How about copyrights?

[Alexandre Dornellas Cruz]

If I Create a synthetic video from a sample of a Hollywood film, this new image would be considered a new video? Is this new "animaton" copyright protected?

[Frank N]

Be carefully. The copyright is always with the originator. One is not allowed to use material where there is copyright on, as long as you are not asking for and getting a permission (this is general of course means you have to pay for the use). Still lots of people just doing it but as I said before ...

[Jean Detheux]

We should not let the commercial agenda become a model/norm for the world of art. It used to be perfectly normal for our predecessors to "feed off" each other's work, be it in painting or in music, and quoting each other and more was the norm (think of Bach's numerous works based on Vivaldi's).
Two things come to my mind: 1) much of what can be done from/with an original piece through Studio Artist can really transform it into something totally different. Providing the artist sees, in the original source, just that: a source of inspiration that supports his/her own vision.
If it is just a crutch used to compensate the lack of originality, then that's a different story.
2) The other thing is this: we do not create "out of nothing" (well, not, in a certain way), who could claim to be totally "original?" Everything we do, the very act/thought of painting itself included, is stemming from what people before, and around, us, were/are doing.
I guess it boils down to why we are using somebody else' work, what it is we intend to do with/from it.
Just looking at the darn thing could be enough to give (sometime specific) ideas that were not "in our head" before we saw that piece.
I believe we serve our culture best when we are honestly acknowledging that we are being influenced by the things we like (and dislike), and that this is not only "normal," it is "good."

[Frank N]

Hi Jean, Alexandre, and everybody else showing up.

In generally I completely agree with you (Jean). We're all influenced and what is "new" anyway? But still there is a difference between being influenced (in what way ever) or just using things up. But somehow you too have said that already.
However, I was just trying to answer Alexandre's question. And it is just a fact that the whole copyright issue has been winded up into madness over the past decades. Not rare times in Hollywood they spent millions of bucks before they even start. Not one single scene shot, no one is paid, and the budget outline shows up already millions of dollars. Rights here, rights there, rights everywhere. Isn't it crazy? Yes it is! But it is a reality.
To oppose something against this craziness Lawrence Lessig came up with the Creative Commons, which is a very good and almost revolutionary thing. All this open source communities too.
But coming back to Alexandre's question. The only thing I am saying is, that if you use material from a hollwood film or any other high commercial source you should know about that this is not really legal and possibly if you have bad luck you'll end up having big massive problems. Means, if you use it then at least you should be aware and consciously about what you are doing.
If Andy Warhol would do nowadays what he has done in the sixties I guess he would spent more time in courtroom than in his studio, if you know what I mean.
And there might be times where it even becomes a necessity to use some material from others. The project Loose Change (http://www.loosechange911.com/lc2e.htm) for example would not exist without using all this material from NBC, CBS and all this TV channels. The filmmakers didn't give a damn because it was needed to have this material and they felt that they have to do this film.
At the end it is a decision but again one should be conscious.

So let's be creative (in what way ever) and change the world into the better ...

Best
Frank

[Jean Detheux]

Frank,
All we need to do is connect with our vision ("Each one of us is a brand new point of view on the world" said Merleau-Ponty) and if we do so, whatever we start from/with will be "processed," often to unrecognizable levels.
Giacometti had it right when he said "If I could really draw what I see, nobody would recognize what I was drawing." (Or something to that effect.)
Here's an example: I took a Rothko reproduction as source image in Studio Artist (a few years ago), and worked with it for a good little while. It went through many transformations (that "processing" by our vision) and ended up as this animated sketch:
It's funny how, starting from a Rothko, I ended up with a sketch that seems a lot closer to the work of another favorite painter of mine, Archille Gorky.
But what I am trying to say is that if we spend time with whatever work from "out there" we are attracted to, it will provide us with hints of what we can do,with our own vision, and if we do work hard with/from/on it, that "external" work will eventually become our own.
Decades ago, while in art school, we practiced "copying" the masters, over and over. It is still something occasionally do today (like with that Rothko), and it never ceases t amaze e how much I uncover about my own likes and dislikes, when I allow somebody else' work to lead the dance for a while.

Best

Jean

[Jean Detheux]

The sketch based on Rothko's painting is here (I hope it shows up this time).