I need permission from Carly Simon to put a video on YouTube I shot on a BlackBerry!!

[Cameron Poole]

"Human progress" is a very subjective term. :(

[Keith Dobie]

Very good thread, thanks. Was thinking that even if some unlicensed pop music is included in a video because it's "just for the couple and family" and delivered on DVD, you really never know what they'll do with it later. That "private" video could easily end up on YouTube or elsewhere. I think we should always assume that any video we create for a client could eventually end up online.

[Cameron Poole]

I hope this doesn't sound bad but I have never subscribed to 'the law', I have never voted and I have never had much faith in the powers that be. That said: I have never been in trouble with the law, I have never been arrested and I have never committed a crime other than the time I was chased by French police for running out of a supermarket with a toy hovercraft which I wanted to show my parents, but I was nine and didn't know what I was doing so it doesn't really count.

Here in Thailand, anything goes - it's in your face corrupt. Be that a good or bad thing, well it's beside the point, it's nature, it's natural. You have to bend the rules a little bit to get on in this life, and it is my personal opinion just to treat others the way you'd want to be treated yourself, have integrity and decency - and we shouldn't need a religious book or 'laws' created by self interested powers to dictate to us what is right or wrong.

The reason I have never been in trouble with the police (UK or Thai) is not because I follow any guidebook, it's because I'm a decent bloke and most of it comes naturally to me, you know - not stealing, harming or killing.

If I was greedy, I would have lots of money and I would subscribe to this ridiculously strict copyright nonsense. I would also be happy to pay whatever it costs to use 'The Logical Song' by Supertramp on a promotional video for whatever, but I'm not in this for the money - money is just a means to survive, I have no time for greed.

Finally, you know what really gets me? It's the richest artists that are the most expensive. Silly thing to say really, I realized that as I was typing it. It's the way of the world (which we have created for ourselves) and it will always irk me.

[Andy Balla]

"It's the richest artists that are the most expensive"

I think that's called "supply and demand", more or less.

[Brian Drysdale]

Also the poorer artists rely on being paid in order to survive. Many only have one commercially successful work, which allows them to continue working at their art.

[Simon Wood]

Originally Posted by Cameron Poole

It's the way of the world (which we have created for ourselves) and it will always irk me.

I'm with you Cameron - good old fashioned common sense seems to be a thing of the past I'm afraid.

Lets just take that Simpsons thing as an example - somebody shot a documentary and that tv show happened to be one of the many things that was taking place as reality happened. Lets just assume that it was a TV station showing it and that they had legally paid for the rights to air it. That ought to be the end of it. Same with if a radio station played some music legally and had paid the rights to do so: where is the problem? What is 'illegal' about capturing that moment in time and everything that took place during it?

But somehow these execs (and their lawyers) believe they are above that, and more important than everything else.

If everyone had the same view then that documentary would have to start paying the people who made the shirt the guy was wearing, his jeans, the mug he drank coffee out of, the particular brand of coffee he was drinking, the manufacturer of the glasses he used to read with, the biro he wrote with, the pad he wrote on, the architect of the building they were in, the company who made the tiles on the floor, the brand of paint on the wall. The tailor who made the curtains around the window behind him, all the brands of cars on the highway in the distance, the company who made that window, the chair he sat on, the desk they were at.

They would even have to pay the manufacturer of the TV that the damn Simpons was showing on in the background!

But no. Most people would say; I made these thing to sell them, and once they are sold they are out there in the world, come what may. Most people wouldn't expect to get paid twice, just because someone chose to wear them and got caught on a camera.

But that's what is essentially happening here. That Simpsons episode was bought and paid for by the TV station, it was out there in the world, and someone chose to watch it when they were caught on camera. And now they want to be paid for it twice.

Common sense should have prevailed in this case. The people in charge should have said, look if this guy filmed an entire episode of the Simpsons in full frame and put his own ads on it, then yeah, prosecute him. But if it was just an irrelevant clip in the background while the main event took place in the foreground then why bother trying to change reality?

[Steve House]

Originally Posted by Simon Wood

...But if you are making documentary then you are recording reality as it unfolds. The fact is people watch tv, they listen to music, and advertising (in the form of posters) are put up in public places. If that is recoded incidentally, without any planning; well then that is just a reflection of reality. Are we really to believe that background music and images are somehow 'exempt' from reality, exempt from the real world? They're not; the media is a part of of the modern fabric of society.
....?

It's not that one expects images etc not to be a feature of the real world. But the documentary is a piece of intellectual property, a story created by the program producer, that is a copyrightable work in its own right. The only fundamental difference between a documentary story and a piece of fiction is the doco is presumably based on or illustrates fact. When it includes images or music that are copyright in their own right, permission from those copyright owners must be obtained for the use of their intellectual property. Why do you think fact-based stories should be treated differently than fictional stories in that regard? Especially for something done purely for entertainment value such as a wedding video? After all, it's not news, it's just a momento like the piece of wedding cake frozen in the fridget. Note that for journalism, at least in North America it was decided in the legislation that the public's need to know the current news overrides the right of an IP owner to profit from his work, but not all documentaries are news coverage by a long shot... the factual material in "March of the Penguins" is not as crucial to the survival of a free society as is the debate surrounding the "Wikileaks" controversy. The doco maker feels HIS story is vitally important to get out but the fact is, most may be interesting but aren't really all that earth-shakingly important.

The difference between that and coffee cups, tiles, etc, is the worth of a piece of IP is not in utility of the physical object but rather the ideas that it is based on. Use those ideas to illustrate your own and you need to license them from the person who created them.

BTW, to the OP ... you probably don't need permission from Carly Simon. You need permission from the composer and lyricist that created the song, as represented by the publisher for that paticular song, and from the record label that issued the recording that is being played. Unless she's the song's publsher or issued the song on her own label, Carly's permission is irrelevant.

[Simon Wood]

Originally Posted by Steve House

The difference between that and coffee cups, tiles, etc, is the worth of a piece of IP is not in utility of the physical object but rather the ideas that it is based on. Use those ideas to illustrate your own and you need to license them from the person who created them.

I disagree, fundamentally, from a common sense point of view. With this mindset future documentaries and newscasts will be plagued with problems, and riddled with those blurred backgrounds we are increasingly exposed to. Newsmen and documentarians should be free to do their journalism without interference. Freedom of expression and freedom to reflect reality as we see it every day.

The difference between a movie and a documentary would be that in the movie everything that is placed there is placed for a reason, and anything can be excluded. If someone chose to have a serial-killer watching the Simpsons in a movie (to highlight some theme or something) and it was an active and artistic choice to do so then they had better get permission and pay for it.

If something appears in the background of a newscast or documentary, and is irrelevant to the story, and has no 'artistic' or 'intellectual' relevance to the story then why should it be immune?

You say "Use those ideas to illustrate your own and you need to license them from the person who created them" and yes I agree with you, if you use them to illustrate your own idea. If the are not been used to illustrate an idea then they are just another product out in the world, and should be treated as such.

[Paul R Johnson]

There was a man on a news item today, who was really upset some music he had written had been used in a product without his permission - he put his case very well. He said it was something he made, hearing it used to support something somebody else had made was like having your house broken into. He pointed out he spent hours and hours on the piece, honing and tweaking until he considered it perfect. Somebody else, who couldn't be bothered to do it themselves, or even pay to have it done by somebody just took it, and without any though - used it as if it was theirs. He couldn't find any circumstance for justification. I tend to think he was right!

Incidentally, youtube use audio fingerprints - popular songs are in a database, and as these don't require an entire song - it can even find a problem piece if it's been edited. The user has no idea of which part of the recording is being used for the sample, so it's luck.

[David W. Jones]

What is it with this generation that they feel entitled? Especially when it comes to media. Maybe it has to do with the lack of formal training which was once the norm. When I started you learned your craft from elders in the business, who learned their craft from their elders in the business. If you were a director of photography it was because you earned the title. Now in 2011 if you want to be a media producer/film maker/director of photography/sound recordist/insert title here/ you buy a computer and cheap camera, give yourself the title of DP, and then gleam the Internet for information on how to shoot and light. Don't get me wrong, the Internet is a wealth of information, but not all of it is correct information. In the case of copyright materials, these kids are not learning the dos and donts. And when they are informed they don't comply. Maybe they feel that they are not dealing with tangibles like a solid object they can see in their hands. They would not likely steal a car, or kick in you door and rob you, but in their minds a copyright song or video clip is just digital information on a computer screen which they can access on the Internet. The fact of the matter is, just because you can access copyright materials on the Internet does not give you the right to use it. It's stealing plain and simple. And because these kids have never worked in a professional capacity, they have no respect for the works of other professionals. But not to just single out young pups, stealing goes on at the corporate level as well. Years back I composed music packages for TV stations. News opens, bumps, and the like. A company which owned 7 TV stations across the country liked my music pkg and a special agreement was reached for all 7 stations. Well after a year they decided not to renew the contract. Two years later I get a call from the disgruntled VO guy at one of the stations. They were still using my music. Two years of income x 7 TV stations! Bottom line, no matter how famous or rich you think a songwriter may be, that does not give you the right to steal from them. They are real people who work hard to support their real families.

All the Best!

Dave

[Paul R Johnson]

The ironic thing is that all the people who started out in the past few years and seem to have a lenient attitude to sampling all issue their work on CD with the copyright blurb clearly in place. So they seem to consider other people's copyright not a problem, but consider their own 100% valid!

[Cameron Poole]

Originally Posted by David W. Jones

The fact of the matter is, just because you can access copyright materials on the Internet does not give you the right to use it. It's stealing plain and simple. And because these kids have never worked in a professional capacity, they have no respect for the works of other professionals.

I admire Carly Simon as an artist and I respect Prince William and Kate Middleton as a couple. To use either in a non professional video to be shared among friends is a tribute to both from a common sense point of view. From a modern, self interested and profiteering point of view it is stealing.

This all seems to be an issue because I am a videographer, as we all are, but remember that I was not on a shoot, I was with friends. I could have shot this as an English teacher or an asphalt spreader, perhaps then it would be less of an issue.

I make my money from my professional gigs, and I use royalty free music or sound effects from the Apple iMovie library (which are royalty free - I checked in 2006) and I get upset if I don't get paid, but if somebody uses one of my videos to entertain somebody they know, I don't ruin the media it so it can't be enjoyed - I actually take it as a compliment, why wouldn't I? I value people over money, and I'm sure Carly does and probably the writer/composer of 'Nobody Does It Better' does but it's the publishing company who only gives a toss about money, they wouldn't know the first thing about creativity and non profit sharing which is why they do what they do, and they are more guilty of ripping of artists than ANYBODY is.

I'm just getting the topic back firmly on the rails, I know I have a valid point and I don't know why so many defend this ever increasing big brother-ism of the world. I wonder if the recent Google takeover has anything to do with this.

Are Simon and I the only people here who has used whatever music we fancied to compliment a video we created for our friends or family?

[Predrag Vasic]

Originally Posted by Cameron Poole

I'm just getting the topic back firmly on the rails, I know I have a valid point and I don't know why so many defend this ever increasing big brother-ism of the world. I wonder if the recent Google takeover has anything to do with this.

Are Simon and I the only people here who has used whatever music we fancied to compliment a video we created for our friends or family?

I don't think anyone here is arguing against your using whatever music you fancy to complement a home video created for friends and family.

The problem is, you put that video on YouTube. YouTube is a money-making, commercial venture, that makes advertising dollars by leveraging content of their users. By putting your video on YouTube, you entered in agreement with YouTube whereby you are receiving their service free of charge (ability to upload HD videos and make them accessible to anyone in the world), in exchange for them collecting revenue from advertising along your own video(s). So, technically, you and YouTube, in a joint business venture, are using a Carly Simon song to make money, without permission.

There isn't much "big brotherism" here; this is fairly easy to understand. Anyone who has ever created any artistic expression for a living will understand why the Carly Simon audio track was removed from YouTube.

[Predrag Vasic]

Originally Posted by Simon Wood

I disagree, fundamentally, from a common sense point of view. With this mindset future documentaries and newscasts will be plagued with problems, and riddled with those blurred backgrounds we are increasingly exposed to. Newsmen and documentarians should be free to do their journalism without interference. Freedom of expression and freedom to reflect reality as we see it every day.

It really does not matter if the movie is a scripted narrative film, or a documentary. Either genre has still one primary purpose, which is to entertain (in addition to making money for the producer).

As mentioned before, there is only one, very narrowly defined category, that is exempt from copyright clearance, and that is news gathering. The only way such use is allowed is when copyrighted content (music soundtrack, video, spoken or printed text) is incidental to the primary story of the news item. The scope here is extremely narrow and very carefully evaluated, to make sure that NOBODY is making money (or getting famous, which indirectly provides meaningful gain) by leveraging someone else's copyrighted work without compensating that someone else.

[Predrag Vasic]

Originally Posted by Simon Wood

If everyone had the same view then that documentary would have to start paying the people who made the shirt the guy was wearing, his jeans, the mug he drank coffee out of, the particular brand of coffee he was drinking, the manufacturer of the glasses he used to read with, the biro he wrote with, the pad he wrote on, the architect of the building they were in, the company who made the tiles on the floor, the brand of paint on the wall. The tailor who made the curtains around the window behind him, all the brands of cars on the highway in the distance, the company who made that window, the chair he sat on, the desk they were at.

They would even have to pay the manufacturer of the TV that the damn Simpons was showing on in the background!

I'm not sure you clearly understand the point of copyright. None of the items you mentioned in your example are copyrighted (nor are they coypright-able, to begin with). These are objects for everyday use, not expressions of artistic idea (although an artistic idea was clearly used in the industrial design of at least some of them). If that mug had a copyrighted cartoon from the New Yorker, then yes, the clearance must be obtained from the cartoonist (or owner of the rights).

As for brands and their logos appearing visibly (and identifiably) in a commercial picture, that falls into the category of product placement, where different kinds of sponsorship agreements are in place.