Does including GPL code in your project (movie) makes this project (movie) GPL too and requires release of all movie source code? (i.e. 3d models, scenes, screenplay, etc.) And if yes, if someone will rebuild whole movie, will it be possible to download binary version of it compiled by some Joe for free?
Assuming that the GPL is fully representative of Stallman's views, they would not be be required to release 3d models, scenes, or the screenplay. Those parts would not be considered software. However, I am not sure about the source code involved in the movie. He makes a distinction between art and software because software is meant to do "practical jobs" whereas art is not so he does not put the free requirement on them.
> Assuming that the GPL is fully representative of Stallman's views,
What does Stallman or his views have to do with it? The GPL is a document that is interpreted by judges and juries, not by Stallman.
The text of the GPL itself makes no distinction between software or other things that can be copyrighted. GPLv3 even changes its language to make it clearer that it can be applied to non-software things. For example, it defines "source code" as "the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it". What this actually means is up to the aforementioned judges and juries, but for a movie, it's conceivable that the preferred source for modification is indeed the 3d models, the original reels, and so forth.
Seeing as he wrote the first version, was involved in the updates, and spends a lot of time promoting GPL, I would assume his views have a large influence in how it is used and perceived. GPL mentions software quite a few times and the preamble states "licenses for most software and other practical works". As I mentioned above, Stallman does not consider art as a practical work.
However, I am not sure how a judge or a lawyer would interpret the word practical work.
The GPL refers to the use of software, the licensing, the linking thereof.
This is nothing that would ever be covered or considered to be covered by the license. It's a screen shot of source code.
I don't think - well I know he's not - entitled to acknowledgement either, any more than the producers of a movie would be required to acknowledge the NYT because one of the characters is reading it in a coffee store.
Regardless of the GPL, I think this qualifies as fair use by any reasonable interpretation. By the I'll-take-down-your-youtube-video-because-my-copyrighted-music-is-playing-on-the-radio-in-the-background or every-unauthorized-song-download-is-a-loss-of-$150,000 interpretation, I think the author should sue for seven or eight figures.
Unless the GPL license is different from what I read here (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html) then it does not extend to make the entire film subject to the GPL license. The GPL license only extends to "covered works" (works based on the GPL'd work).
If the entire movie was based on the GPL'd work then the GPL could extend to the entire movie and its source assets. For example, if the code of the GPL'd work formed a central pillar of the plot of the movie (the actual code itself, not just its function or purpose because those things are not copyrightable), then the GPL could possibly extend to the entire movie. However, in movies the GPL'd work is usually just shown briefly on-screen to fill out a scene involving computer code; it does not form the basis of any part of the movie itself.
A bright line test: if the code could easily be replaced with random mumbo-jumbo psuedo code (or even jibberish) without meaningfully altering the tested work (i.e., the movie), then the GPL won't apply to the tested work.
No, you are interpreting the license text in the wrong context. Covered works in an legal context mean derivative work, as in: "A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting works" - United States Copyright Act in 17 U.S.C. § 101
Based upon don't mean "central pillar". If a copyrighted song plays in a movie, it would still count. The song do not need to be a "central pillar" of the movie.
The film could however argue that 1), the small amount of code is not copyrightable, or 2) that they have a permission under fair use.
To answer if something is copyrightable, you have to dig quite deep into case law. Simple pure silence for a set period of time has been granted that status. Its a quite difficult argument to make.
fair use is also a difficult one, since it normally looks down on for-profit exploitation. However, they do look if the market for the original work is "harmed" by the infringement, which in this case is obviously not.
Pressed, the film could be sued and might be found infringing. Had it been 10s of a song, I would say 99% certainty that it would be found infringing. 1 page of a program is less tested in court.
1) If the GPL wanted "covered work" to mean "derivative work" they would have chosen that language (the GPL is not jurisdiction specific, so they would not have included a cite to any particular statute). They chose not to, and basic rules of legal construction hold that this choice can be interpreted against that meaning.
2) You are misinterpreting the legal meaning of "based upon" which is what my post discussed.
A song in a movie does not make the movie a derivative work; it simply means the movie is distributing the song. The movie becomes a derivative work if, and only if, the movie is based upon the song, i.e., if some plot or character or some other aspect of the movie draws elements from the song. (For example, any random episode of Glee.) If the song could be replaced with another song without changing the movie, then no part of the movie is based upon the song, and the movie is not a derivative work.
On a second check into this, there is some corrections to my previous comment:
A “covered work” means either the unmodified Program or a
work based on the Program. - GPL
So what a covered work is, is clearly stated. Either unmodified program, or a work based on it.
You are right that a movie don't become a derivative work of any preexisting work it includes. Rather, the movie requires to have performance and "sync" rights to such works or they become legally liable for infringement.
So the real question is, do the GPL give performance and sync permission to the movie producer for using the covered work?
This License explicitly affirms your unlimited permission to run the
unmodified Program. The output from running a covered work is covered by this
License only if the output, given its content, constitutes a covered work.
The answer to that is ... only if the movie itself is based upon the code and thus become a covered work. Otherwise, the license to do not give any such permission. It could be argued that performance right is covered under the term "convey", as it states:
"To “convey” a work means any kind of propagation that enables other parties
to make or receive copies.".
However, it also says:
"Conveying under any other circumstances is permitted solely under the conditions
stated below."
Since performance and synchronization are not include below, such right can not be seen as given under the term of conveying.
So to correct my statement: The GPL can't come into effect since it is not giving any permission to the movie producer in the first place. The movie producer would have to get a separate license or be liable under copyright. You are right however that movies do not become derivative works of the preexisting works they incorporate.
