Motion Pictures

natisha asked:


Animation is the rapid succession of a series of images in order to create an illusion of a moving picture. In other words, it is an optical impression of motion resulting from the phenomenon of persistence of vision. The moving pictures are produced through a string of consecutive images that reproduce motion by each image showing the next in a gradual progression of steps. If a series of 24 or less cartoon images run per second, it will result in a cartoon animation. Although animation is commonly demonstrated in the form of a motion picture or video program, any other forms of presenting animation also exist, including computer animation like 2D and 3D animations which encompasses a variety of techniques where the animation is created digitally on a computer.

In case of 2D animation, pictures are created and/or edited on the paper or computer screen in a two-dimensional environment such as cel animation or in computerized animation software. The two dimensional (2D) animation software gives movement and action to static images. These figures are created and edited using 2D bitmap graphics or by using 2D vector graphics including automated computerized versions of conventional animation techniques like tweening, morphing, onion skinning, blurring, cell animation, path animation and interpolated rotoscoping. Three dimensional representations of geometric data is stored in the computer to enable calculations and deliver 2D images.

2D animations such as Analog Computer Animation, Macromedia Flash, PowerPoint etc. can be produced using software tools. To give an element of motion to the object, a digital framework process called rigging is applied. The process of 2D Animation involves complete story boarding including each shot of the animation, background design, character design, cell animation, perfect voice synching and flow of the animation including the background music. Every shot in a 2D animation involves multiple single drawings of characters.

James Brown asked:


Some vacationers might choose to arrive into the United Kingdom by air but they will change their mode of travel many times while they are there. The savvy shoppers prefer to travel UK by rail because the trains are much faster than some people care to walk even if the distance is just mile or so down the road.

Tourists really enjoy being able to travel UK subway systems because they might have seen them in many motion picture movies. There are many motion picture films which have captured the interior fixtures aboard trains throughout the United Kingdom. Some of those scenes were quite romantic and made people want to visit the United Kingdom just for the aura of romance it offered.

There were many people in the audience that were thrilled by the scenes in the motion picture movies because they could relate to the scenes that were captured and they fit them to a “T”. Some of those scenes featured shoppers returning home after finding marvelous bargains and this was all possible because they chose to travel UK subway cars to their shopping destinations.

Subway tokens are always mentioned in the movies and travel UK destinations were identified by tickets. There are still porters who work each day on the railway system and they are there to provide visitors with a sense of well-being and to make sure that passengers have actually purchased a ticket. It is possible to travel UK from border to border without passengers having to worry about getting lost.

Smart shoppers know that they can venture into Scotland by rail too and ride the train all the way down to London if they wanted to. The railway systems are a bit more realistic to what motion picture movies portray trains to be. There are many opportunities to enjoy dinner in a dining car or buy some sweets and drinks from another railway car. Shoppers can even rest a while when they travel UK by rail because someone else is responsible for the driving portion of the trip.

Travelers have many opportunities to see parts of the United Kingdom that they have dreamed of seeing for many years. The meadows that slip by minute upon minute might have herds of sheep in them that roam freely. Some shoppers might start thinking about eating delicious cuts of lambs and then they will travel on wondering why some of the lambs were quite colorful on their backs. A seasoned shopper would know it was part of some ownership marking system of the country they are passing through.

CampMotionPictures asked:

On DVD November 6, 2007 - Camp Motion Pictures RETRO-80s COLLECTION
KILLING SPREE (1987)

Tim Ritter is infamous for his outrageous, low-budget horror films including Creep, Wicked Games and Truth or Dare. His 1987 feature Killing Spree (1987), wallows in extreme violence, insanity and gore-soaked depravity. Part Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer and part Pieces, it’s a no-holds-barred glimpse into the mind of a paranoid schizophrenic and bloodthirsty psychopath — presented uncut and uncensored.

Meet Tom Russo. Creepy-looking and eccentric, there’s something not quite right about him. Dangerous even. When Tom suddenly convinces himself that his wife Leeza is sleeping around, it pushes him over the edge into full-blown, delusional madness. All-too-real images of Leeza having sex with other men ‘play’ in Tom’s diseased and tortured mind as he hunts down and sadistically murders each one suspected of nailing her. Knives, chainsaws and lawnmowers leave a trail of severed heads and splattered entrails in his grisly wake, and no one is safe from this psycho’s killing spree.

CRYSTEL00 asked:


I’ve noticed that there are several motion picture versions of the book Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte. I want to know what is the best one. Now, When I said best, I meant the one which is closest to the dialogs and the scenes of the book. I’m studying this book for literature and I thought watching the film is the best way of remembering the quotations. Some help please!

Araceli Campos asked:


Background

In April 1962, Maurice Richlin and Blake Edwards wrote a 14-page treatment for a movie then entitled “The Pink Rajah” – later renamed “The Pink Panther.” In May 1962, Richlin and Edwards entered into an employment agreement with the Mirisch Corporation to write the screenplay for the movie as a “work made for hire.” 531 F.3d at 965. Later that same month, Richlin and Edwards executed a literary assignment agreement, transferring and assigning all of their rights in the Pink Panther story to Mirisch, including the right to copyright the treatment, renew the copyright, and retain all benefits therefrom. Id.

The first “Pink Panther” movie was released in 1963, followed by nine sequels, many of which credited Richlin and Edwards with creation of the characters. The first such movie indicates a copyright notice of 1963 in the name of Mirisch and G&E Productions. The U.S. Copyright Office issued a certification of registration for the “motion picture” entitled “The Pink Panther” in 1964. Id. The treatment itself was never registered or separately published.

Richlin died in 1990. The 1963 copyright on the movie was set to expire in 1991, but it was renewed that year by Mirisch’s successors-in-interest, MGM-Pathe Communications Co./ Geoffrey Productions Inc. (collectively “MGM”). No one attempted to renew any copyright on the treatment or the screenplay. Id. at 966.

In November 1992, MGM sent Richlin’s widow a check for “payment in full for any rights used in or relating to [Son of Pink Panther] that are owned or controlled by Maurice Richlin or by you pursuant to the Writers Guild of America agreement or otherwise.” Id. at n.6. Though the check was paid pursuant to a 1965 settlement agreement between Richlin, Edwards and Mirisch, the money and the letter alerted Richlin’s heirs to the possibility that they might own rights to the Pink Panther series.

Richlin’s heirs filed suit in federal court in the Central District of California seeking declaratory relief and an accounting. They asserted a 50% renewal interest in the treatment and all derivative works, including all of the Pink Panther movies. The district court found that the plaintiffs had no such rights and granted summary judgment in favor of MGM. On appeal, the ninth circuit agreed. Richlin v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Pictures, 531 F.3d 962 (9th Cir. 2008).

Richlin did not coauthor the movie and thus has no copyright interests in the movie

The Richlin heirs asserted two legal theories in support of their claim, both of which were rejected by the courts. First, the plaintiffs claimed that because Richlin coauthored the treatment, which was a substantial component of the movie, he is also by definition a coauthor of the movie. 531 F.3d at 967.

As coauthor of the movie, Richlin would have an interest in the movie’s copyright. Although Richlin assigned all copyright renewal rights, he died prior to the renewal date. An assignment of renewal rights is only effective if the author/assignor is alive at the time of the renewal term, because only then does the renewal interest actually vest in the author. Stewart v. Abend, 495 U.S. 207, 220 (1990). The Richlin heirs claimed that because Richlin died before the renewal term, the pre-vesting assignment was ineffective and the copyright interest reverted to them. 531 F.3d 962, n.5.

In determining whether Richlin coauthored the movie, the courts turned to Aalmuhammed v. Lee, 202 F.3d 1227, 1234 (9th Cir. 2000). Aalmuhammed sets forth three criteria to determine whether a work is jointly authored as defined under section 101 of the 1976 Copyright Act:(1)

     

1) Whether the “putative authors ma[de] objective manifestations of a shared intent to be coauthors;” a contract evidencing that intent is dispositive;

2) Whether the “author superintended the work by exercising control — often the most important factor; and

3) Whether “the audience appeal of the work” can be attributed to both authors and whether “the share of each in its success cannot be appraised.” Id.

The courts agreed that Richlin undoubtedly coauthored the treatment. However, the treatment “is not the appropriate reference point.” 531 F.3d at 968. The lawsuit was premised on the claim that Richlin’s coauthorship of the treatment automatically made him coauthor of the copyrighted motion picture. Therefore, the court had to apply the Aalmuhammed factors to determine whether Richlin was coauthor of the movie, not the treatment. Id.

The first Aalmuhammed factor went against the plaintiffs, as Richlin executed an Assignment dispositively indicating that Richlin “did not intend” to be a coauthor by virtue of his manifested intent to convey away all present and future interests in the treatment and its derivative works. Id. at 969-970. Richlin also executed an employment agreement indicating that the script was a “work for hire,” another contractual provision inconsistent with an intent to establish coauthorship. Id.

The second Aalmuhammed factor easily lay in MGM’s favor, as Richlin never exercised any supervisory powers or control over the movie. Id. at 970. Though Richlin co-wrote the screenplay as a work for hire, that does not equate to control over the creation of the movie. Id.

Though the third Aalmuhammed factor arguably favored the plaintiffs, the court stated: “Given that the two primary Aalmuhammed factors weigh most heavily in favor of Appellees, we hold that Richlin was not a coauthor of the Motion Picture. Therefore, there is no renewal interest in the Motion Picture that might conceivably have vested in the Richlin heirs under a theory of coauthorship.” Id.

The treatment was not copyrighted by virtue of publication of the movie

The plaintiffs’ second argument theorized that although the treatment itself was never published or the subject of federal statutory copyright, it obtained statutory copyright protection by virtue of publication of the movie, which incorporated portions of the treatment. The Richlin heirs claimed that because Richlin died before the renewal rights in the treatment vested, those rights reverted to them. Id. at 971. They further asserted that MGM’s renewal of the movie copyright renewed their statutory copyright in the treatment, and because the movie incorporates the treatment, they co-own the movie’s copyright. Id.

Under the 1909 Copyright Act, which governed the treatment, unpublished works were protected by state law while published works received federal copyright protection. Id. Accordingly, when Richlin and Edwards assigned the treatment to Mirisch, California common law copyright protections applied – that law held that an author’s transfer of rights in a work prior to first publication completely and forever divested the author of his copyright interest, making the transferee the copyright holder. Id. at 972. Mirisch’s subsequent publication of movie containing copyrightable elements of the treatment secured federal statutory protection for the movie and protected the screenplays and treatments incorporated in the movie. Id. at 973 and 975-976.

However, the court noted that although the movie’s federal copyright protection did extend to those copyrightable elements of the treatment that were components of the movie, “this did not constitute publication of the Treatment ‘as such’ – i.e., as a work standing alone.” Id. at 973. The court deferred to the Register of Copyright’s interpretation of the copyright statutes as holding that publication of a portion of a work does not necessarily constitute publication of the work as a whole. Id. Therefore, the movie’s publication that incorporated parts of the treatment did not invest the treatment with separate statutory protection. Id. at 973 and 975-976.(2)

Richlin and Edwards would have had to separately and independently publish the treatment in order to secure copyright protection for it under the 1909 Act – they failed to do so. Id. at n.14. Because the treatment never received independent federal copyright protection, there was no right to renew anything, and nothing reverted to the Richlin heirs. Id. at 974 and 976-977.

Conclusion

The lesson from Richlin is clear – in order for an author to claim copyright protection for a treatment, screenplay, or any other components of a motion picture, he or she must secure federal copyright protection by separate and independent publication and/or registration of the treatment or screenplay.

The Richlin case may have had more to do with the plaintiffs’ unsubstantiated greed than with resolving challenging issues of law. The contracts Richlin executed with Mirisch were clear and conclusive; the check Richlin’s widow received related to a settlement agreement, not questionable current copyright interests. The court did not have to forge new legal ground in deciding this case – it merely showed the plaintiffs why their arguments failed under existing precedent. The plaintiffs likely spent a lot of money on legal fees to fight this losing battle.

The levity in the court’s opinion reflects the lack of challenge it faced with this case. The opinion begins with: “Inspector Jacques Clouseau, famously unable to crack the simplest of murder cases, would most certainly be confounded by the case we face. While Inspector Clouseau searched for the answer to the question, “Who did it?” we must search for the answer to the question, “Who owns it?”… Although the Richlin heirs have developed several theories that could supply the answer to the question, “Who owns it?”, unlike Inspector Clouseau, they have not quite stumbled upon a theory that favors them.” CITE



(1) Section 101 of the 1976 Copyright Act defines “joint work” as “a work prepared by two or more authors with the intention that their contributions be merged into inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole.” 17 U.S.C. section 101 (1976). The copyright claims at issue are governed by the 1909 Copyright Act, not the 1976 Act, and the 1909 Act does not expressly address joint authorship. However, courts regularly applied the common law definition of join authorship to the 1909 Act. Section 101 of the 1976 Act  incorporated the same definition that had been in use in the courts. Therefore, the Richlin courts determined that it was appropriate to reference interpretations of the 1976 Act language to the Richlin case, even though the 1976 Act did not, in general, apply to the underlying claims.

(2) The court referenced a decision by the Copyright Office Board of Appeals that “an unpublished underlying work that is incorporated into a statutorily copyrighted motion picture does not receive a statutorily copyright independent of the motion picture’s copyright.” CITE, citing Husbands, Copyright Office Board of Appeals Letter, Control No. 10-600-754-2(C), at 6 (May 14, 2002).

chowchow97 asked:


I want to make a stop motion animation with pictures. I made one with lego guys, but can’t find a program where you can upload pictures and play them to be an animation.

P.S. I tried looking it up on google and I still cant find it.

Teal Marie Chimblo asked:


Meditation-In-Motion is a unique aspect of the Kripalu Yoga tradition. It is an exercise for awakening prana at its very roots, and allowing it to flow freely through the body. This liberation of prana can bring deep and lasting changes on emotional and physiological levels.

Kripalu Yoga comes from the lineage of Kundalini yoga and so it is all about cultivating, releasing and harnessing prana, which is energy, or life force. The idea is that as we practice the different components of yoga, like asanas (postures), prana is strengthened and focused. This in turn has great and far-reaching effects in every area of our lives.

Meditation is often an elusive term for most people conjuring pictures of yogis cross-legged in full lotus for hours, but really it is a mental, physical, and biological event that occurs quite naturally when the conditions are right. Creating the right conditions is key.

If you have ever been so totally absorbed in work that hours passed without realizing; have felt the absorption of oneness with a beloved; walked in the forest and had a sense of oneness with all things; participated in an ecstatic dance class, or just danced with reckless abandon by yourself (one of my favorite things to do!) then you have experienced a form of meditative absorption, or Dhyana.

Spontaneous posture flows are something that can occur as prana is released during these deep states of meditative absorption. In fact, this is how yoga asanas were developed. 5000 years ago, yogis living in seclusion, spending hour upon hour in meditative absorption began to have spontaneous movements as a result of their increased prana. They began recording some of the most common movements, and I would speculate the ones that seemed most effective in harnessing prana and helping the body to deal with excruciating hours spent in sitting meditation. These were eventually refined into common sets of postures and practices that moved forward with the evolving yogic tradition.

Meditation-In-Motion is simply allowing yourself to come into a relaxed, meditative state and then letting your prana move you.

Not you doing yoga…yoga doing you.

Try Meditation-in-Motion for yourself, and remember, there is no wrong way to do this. Let your spirit be your guide.

To begin…

Find a space where you have room to move around, and lay out a yoga mat (if you have one-it’s not required for this experience.) You can use music if you like, BIJA by Todd Norian is a favorite of mine for MIM. Begin on your back in Corpse Pose. Inhale and exhale deeply through your nose.

Feel the breath as it moves into your body and imagine it swirling in a spiraling motion in the center of your body. With each new breath, let this spiral expand, moving out into your limbs. Let the energy flow and grow with the breath as you inhale and exhale. Keep expanding until the energy is moving out through your fingertips, toes, and the crown of your head.

Now let the breath and the energy begin to guide your movements. Forget what you know of yoga postures, or dance movements; follow the waves of sensation and energy. There is no wrong way to proceed.

You may find yourself moving a lot, or a little, staying on the floor, or transitioning to standing movements. You may sway, arc, make shapes, find yourself in long, holding positions - anything is possible, everything is good.

Notice your breathing, and feel free to release any sighs or vocalizations that may come through. Continue this way, riding the wave of sensation, allowing your prana to awaken and flow, for as long as you like. When you feel complete, make your way back down to the floor and end with a five to ten minute Sivasana (relaxation and integration time), in Corpse Pose.

br0keN asked:


This question is related to oral communication.

fuzzypeachyc asked:


I am going to the So You Think You Can Dance tour show tonight, and I misplaced my camera manual. I have the Sony Cyber Shot 7.2 MP Digital Camera. I want to take good pictures while they’re dancing, but I don’t know what setting to put it on. Any ideas??!!

vishaal_lalchand asked:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7ZfEhIXVXA check out our silent film and our other projects what do you think of them