Here's a follow-up on my situation if anyone is interested. I ended up calling the four music publishers who owned the copyrights for the five songs we wanted to broadcast on the access channel. One publisher said if we were only going to show it once or twice not to worry about anything and gave me verbal permission. One publisher said if the access channel had a BMI license that would cover one showing. Any additional showings would cost between $25 and $50 per showing. The third publisher, who owns the rights to two of the songs, said the synch license would be $50 per song to show the concert twice. The last publisher told me to fax the information to them. The person I spoke to gave me an estimate of $50 to $300 to show it twice.

After spending a lot of time to track down this information we decided to pass on the project.

Chris

I searched older posts here but couldn't find any similar topics.

Is it legal to create a Television commercial using props that look like they belong on a famous movie. For example, could I use a person dressed as Darth Vader (in a costume we made) or could we use a very realistic replica of R2D2 in a parody commercial?

We will consult an attorney before we begin production but until then I would appreciate any input on the subject.

Thanks.

Close but not too close is best. Think of the Darth Vader-like costume in Spaceballs for Dark Helmet. And that was a parody, so could get away with more than a commercial can. Artie & Garth sound like good names to me. :) IANAA.

We'll see how far we can twist the parody's to keep them as far removed from the original as possible. Spaceballs and Dark Helment were good examples. Thanks John.

I can't give legal advice to non-clients, so there is a limit as to how far I can go with this. Some points:

1. Parody is a fair use exception. To come within fair use, standard fair use analysis applies. I don't know whether a commercial, even one that's intended as a parody, will necessarily come within fair use.

2. Parody requires that the protected expression that's copied is the subject of the parody. Without knowing a lot more about what you're planning, it's impossible to say whether it would come within fair use, even if you could get around the economic considerations.

3. Clothing can't be protected by copyright. Sculpture can. It's a fine line between what might be protectable expression and what might not.

4. Even if copyright isn't implicated, trademark certainly is. Intentional trademark infringement is defined as "deliberately trading on the goodwill appurtentant to the mark of another so as to cause a likelihood of consumer confusion as to source, sponsorship or affiliation." It sounds like that might be what you're doing.

5. Less than verbatim copying can still result in liability for copyright and trademark infringement.

There's no way that you'll be able to get a reliable opinion from anyone on this board. The _only_ way you can be sure that what you're doing won't subject you to extensive liability is to retain a lawyer and get an opinion.

I gotta learn not to post so late at night. While I was trying to say that your commercial project would not stand up to the liberties available in a parody, it sure didn't come out that way. Good thing Paul jumped in with some clarity.

And the only reliable legal advice I give out is to get some. :)

Real-world example of Paul's #2 example:

http://www.ncac.org/issues/peterkuper.htm

In a 1997 case, in which the O.J. Simpson trial was mocked in a book entitled The Cat NOT in the Hat, styled along the lines of Dr. Seuss, a federal appeals court found an insufficient level of parody to lend protection under fair use. The court held that the authors of The Cat NOT in the Hat merely used Dr. Seuss’ style and the title “to get attention,” but the authors failed to “hold Dr. Seuss’ style up to ridicule.”

The rest of the article is about "A political satire entitled Richie Bush by cartoonist Peter Kuper [...] that has caused several books from a recent shipment to the port of Charleston to be seized by U.S. Customs."

Thanks again everyone for taking the time to post your comments and information. It's greatly appreciated. As I mentioned above, we will not proceed until we consult an attorney.

Most of the copyright discussions here seem to be centered on using recorded music in a finished product...

Is it violation of copyright laws when you TAPE a cover band (with their permission of course) doing a copyrighted song? (in a bar setting)

What if it's for their own private use?

In the same vein, would it be easier to get the permission to use a copyrighted song done by a cover band from the publisher(s) to put into a commercial product? (maybe permission isn't the right word here)

Does anyone know if the fees would be any lower?

Is it violation of copyright laws when you TAPE a cover band (with their permission of course) doing a copyrighted song? (in a bar setting)
Yes. It infringes the copyright of the underlying work.

What if it's for their own private use?
Doesn't matter. It's still an unauthorized copy. There might be a fair use argument available depending on what they're doing with the tape.

In the same vein, would it be easier to get the permission to use a copyrighted song done by a cover band from the publisher(s) to put into a commercial product? (maybe permission isn't the right word here)
"License" is the word you're looking for. It depends on the work, the publisher, and commercial product. You might not be able to obtain a license at all.

Does anyone know if the fees would be any lower?
Lower than what? Sorry, but I'm not clear what you're asking.

Thanks for the answer, I kind of thought that was the story...

I just want to make sure how things work so I don't do anything that's going to get me in trouble.

I meant to ask if using a version of a song done by someone else would be cheaper and/or easier to use legally than an original recording in a video, but your answer more or less made that a mute point.

A mechanical license, I assume is just for making an audio recording and it's not the only license, permission or fee that would be involved, and then video would be a whole different kettle-o-fish.

I think I will highly value my talented wife and her willingness to provide original music for my little productions!

I also understand why my one friend is hired full time by a small video company to write songs and music for commercial jobs, it must save them a bundle of money, not to mention time!

When CBS does something this INXS band member contest and asks for a demo tape to be submitted, wouldn't this kind of be encouraging copyright infringement?

<<<-- Originally posted by Kevin Spahr : Thanks for the answer, I kind of thought that was the story...

I just want to make sure how things work so I don't do anything that's going to get me in trouble.

I meant to ask if using a version of a song done by someone else would be cheaper and/or easier to use legally than an original recording in a video, but your answer more or less made that a mute point.
There are two sets of rights that are of concern: (1) the copyright in the underlying musical work and, (2) if you use someone else's recording, the copyright in the recording itself.

A mechanical license, I assume is just for making an audio recording and it's not the only license, permission or fee that would be involved, and then video would be a whole different kettle-o-fish.
That's correct. There are compulsory licenses available for releasing audio recordings of covers, but that wouldn't apply to synchronization issues, i.e. using the cover in a video or film.

I think I will highly value my talented wife and her willingness to provide original music for my little productions!That's the best way to go (or else license royalty-free libraries, etc.).

I also understand why my one friend is hired full time by a small video company to write songs and music for commercial jobs, it must save them a bundle of money, not to mention time!

When CBS does something this INXS band member contest and asks for a demo tape to be submitted, wouldn't this kind of be encouraging copyright infringement? -->>>I don't know anything about the context. If CBS owns rights in the music, asking for submissions would result in an implied license. It's also possible that the submissions, though infringing, would come within fair use.

Thank so much for clearing things up!

Hello, all. I'm wondering about fine art and copyright laws. Say I have a scene in a movie that takes place in someone's living room. There's artwork on the walls. Picture frames with paintings and prints on display. They were legitimately bought from the artists, all of whom are still alive.

Is it legal to show the paintings in the movie?

Do they have to give permission/ sign release forms/ etc.?

Or does the fact that I bought the painting make it mine, to use as I please?

I know you can't do this with music, but I'm not positive about fine art on a wall. If anyone knows definitively (any of you legal-types) I'd really appreciate it.

Thanks in advance!

Until Paul weighs in, the answer is probably not. Owning the artwork itself, does not necessarily cede the copyright to the artwork to you. The artist usually retains this, unless they have sold it to someone else for instance.

(I have a number of original oil paintings by my friend, Keith Parkinson - the fantasy artist. They are the covers for numerous books and games that I posed for. Even though I own the artwork, and I am IN it, I do not own the copyright.Keith or the publishing house retain those rights)

Having said that, if the artwork is not prominent in the shots, and readily identifiable, it might not be an issue.

If they are prominent... definately a problem.

Hi, there. I'm in China this week, so I'll be quick.

As usual, Richard has gotten it right.

Including art work protected by copyright in a video or film constitutes unauthorized copying and unauthorized preparation of a derivative work. If you include it so that it is recognizable, i.e. not blurred out to the point where it can't be recognized, you've committed copyright infringement.

Remember, too, that all the standard fair use defenses are available.

Prominence will be relevant only to damages. As long as the copy you've made is substantially similar, you've infringed.

Thanks Richard and Paul. I'll get to work on figuring out how to blur the paintings (or maybe replace them with other images!).

I'm thinking of doing a educational music video using Paris Mambo latino song.
I'm kind of worried about the copyrights should i tell the record label company this is only for educational purposes. I'm not going to sell or get any profit from it. Its purely for educational purposes.

Dan and others,

Please let me know.

regards

It does not matter what you use it for, you need permission. They may give it for free if they believe in the project, but then again maybe not. But you have to get permission or possibly a whole pack of trouble (your choice)..

Bob,

Yeah i'm gonna pursue to get permission and then do the project. Should i contact them by a written letter. I haven't done like this before. I don't know where to start.

regards,
Hari

http://publishing.wsu.edu/publishing.wsu.edu_non_ssl/copyright/getting_permission/

Useful information on getting license for music and movie for educational and other purposes.

www.harryfox.com
www.songfile.com
www.mplc.com
repertoire.bmi.com
ascap.com

The subject keeps me intrigued.

Assume the following people involved in a DVD project are all different people.

Producer
Director
Camera Operator
Editor
Duplicator
Client
??????

Now let's say that there is some copyright violation involved in the project, most likely uncleared music. But everyone had a hand in it. Who is legally responsible for this, and who can be sued?

My guess would be the producer and the client are the only ones who can legally be held liable. I hope Paul shows up for this one.

The "author" of the work is responsible for infringements. For copyright purposes, this is usually the producer. Whoever "owns" the example you describe above. "Having a hand in it" does not indicate ownership.

(My thoughts until Paul weighs in with a more accurate take.)

Yeah, let's see what Paul says, but in most lawsuits the philosophy is to to name everyone in sight and let them try to get excused....

This is a complicated question, and there's no easy answer.

Infringement liabiltiy can arise for direct infringement, i.e. someone makes an unauthorized copy, or contributory infringement, i.e. someone does something to facilitate someone else making an unauthorized copy.

Without knowing specifics, it is possible for some or all of the listed positions to incur liability. It is not a defense to infringement liability to say, "I was just doing my job."

Copyright infringement liability is also strict liability, meaning, it is not a defense to say, "I thought it was legal," or, "I didn't know I was infringing."

if your production is not a LLC, INC, limited partnership etc in addition to your list you might add INVESTORS , persons with points... remember those that get to a piece of the profit action might also also get a piece of the liability action !!!!

but remember even if you are a LLC doing something that you know is wrong you will not be able to hide behind a LLC/inc etc ...

I just heard on my local public radio network that it has been illegal to buy or screen a copy of the 1987 documentary “Eye on the Prize” since 1993 when the copyrighted material used in the film expired.

A philanthropist has donated about 250,000 dollars to help finance the heralded documentary on the American Civil rights movement. His money buys a limited reissue with, I believe no TV broadcast.

I bring this up, because I am confused by all of this. There are some twenty songs that need to be paid for. What confuses me is the money the owners of the song- “Happy Birthday” wants because it shows up in a video clip of friends singing it to Martin Luther King at a surprise birthday party.

What gives????????

I just heard on my local public radio network
...
What gives????????

What gives? Usually not the owners of the copyright to commecially valuable materials. But that's not so unreasonable if you think about it. Someone goes to a lot of effort to create something and they are entitled to control the use of their work and to benefit from the fruits of their labours. Do you work for free? Probably not. Why should songwriters, filmmakers, painters and photographers, or writers?

... I am confused by all of this. There are some twenty songs that need to be paid for. What confuses me is the money the owners of the song- “Happy Birthday” wants because it shows up in a video clip of friends singing it to Martin Luther King at a surprise birthday party.

What gives????????

The "Happy Birthday" story begins with two sisters from Kentucky, Mildred J. Hill and Patty Smith Hill. Patty Smith Hill, born in 1868, was a nursery school and kindergarten teacher and an influential educator who developed the "Patty Hill blocks" used in schools nationwide, served on the faculty of the Columbia University Teachers College for thirty years, and helped found the Institute of Child Welfare Research at Columbia in 1924. Patty's older sister, Mildred, born in 1859, started out as a kindergarten and Sunday-school teacher like her sister, but her career path took a musical turn, and Mildred became an composer, organist, concert pianist, and a musical scholar with an speciality in the field of Negro spirituals. One day in 1893, while Mildred was teaching at the Louisville Experimental Kindergarten School where her sister served as principal, she came up with the modest melody we now know as "Happy Birthday"; sister Patty added some simple lyrics and completed the creation of "Good Morning to All," a simple greeting song for teachers to use in welcoming students to class each day:

Good morning to you,
Good morning to you,
Good morning, dear children,
Good morning to all.

The Hills' catchy little tune was unleashed upon the world in 1893, when it was published in the songbook Song Stories for the Kindergarten. (The composition of "Good Morning to All" is often erroneously reported as having occurred in 1859 by sources that confuse Mildred Hill's birth date with the year she created the melody.) After the song proved more popular as a serenade for students to sing to their teachers (rather than vice-versa), it evolved into a version with the word "teacher" replacing "children" and a final line matching the first two, and "Good Morning to All" became more popularly known as "Good Morning to You." (Ironically, in light of the copyright battles to come, "Good Morning to All" bore more than a passing resemblance to the songs "Happy Greetings to All" and "Good Night to You All," both published in 1858.)

Here the trail becomes murky — nobody really knows who wrote the words to "Happy Birthday to You" and put them to the Hills' melody, or when it happened. The "Happy Birthday to You" lyrics first appeared in a songbook edited by one Robert H. Coleman in March of 1924, where they were published as a second stanza to "Good Morning to You"; with the advent of radio and sound films, "Happy Birthday" was widely popularized as a birthday celebration song, and its lyrics supplanted the originals. By the mid-1930s, the revamped ditty had appeared in the Broadway musical The Band Wagon (1931) and had been used for Western Union's first "singing telegram" (1933), and when Irving Berlin's musical As Thousands Cheer made yet another uncredited and uncompensated use of the "Good Morning to All" melody, Jessica Hill, a third Hill sister who administered the copyright to "Good Morning to All" on behalf of her sisters, sprang into action and filed suit. By demonstrating the undeniable similiarities between "Good Morning to All" and "Happy Birthday to You" in court, Jessica was able to secure the copyright of "Happy Birthday to You" for her sisters in 1934 (too late, unfortunately, to benefit Mildred, who had died in 1916).

The Chicago-based music publisher Clayton F. Summy Company, working with Jessica Hill, published and copyrighted "Happy Birthday" in 1935. Under the laws in effect at the time, the Hills' copyright would have expired after one 28-year term and a renewal of similar length, falling into public domain by 1991. However, the Copyright Act of 1976 extended the term of copyright protection to 75 years from date of publication, and the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 added another 20 years, so under current law the copyright protection of "Happy Birthday" will remain intact until at least 2030.
(from Urban Legends Reference Pages @ http://www.snopes.com)

Hope that explains it.

Just because something is legal, it doesn't mean it's "right."

Jay

I am always concerned about professional pilferage, unauthorized broadcast or webcast, or people re-editing my work and presenting it as mine still (making me look bad?). But I do some work (personal events like parties, birthdays, etc) and legacy biographies where I have no problem or issue if the client wants to make additional copies for family. Likewise, some corporate work becomes the property of the client when all invoices are paid.

I am thinking that if I put a copyright notice on the work, they may have problems making copies (now or in the future as laws get more stupid). I know that Kinkos gets pretty restrictive about this today.

Right now, I put in the contract that the client has the right to make unlimited copies. But especially for personal events, it is unlikely they will have the contract around in 10-20 years when they want to make copies for the grandkids.

I would like to hear people's thoughts on this issue. Should I worry about it? Should I change the copyright notice that I put on these projects?

I am always concerned about... pilferage... Should I worry about it?
Hey, Bob. I understand where you're coming from and I agree with you whole heartedly. My thought is there are people that are going to do what they do, right or wrong, regardless of what anyone does to protect their work. Look the "big boys" in Hollywood. They can't even protect their works that cost hundreds of millions of dollars! The hackers and pirates have proven time and again that they can break any security code anyone can come up with. So what chance do you or I have to stem the tide?

Frankly, the chances of you or I loosing any significant sums of money due to copyright infringement (illegal copies) are pretty slim. Yes, someone could take our work and butcher it, saying it was ours, but why would they?

So, as far as any copyright notice on your works are concerned, I'd say do as you please. But realize that it will not have any real affect on those who have no regard for the law.

Jay

What gives? Usually not the owners of the copyright to commecially valuable materials. But that's not so unreasonable if you think about it. Someone goes to a lot of effort to create something and they are entitled to control the use of their work and to benefit from the fruits of their labours. Do you work for free? Probably not. Why should songwriters, filmmakers, painters and photographers, or writers?



Steve, what gives???? You totally missed my point.

I was talking about the fact that the songs were a part of a personal film or video- the song was not added to the film clip but was part of journalist reportage of the event- like a wedding.

I understand artists rights - I have been a photjournalist and fine art photographer for 25 years. That was not my point. If the song was added to the film score- I understand, but if it is part of a journalist clip, then no.

If fine art photgrapher or photojournalist had to get permission to exhibt or publish a photograph because someone is wearing logo hat or shirt than we all lose as artists and reporters.

No artist should ever be exploited - but there are lines.

I am always concerned about professional pilferage, unauthorized broadcast or webcast, or people re-editing my work and presenting it as mine still (making me look bad?). But I do some work (personal events like parties, birthdays, etc) and legacy biographies where I have no problem or issue if the client wants to make additional copies for family. Likewise, some corporate work becomes the property of the client when all invoices are paid.

I am thinking that if I put a copyright notice on the work, they may have problems making copies (now or in the future as laws get more stupid). I know that Kinkos gets pretty restrictive about this today.

Right now, I put in the contract that the client has the right to make unlimited copies. But especially for personal events, it is unlikely they will have the contract around in 10-20 years when they want to make copies for the grandkids.

I would like to hear people's thoughts on this issue. Should I worry about it? Should I change the copyright notice that I put on these projects?

How about adapting a form of the GNU open-source software copyright notice and license where you assert your copyright and at the same time grant permission to freely copy and distribute the work as long as the work itself is kept intact and your copyright notice is not removed from it? See the web site for the Audactiy audio editor for the full text.

Steve, what gives???? You totally missed my point.

I was talking about the fact that the songs were a part of a personal film or video- the song was not added to the film clip but was part of journalist reportage of the event- like a wedding.

I understand artists rights - I have been a photjournalist and fine art photographer for 25 years. That was not my point. If the song was added to the film score- I understand, but if it is part of a journalist clip, then no.

If fine art photgrapher or photojournalist had to get permission to exhibt or publish a photograph because someone is wearing logo hat or shirt than we all lose as artists and reporters.

No artist should ever be exploited - but there are lines.

News reporting is fair use but part of the test for it being "news" use is proximity to the event. A musical performance recorded and prominently featured as part of the coverage of Prince Charles and Camilla Bowles wedding a while back would probably not require permission for broadcast during the live coverage of the event or its reporting. But if someone bought a copy of the footage a couple of years later and wanted to use it in a commercial for a soap "that gives your skin the glow of a princess bride" they'd need permission for the music and the copyright owner(s) could establish any conditions they might want.

I saw an interesting case of this just the other day that might interest you as a fellow photographer. There was a movie on TV called "The Amber Gatherer" where the story hinged around a photojournalist who had dropped out of sight and assumed a new identity. But meanwhile another photographer who I guess had worked for the same news service had taken over some of the first photographer's unpublished work and published it, claiming it as his own. Now the interesting point is that some of the photos that were being shown in the gallery scenes, etc, were in fact Robert Capra's classic photos of the Spanish Civil War from the 1930's. Those pictures are literally textbook examples of photojournalism in action and there's absolutely no question they were made during coverage of news events. But I would be extremely surprised if they could have been reproduced as part of the plot elements in an entertainment movie without securing permission to use them and paying whatever royalties were demanded.

Interesting what you say in your last paragraph. There is a case winding its way through the courts right now where a photographer has being sued by someone who he had photographed on the street in a public setting as a result of the images being displayed in an art gallery, claiming he had no right to exhibit them without a written release.

Interesting what you say in your last paragraph. There is a case winding its way through the courts right now where a photographer has being sued by someone who he had photographed on the street in a public setting as a result of the images being displayed in an art gallery, claiming he had no right to exhibit them without a written release.
And that is where artistic impression ends and the legal issue begins. The court's interpretation of the primary subject matter will be balanced against the interpretive artistic peice. Sure there is no reasonable expectation of privacy when you are in a public place, but the use of such imagery is wide ... from photojournalism to commercial use.

A lot of blogs (or other written stuff) seems to use creative common licenses
from this place: http://creativecommons.org/

They have various levels etc. Perhaps some of that can be used for video as well?

I'd like to use an image of my Sony HDR-FX1 camera, taken by me personally, in a web graphic. I'm pretty seasoned in copyright issues but this is one I've never encountered. I own the camera and the photo will be taken by me. Are there any known issues with this?

Unfortunately, I cannot provide legal advice to non-clients.

Your concern isn't copyright, but trademark. Do a search on my name and you'll find a number of posts about relevant concerns.

Where can I find more info about the copyright rules for submissions to film festivals?

Examples:
--My two main characters are playing Madden 05 on an Xbox. Can I include the commentators voices? Can I show the game they're playing?

--Music: how many bars of a pop music song can I use before it infringes on copyright laws.

--What about a pro football helmet in the background? Or a Pepsi bottle? Or the Kodak building in the background? Or any brand name thing?

Copyrights rules aren't different for film festivals than for other means of distribution.

-- The video game image is copyrighted, as well as the commentator voices: it's no different than having your characters watch the latest Harry Potter.

-- How many bars of a pop song? None, or at least, not enough to make it recognizable. Fair use isn't applicable to as many situations as most people think.

-- Logos, bottle design, and specific architecture are copyrighted too. Actually, in the case of the Kodak building, if it's part of a skyline, it wouldn't matter. But if the building is the subject of the shot, then it's infrigement (especially if you see the logo!).

Festivals usually expect you to have the rights to anything that is in you movie (and that sometimes includes signed releases from your talent!). Some festivals might let you get away with some slight infringements though, like logos, and such, but the music is a more touchy issue. Small festivals might not care at all about it. Read the festival rules.

Copyright rules for festivals are the same as copyright rules for broadcast, distribution, anything else. Copyright is copyright. You'll need permission for many of these things. That only difference is that it may be easier for you to get permission for "festival only" distribution, as opposed to other distribution that you could profit from, such as a "festival license" for the music.

Objects in your film that are common to everyday life are usually permissible. Images of buildings shot from public property are permissible (at least in the US, right?). If either of these prominent subjects in your film, you might want to get permission, but you don't have to (Michael Moore walks right in to corporations and shoots all the time).

Bottom line, film festivals will expect everything to be legal. Whether they all enforce that or not is another matter. In fact, they'll have you sign a form stating that everything is legal, thus shifting the burden directly to you if anything proves otherwise.

Josh

Where can I find more info about the copyright rules for submissions to film festivals?

Examples:
--My two main characters are playing Madden 05 on an Xbox. Can I include the commentators voices? Can I show the game they're playing?

I can't give advice to non-clients, so I'll just say, as a general proposition: If someone else recorded it, you can't use it without permission.

--Music: how many bars of a pop music song can I use before it infringes on copyright laws.
There is no magic number. Unauthorized copying is infringement. Period.

--What about a pro football helmet in the background? Or a Pepsi bottle? Or the Kodak building in the background? Or any brand name thing?
I've written about this alot, here. Do a search on my name and "trademark."

Objects in your film that are common to everyday life are usually permissible. Images of buildings shot from public property are permissible (at least in the US, right?).

Not sure what you mean by, "objects . . . that are common to everyday life." It they are protected by copyright and/or trademark, there can be a problem.

I've seen a lot of wedding DVDs with Celine Dion or other copyrighted tracks...Is this legal seeing as it's really only going to be given to a family or two and not developed for a mass audience, or can only royalty free music be used even with small scale videography DVDs?

I've seen a lot of wedding DVDs with Celine Dion or other copyrighted tracks...Is this legal seeing as it's really only going to be given to a family or two and not developed for a mass audience, or can only royalty free music be used even with small scale videography DVDs?

I am not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV...

There are a number of threads on this topic here and in the Wedding & Event section and the archives hold an excellent discussion piece by Douglas Spotted Eagle. The short anwer is ... no, it is not legal, full stop, no exceptions (and I would suggest that even given it is as common as it is, it is an unethical business practice as well as a violation of the letter of the law). The size of the audience may well be a factor in how much the copyright owner will want to charge for a license but it does not factor into whether a license is needed or not, at least not under North American law. It is never legal to use copyright material without a license, even if you're only selling or even giving away for free as little as one single copy to a client family or firm. Now, what you have to do to get the proper licenses varies depending on the country you're in - for example, Australia has a licensing scheme for small producers such as wedding and event videographers that makes the licenses much easier to obtain and far more reasonable in cost than we have in the US and Canada (and I really wish we'd implement such a scheme here). But you'll need to check with an intellectual property attorney there in South Africa to find out just what the laws and options are in your homeland.

I'll second what Steve says and add this. Think about what happens when you put your wedding demo online! It's no longer just for the family. Add to that the wedding demos you hand out on DVD too.

Note that almost anything you read there could be different than what you need to do. Australia has a yearly fee, to cover such licensing (as noted by Steve), which is totally different than here in the US. SA might have that option. I suspect also, the correct answer is to find someone "in country" that is well-versed in copyright laws as they apply to South African productions.

Footnote - This month's EventDV has an article where EDV and others are trying to get the RIAA to move to a system like Australia's as a solution to this mess.

I'll be curious what our legal-minded folks have to say about this. A fellow contacted me wanting permission to use a 30 year old portrait studio photo of a couple of my family members (now deceased) for commercial purposes.

When I mentioned the issue of the photographer's copyright, he replied:

In the instance of portraits the ultimate holder for a copyright and permission is the owner of the photograph.
So that would be your family.
Studios who do personal portraits give up rights to their photos when they work on behalf of the customer.
Kind of like when a newspaper photographer, takes a photo it becomes the property of the newspaper.
I'm not knowledgeable about portrait photography, but this doesn't jibe with what I do know about usual copyright practices for video work...and certainly not with the many framed family photos I see on peoples' mantels with a (C) XYZ Studio watermark on them. And the newspaper analogy is an apples to oranges fallacy, IMO. Anyone with experience in still portrait work able to comment on usual practices regarding copyright?

The ownership of the copyright of photos by newspsper photogs is completely a function of the contract between the paper and the photog. If it's a "work for hire" relationship then the rights would be owned by the paper, but many other arrangements are possible. The paper, for example, may only own rights to photos that are printed in the paper . . . etc. Reuse of work has often been a point of friction between photogs and newspapers

So it would depend on the nature of the contract between your family and the original photographer.

I am guessing, after 30 years, it might be hard to find a contract or the photographer etc. But the photographer may have a family who inheritied rights to his work, or some commercial entity could have aquired the rights to the photographers work . . .

I would bet this guy actually knows this because he is asking your permission because he thinks you might have inherited your family's rights (separate from the photographer's rights if any) to the photo for which you might charge.

In anycase you need to have more facts that you have undertsand what the legal situation actually is. He's giving his wishful-thinking version of the facts, unless he knows more -- in which case he is being misleading at best.

If it were me I'd want to know what the commercial purposes are and think about any impact on my family member's reputation etc. Of course this is not real legal advise.