish educational and scholarly film books also take the position that permission is not necessary for reproducing frame enlargements and publicity photographs."[13]

Thompson also notes that even if such images are not already public domain, they could be considered "fair use" under its guidelines:

"Most frame enlargements are reproduced in books that clearly fall into the first provision's categories of "teaching," "criticism," "scholarship," or "research," and hence there seems little doubt that such illustrations would qualify as fair use by this criterion. Since most university presses are nonprofit institutions, illustrations in their books and journals would be more likely to fall into the fair-use category than would publications by more commercial presses."[13]

In addition, the burden of proof of copyright for such publicity images would fall on the studios producing them, states Thompson:

"If such a photograph has been circulated for publication at some point and reproduced without a copyright notice accompanying it, it should then fall within the public domain. Throughout the history of the cinema, many publicity photos have appeared in newspapers and magazines without such notices. If a scholar or educator were to publish a publicity photo, the burden of proof would then fall on the studio or distributor to prove that the still had never been published without the copyright notice.[13]

References

  1. ^ a b c Hollywood glamour, 1924-1956, Elvehjem Museum of Art, Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison (1987)
  2. ^ Kobal, John. Movie-star portraits of the forties: 163 glamor photos, Dover Publ., 1977
  3. ^ Ms. Honthaner has held production management positions at Orion Pictures and Dream works and taught at USC School of Cinematic Arts. She is also the founder of the Los Angeles-based organization Film Industry Network. See IMDB Eve Light Honthaner Other works and Eve Light Honthaner
  4. ^ a b Honathaner, Eve Light. The Complete Film Production Handbook, Focal Press, (2001) p. 211
  5. ^ Creative Clearance. "Photography Clearance". Clearance Guidelines for Producers. http://www.creativeclearance.com/guidelines.html#B. Retrieved 4 May 2011. 
  6. ^ Ms. Wolff represents many media companies and has lectured widely on copyright issues Website of Law firm of CDAS She is the author of The Professional Photographer's Legal Handbook [1]
  7. ^ a b Wolff, Nancy E. (29 May 2007). The Professional Photographer's Legal Handbook. Skyhorse Publishing Inc.. p. 55. ISBN 978-1-58115-477-1. http://books.google.com/books?id=VMlIIp34sD0C. Retrieved 19 December 2011. 
  8. ^ Dr. Mast was an author, film historian and chairman of the English department at the University of Chicago NYTimes obituary for Gerald Mast
  9. ^ Mast, Gerald. "Film Study and the Copyright Law", from Cinema Journal, Winter 2007, pp. 120-127
  10. ^ Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc.; Warner Bros. Consumer Products v. X One X Productions, Doing Business As X One X Movie Archives, Inc
  11. ^ United States Court of Appeals, July 5, 2011
  12. ^ Nimmer, David. Nimmer on Copyright,§ 4.13[A][3]
  13. ^ a b c Thompson, Kristin. [2] "Report of the Ad Hoc Committee of the Society For Cinema Studies, "Fair Usage Publication of Film Stills" "Society for Cinema and Media Studies", 1993 conference

See also