Entertainment desk
< February 22	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 24 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

February 23

Is the sound of painting on TV shows copyrighted?

On all painting TV shows and documentaries is the sound of the brush putting paint on, or scrubbing against, the canvas. I've always been curious. Is this sound technically copyrighted? I ask because 1) it sounds very similar between all painting shows, and 2) it can easily be reproduced with a canvas and brush and mic — there's almost nothing "original" about this sound. (I'm actually curious about sounds that are not specifically created by a post-production sound team, that's what I'm getting at; other examples might be the sound of water boiling/steaming on cooking shows or traffic in the background on news channels, etc.) Reflectionsinglass (talk) 05:56, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We are not allowed to give legal advice (you can probably evade that restriction by rephrasing your question though). Also, the laws over here are probably different than the laws in your country, so it may be a good idea to specify a location. See also Threshold of originality. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 07:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the sound effect is not recorded live or specifically created by a foley artist, then it is probably a from a stock sound effect library (which is why they often sound similar or identical). The use of these depends on the sound or the library—some may be licensed, bought or subscribed to; others may be royalty-free or public domain; and some may be shared amongst people in sound departments or the sound editing community from their own recordings. --Canley (talk) 10:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a sidenote: instead of a foley artist, isn't it more logical to just put a sensitive microphone directly in the shooting scene and record all relevant sounds live? Brandmeister^talk 19:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Logical, maybe, effective, no. See Foley, Sound design, and watch Singin' In The Rain. Tevildo (talk) 20:09, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you're going for a "reality" feel, you generally want to keep recording equipment out of frame. It distracts viewers from the star of the show. If your offscreen mics are sensitive enough to hear brushing, they'll also hear flies buzzing, knuckles popping, intestines churning and lights humming. Tinkering with directionality can eliminate much of that, but you'd need to cover the canvas for the live brush sound, and that's a lot of room for something to sneak in that you'll just have to fix (or try to fix) in post anyway. Much easier to start mostly blank and add the parts you want, like painters do. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:20, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some considerations on that sort of jazz here. Those pages scroll a bit weird for me, so beware. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:31, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting replies, thank you. Referring to the Threshold of Originality, then, does this refer to a work as a whole, or to pieces that combine to make a whole work? Referring back to my painting TV show, and being more specific, I would think that Bob Ross hitting his brush against the easel would be an original sound—as far as I know, no other painting TV show has that sound. But the sound of a brush or palette knife mixing paint on the palette and brushing the paint onto the canvas wouldn't be original at all, since a myriad of shows have this same sound. By the way, I'm being specific with the painting shows, but my curiosity comes from paying attention to sounds across all sorts of motion picture media. Reflectionsinglass (talk) 05:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Questions like this are, I think, extremely context dependent: dependent on the 'owner' of the sound and dependent on what you're planning on doing. The short version of the rule is: unless you know for a fact that something has been released for use, you should always assume that every aspect of a work or recording is owned by somebody and that it is not free for you to use. Copyright law is way too complex and regionally idiosyncratic to make any other broad statement. Matt Deres (talk) 21:33, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Film ID

I've recently read about some film, possibly American, made in late 90s-early 2000s. The plot is based on a serial killer, who murders adulterous married women and inserts their wedding rings into their vaginas. Googling was unhelpful. Any ideas? Brandmeister^talk 15:13, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Brandmeister: You are describing The River Murders, from 2011. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BaOeUEECQAEoTfG.png The Quixotic Potato (talk) 18:55, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of interest, I Googled "movie serial killer inserts wedding ringi into vagina" and got The Quixotic Potato's movie at the top of the list. Widneymanor (talk) 20:05, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done