Best method for importing Hi-Def tv recorded broadcasts

I have a high def tv DVR to record broadcasts. If I have a news show (CNN etc.) recorded in high def, what is the best way to get it from the DVR to my MAC for use in FCP?

With standard definition I simply plug an S-Video cable from the DVR directly to my Sony Z1 camera. I then send that to the MAC via firewire. The camera doesn't appear to offer this option to go hi def from the DVR to the camera (there is no component or HDMI input on the camera--only S video and standard video--yellow).

Is some sort of card necessary on the MAC for this or do I need some external type of box (that I probably can't afford)?

Do you have component input? Can you go HD component in?

Otherwise, it looks like you're stuck with composite ("yellow" input. I believe you can do 16x9, but not true HD.

Without written permission from CNN, the best way to do this is not to do this.

If you need a copy of a CNN broadcast, contact CNN ImageSource. That's the licensing arm of CNN.

Thank you for the responses. The camera has no component in, only component out. There has to be a way to do this.

The Fair Use Thing:

Jeff, I am aware of CNN Image source. While I mentioned CNN in my post, any imported footage would probably be of other networks and is critical of their coverage of something. The fair use doctrine is employed by the networks themselves constantly. If you watch the talking heads show they will show clips of the other talking head shows and say how awful they are EVERY DAY. Media watchdog groups (left and right) also do this all the time.

Were I to show a CNN clip of a news event, I would go to CNN image source and pay them. I actually intend to do that for some footage.

But when the point of the clip is THE SHOW ITSELF, to be critical of the show, fair use comes into play. I read a NY Times article a while back about a guy who made a film about films. The major studios wanted to charge him a bundle for any sample clips to use in his production. He got them to lower their prices drastically by arguing that if they didn't, he would use the clips anyway and claim fair use. The studios were pissed but they caved.

I first learned about fair use when I called CSPAN for some pricing on their footage. The guy told me if the clip is short, fair use may come into play. I actually intend to use some CSPAN footage but I am going to pay them because the point of those clips is the news contained within them, not to criticize CSPAN itself.

I am not a lawyer, and this is not a legal forum. But bear in mind that "fair use" is an affirmative defense against copyright infringement. That is, after you have been sued, you can get a judge to say "okay, this was definitely copyright infringement, but since it was a fair use, case dismissed."

Those media watchdogs you mentioned? I can't go into detail for non-disclosure reasons, but I know a couple things about them. The phrase "army of lawyers" would not be inappropriate here. The phrase "never been tested in court" would also fit in nicely.

Since this is a public forum, it's basically a moral and legal obligation, whenever the issue of copying other people's property comes up, for one or the other of us to say "That's copyright infringement, and it's against the law." Whatever affirmative defenses might apply are between you, your army of lawyers and your judge when you get sued.

Fair use is not a legal right, but a defense, as Jeff mentioned. There are tonnes of fair use claims that are thrown out as well. You are better off asking CSPAN for the footage.



www.strypesinpost.com

> The major studios wanted to charge him a bundle for any sample clips to use in his production.
> He got them to lower their prices drastically by arguing that if they didn't, he would use the clips
> anyway and claim fair use. The studios were pissed but they caved.

That sounds like hogwash to me.
The first thing the studios would have done, if the guy had used the clips without permission, would be to put an injunction on the film. And then the filmmaker could look forward to two, three, four years of litigation against a much more powerful corporate entity while his film is in limbo, because until the case is resolved, he can't do jack with the film. Just ask Negativland -- and their case was, supposedly, with the blessing of U2. Didn't mean much, because U2 didn't control its master rights -- Island Records did.


www.derekmok.com

Obviously this is a complex area.

The tests for what constitutes fair use are somewhat subjective. However, when a work is being CRITICAL of another, that is one of the issues that is considered. Look at all the anti-Michael Moore films that use footage from his films ("Manufacturing Dissent", etc.). While it is true that Michael Moore's assistant knocked the filmmakers' camera to the ground when they tried to film Moore, they were able to get away with using short excerpts from Moore's Roger and Me and (if I recall correctly) Bowling for Columbine. If you look in the credits of "Manufacturing Dissent", it lists the copyright of Roger and Me, but does not use the standard "courtesy of" or "under license from."

I cannot imagine a studio giving permission to show a clip from one of their films in order to show that their filmmaker is trying to deceive people through the magic of editing, or a tv network doing the same. Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann, Sean Hannity, etc. show clips from rival shows NIGHTLY solely for the purpose of calling each other liars.

For the record I am a big believer in respecting copyright, not only for legal reasons. In my project I am using a lot of music of major artists (Natalie Cole, Diana Krall). All of it is licensed from both the labels and the music publishers (you need BOTH the publisher and the label). The labels for the most part, gave me great prices because they loved my project. All photos are also being individually licensed or purchased from stock photo services. All news footage and CSPAN footage (in spite of my initial call to CSPAN) will be licensed.

Derek, if you have curiosity about the New York Times article, go to their site and do a search in quotes for "No Free Samples for Documentaries." Under search parameters, have the search go back to at least 2004. I think the article is 2006. You may be right, it may be nonsense. Maybe the guy had to pay top dollar and for some stupid reason he's telling this story.

You folks are an incredible resource. If I get rich off of this thing I will send you some Twinkies. (I am a teacher in Long Beach--that's what I give to my students. Chocolate are the best.)

you may want to have a look at the Blackmagic Intensity Pro.
that'd be an affordable alternative.

you can capture to ProRes via Component , S-Video, or HDMI


nick

Hi guys. Economics professor is exactly right. I had a little debate with some of you here a few years ago about this (or was it back in the 2-pop days?).

Citing ANY works in ANY medium for critical social or cultural commentary reasons is a KNOWN part of our democracy. The precedents for it are a mile long and even if there was not a legal history then it would have to forced into place by the people. Its too important. To not have it, whether quoting an author in a term paper, or John Stuart critiquing CNN last night, is to do harm to the intelligence and robustness of a knowledgeable and intellectual society.

This has ZERO to do with copying and posting a full work of entertainment that would hurt another author's income and rights. That's a completely different subject.

Professor, I set my HD DVR to Component analog out 720p. This allows for a recording that looks good on both HDTVs and computer monitors without interlace artifacts.

Then I use my Kona capture card, Component HD in. The cheaper Black Magic Intensity (with HD analog inputs) maybe a better choice for you. Easy set-up in Final Cut Pro is DVCPRO-HD 720p 60 (59.94 frames per sceond). But make sure and set the Device Control to NONE or it wont work properly. Watch those audio levels with the capture card.

Then use the Capture Now button. And the Escape button to cancel the recording.

Playback:

QuickTime 7 player will hiccup sometimes on 60 fps video when played back on a computer monitor. I recommend either QuickTime X in Snow Leopard, or the free VLC media player. They do a much better job.

Good luck and keep up the Fair Use. In history, if you don't use it, you lose it.

Additionally, Professor,

If you include a short bite (that you are commenting on) in a larger work, then add an extra inset frame around the image, or even within an icon of a "TV screen". This also helps the audience distinguish that you are quoting a clip, and not endorsing it.

.

Christopher, please stop handing out legal advice on the forum. Especially completely inapplicable and wildly misleading legal advice.

.

Jeff is right. Both the professor and I are speaking of *ethical correctness* on the issue. But that doesn't mean that the *law* may not match the ethical correctness on a Thursday just because it does on a Tuesday. Disney is trying to change some of the laws right now. The law can, and does get changed and I am no legal expert or lawyer.

The *cultural ethics* are what are clear here, and that can be discussed on a documentary forum somewhere else.