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

[Richard Crowley]

Originally Posted by Predrag Vasic

Luckily, in my case, that Bach piece was performed live by my 10-year old daughter (accompanied on the piano by my wife). No mechanical royalties either...

But unless you have a facsimile of the original manuscript (which modern performers find nearly impossible to read), I would wager a nice dinner in Manhattan that they were using a copyright-protected modern EDITION of the music. And in the UK, they have even ANOTHER layer of copyright, the engraving (graphical layout) has separate copyright protection from the edition. OTOH, getting mechanical and sync licensing is a lot easier in many other countries where copyright laws were developed later (or updated more recently) than the USA.

[Cameron Poole]

Originally Posted by Sam Mallery

A character in the film wakes up with an exact reproduction of Mike Tyson's tattoo on his face. The artist is claiming a copyright on the design and wants royalties.

I've seen the Ed Helms poster for The Hangover II, (which incidentally was partly shot just up the road last October), and remember wondering if Tyson and his tattoo artist had been consulted, which he should have been - I'm surprised the production didn't cover themselves on this one. They should know how greedy and opportunistic people have become (especially in the US) and take every precaution possible.

I'm sure the artist would have demanded an extortionate amount to have the tattoo used and I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that he will be revelling in the fact that he can sue and make even more money. If we are not careful then one day we will all be suing each other and seeing therapists and there will be no space to move creatively whatsoever.

Originally Posted by Chris Hurd

Try looking at it from another point of view. How would you feel if somebody else did this with your own material?

I'd be delighted.

I don't want to have to say a third time that this topic is about sharing a private video amongst friends but what I will add is that perhaps what I could have or should have done is set the video to private so that it could not be viewed unless I posted somebody a link.

I don't expect everybody to agree with me but to fill three pages I must have a valid point.

[Jim Andrada]

Classical music is often available in "Urtext" or original editions which have no editing (such as fingerings etc) applied - it's usually the editing that is copyright in new editions not the underlying music.

[Steve House]

Originally Posted by Cameron Poole

...
I don't want to have to say a third time that this topic is about sharing a private video amongst friends but what I will add is that perhaps what I could have or should have done is set the video to private so that it could not be viewed unless I posted somebody a link.

I don't expect everybody to agree with me but to fill three pages I must have a valid point.

But it's not about sharing a personal video privately with friends. It's about publishing a video to the general public on YouTube, no different than plastering a picture on billboards coast-to-coast, printing a book for general circulation, hanging a picture in a gallery open to the public, or broadcasting a film on a TV network. Posting to YouTube means you have published it to everyone on the planet with a computer and internet connection. True, they may have to click a certain link but functionally that's no different from having to tune my TV to the proper channel at the proper time to watch the latest episode of The Simpson's. People seem to have the notion that because they're not Sony Studios or Columbia Pictures they don't have to abide by the same intellectual property laws the mainstream professionals do.

[Jim Andrada]

What about using a "cloud" storage provider like Dropbox or even Amazon instead of Youtube? If the online repository is simply an extension of the private files on your hard drive, wouldn't it fit the definition of "private"?

[Predrag Vasic]

Originally Posted by Richard Crowley

But unless you have a facsimile of the original manuscript (which modern performers find nearly impossible to read), I would wager a nice dinner in Manhattan that they were using a copyright-protected modern EDITION of the music.

In my case, we used an old edition of Bach music that became public domain some time ago, from the IMSLP (Petrucci Music Library, the online library of public domain music). I made sure we were clear, not that anyone would have ever come after us for infringement.

(I'll take that dinner at the "21 Club", if that works for you...)

[Adam Gold]

Originally Posted by Sam Mallery

And as far as crazy copyright law is concerned, how about the recent case of the tattoo artist whose lawsuit is keeping The Hangover II from being released?

Just to clarify a bit:

Judge Denies Tattoo Artist's Request to Halt Release of 'Hangover Part II' - Hollywood Reporter

[Predrag Vasic]

The movie release goes ahead as planned, but so does the trial, and it seems that the tattoo artist has good chances of becoming obscenely rich from this.

[Richard Crowley]

Originally Posted by Predrag Vasic

(I'll take that dinner at the "21 Club", if that works for you...)

We used to look down our noses at the old "Kalmus" editions, but they were inexpensive because they were facsimiles of public-domain 19th century editions, and copyright-free.

I've never been to NYC. Is this 21 Club place expensive? :-)
Is there a 10.5 club?

[Simon Wood]

Originally Posted by Predrag Vasic

The movie release goes ahead as planned, but so does the trial, and it seems that the tattoo artist has good chances of becoming obscenely rich from this.

I would imagine the producers will play the 'parody' card, and this would eventually settle out of court...

[Kevin Spahr]

I noticed that "Fair Use" has been mentioned in this discussion. Remember, Fair Use is a defense, not a right or law. You argue in court that what you are accused of is not a copyright violation, but should be considered Fair Use. That also means that you now have legal costs and most likely, a lot more than any if us would enjoy spending. This is also something that would be REALLY stupid to try to defend yourself against.

So for me, I avoid anything that may have any even a chance of causing a legal action, and I have turned down lots of jobs where people seem to have no concern for copyright laws. It just isn't worth the risk to me.

And it really doesn't matter what YOU or I think is "right" or "wrong", it comes down to what the courts says.

(RANT WARNING)
This entire discussion about getting rights for a youtube video is a bit ridiculous. Not only has youtube damaged the idea and value of a quality production, it is now destroying the idea of content. Youtube is overflowing with mindless and useless dribble. It reminds me of how of cows in a field will stop chewing to watch anything as it moves past them. Three million people will watch a poorly shot video of a dog making funny noises, and I would bet most of them are watching it while they should be working.

And yet some people are surprised that an artist like Carly Simon isn't just overjoyed to have her beautiful music attached to a cellphone youtube video. Why shouldn't someone who creates something great and beautiful have control in how it is used? You could always create something better, right?

My wife is a musician and makes a living performing her original music and selling CDs of it. I'm quite proud of her because she is one of few musicians I know that actually earns a living in the indie music biz and puts money in the bank besides. We have to constantly be watching the web for illegal copies of her music and then issuing DMCA Takedown Notices to the ISPs. She is not famous or rich, but use her music in your video and you will hear from us when we find it.

[Richard Crowley]

Originally Posted by Kevin Spahr

Not only has youtube damaged the idea and value of a quality production, it is now destroying the idea of content. Youtube is overflowing with mindless and useless dribble.

And moronic drivel, too. Everything that Mr. Spahr said, absolutely. And good for his wife for protecting her intellectual property.

I'd like to know how there is so much content up on YouTube that is obviously copyright-protected music. I can find content there in the form of sound tracks for home-made "music videos" (used in the broadest possible sense of the term) that I would have to pay for if it were an MP3 on iTunes, et.al. Even to the point where there appears to be lower-third pop-up ads for buying this recording legitimately. Is YouTube paying royalties per view? If so, then the IP owners should be getting paid and YouTube is making them money, why would anyone ask to have something taken down? OTOH, if YT is not paying license/royalties, then why is there so much obviously protected music up there (for years and years)? Do the IP owners not care?

And, certainly the original question/attitude/motivation had no serious merit.

[Cameron Poole]

Originally Posted by Richard Crowley

if YT is not paying license/royalties, then why is there so much obviously protected music up there (for years and years)? Do the IP owners not care?

I guess not, what lawsuit money is to be made from a 15 yr old who's put together a compilation of his favorite movie clips to his favorite Eminem track? YouTube is full of rubbish like this, innocent mindless dross and far far worse. I suppose by that rationale I should take it as a compliment that my video has been singled out, though I'm being targeted because my content ISN'T crap - so therefore I must be making money from it. Nope, not everyone in this world is motivated by cash, some of us do things for the love of doing it.

I would have thought it more of an issue that I've used footage from the royal wedding, and somebody must own that. Some would argue that it's the cameraman, I once heard that you own whatever you shoot, but it's probably Sky News.

My video is of no commercial interest to anybody, least of all myself. And this thread should not have generated all the furor that it has considering that the wealthy and powerful get away with far bigger illegalities all the time though that is accepted as they are seemingly untouchable.

I've been ripped off, unpaid, and had my work exploited and I've never done it in a harmful way to anyone else because it's against my morals, nothing to do with law. I don't need a book to tell me what is right and wrong, legal, religious or otherwise. I have burned my lips on McDonald's coffee and slipped on wet floors yet never felt the need to file a lawsuit because if you're rational about it - it's all part of real life, not this Orwellian nonsense which is going way too far and which is a detriment to human progress.

[Steve House]

Originally Posted by Cameron Poole

...I would have thought it more of an issue that I've used footage from the royal wedding, and somebody must own that. Some would argue that it's the cameraman, I once heard that you own whatever you shoot, but it's probably Sky News.

Depends on whether you are an independent artist, a contractor, or an employee. Any person who creates a copyrightable work own the copyright on it by default, EXCEPT when he is working as a bona fide employee acting within the scope of his employment. In that case, the employer is the author of the work and owns the copyright. In terms of the Royal wedding, who owns the copyright probably depends on what exact footage you used. I'm guessing much of it comes from press pool coverage with cameras set up by the Palace's communications office. If that's the case, most likely copyright is owned by the Crown.

My video is of no commercial interest to anybody, least of all myself. And this thread should not have generated all the furor that it has considering that the wealthy and powerful get away with far bigger illegalities all the time though that is accepted as they are seemingly untouchable.
...

Commercial interest for your video is irrelevant. Copyright doesn't merely cover commercial usage of a work of intellectual property ... it covers ALL uses, both commercial and non-commerical. The fundamental notion is that the author of a creative work has the fundamental right to control when, where, for what purpose, and to whom it is published in public. It is just as illegal to burn copies of a music CD and give them away as Christmas presents as it is to burn bootleg copies and sell them at the corner convenience store. You have that right of control with your property, with the fruits of your creativity, and the owners of the song you used have the same rights with the fruits of their's, rights that you should be morally bound to respect. Your use of a song without permission disrespects the rights of those who created that song.

[Richard Crowley]

Originally Posted by Cameron Poole

My video is of no commercial interest to anybody, least of all myself. And this thread should not have generated all the furor that it has considering that the wealthy and powerful get away with far bigger illegalities all the time though that is accepted as they are seemingly untouchable.

I've been ripped off, unpaid, and had my work exploited and I've never done it in a harmful way to anyone else because it's against my morals, nothing to do with law. I don't need a book to tell me what is right and wrong, legal, religious or otherwise. I have burned my lips on McDonald's coffee and slipped on wet floors yet never felt the need to file a lawsuit because if you're rational about it - it's all part of real life, not this Orwellian nonsense which is going way too far and which is a detriment to human progress.

Your response sounds like simply "sour grapes" (The Fox and the Grapes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).
I think you are missing the whole point of Intellectual Property and Copyright/Patent, etc. Nobody would have risked the resources it took to invent the technology you are using to read this (computers, communication, integrated circuits, and the underlying technology) if patents and copyrights didn't exist which allow inventors, writers, artists, etc. to exploit their creations for profit.