Quick question,

What is the detailed policy for using someones music on your video on the internet if the video is not intended to make a profit? How do you go about aquiring the rights to use this music? What about a video for profit etc..?

Any help or links to this info would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks

here's a link on 10 myths about copyright

http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html

you need to get permission .... unless on the web site they say it is free to use without asking.

just because one doesn't plan to "make a profit" doesn't mean we can use/borrow/steal somebody's music.

the difference between you don't plan to make $ or plan to make $$ would be how much you pay for the rights to use it.

most unknown bands will usually let you use the music for no $$ if you have in large print that they retain owners of music plus you give them creadit & copy.

it takes no $ to ASKED for permission. i once asked a well known artist for permission to use their music for my sample reel and the answer was OK for limited use. so basically it came down to i could pass my reel around to production & ad agency. i could show it if it was for educational purposes ( if i was speaking/doing workshop at college/school). i could NOT show it if $$ was being charged for a screening.

2 years ago i went back to see about putting it up on the web and i was only given permission for a "private use" on web ..meaning i could direct persons to a web site that was password protected for each individual that was directed to the site. so i cannot list the site here for all to see as that would be open to general public. now if i was interested in your project and you were interested in me as a DP i could give you the link and a passwork for you to view the reel. the same private/limited viewing applies to commercials that i have shot.

If it is someone big, you need to contact ASCAP, or one of the other licensing houses. Then, they will ask you what you will be doing with the music, what the intended media is, if you will make a profit, etc. Then, they will tell you how much to give them.

If you don't necesarily need a big name, you can try local musicians. Unknown talent can often be had cheap, in exchange for credits. Another alternative, would be a music clearing house, like the Music Bakery. Then you can buy canned music with rights to use it.

If you are just doing a little project for friends and family, you might get by with "stealing" the music, as long as it doesn't get shown to major audiences. Overall, I recommend choice 2, and get local unknowns.

thanks, this is all great information as always guys.

Hi Rob

http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html

Unfortunatley that link is dead. Are you sure it's the right URL?

Actually nevermind. I found a cached version. Looks like they took it down.

http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:4wM4BNaqFDUC:www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html+templetons&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

No, here it is:

http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html

Excellent link -- thanks,

Mr. Templeton's list of myths is good, but there is an omission I think is important. I'd write him, but he has warnings about emailing him on copyright issues, so I'll just post here.

Caveat: I'm not a lawyer. Of course, neither is Templeton. My best advice is to consult an intellectual property attorney; I'm doing it every step of the way with my project. (Example: I'm using some footage my brother took of his son and I plan to get a release.)

The omission is the old Sony ruling that said making a copy of programming using a VCR was fair use if intended for private, family viewing. Show it to the public or sell it and you're in a heap of trouble, but watch the copy once a week with your family for 20 years and you're fine.

If I put "Here Comes the Sun" in my commercial project as background music, I have to pay a royalty (I'm not likely to get permission to use that one for free). If I put it in my home movie as background for some '60s footage, it is my understanding that this falls under the scope of the Sony decision provided I purchased a legal copy of "Abbey Road" to begin with.

The reality is that nobody is going to come after you or me for a home movie. But DMCA makes it clear that "they" will come after us if they smell so much as a centime avoiding their coffers.

The omission is the old Sony ruling that said making a copy of programming using a VCR was fair use if intended for private, family viewing. Show it to the public or sell it and you're in a heap of trouble, but watch the copy once a week with your family for 20 years and you're fine.

Sorry, but you've got Sony v. Universal completely wrong. Sony was a contributory infringement case -- Sony was sued for contributory infringement based on its sales of Betamax vcrs. The Court held that it came within the Fair Use Doctrine to "time shift," i.e. to use a Betamax to videotape over-the-air, copyright-protected broadcasts for later viewing. As such, the Betamax had a substantial non-infringing use, and Sony was not, therefore, liable for contributory infringement for their sales.

The court did NOT hold that there is an, "it's only for my family" exception to copyright infringement," nor is there any such exception. The court did NOT hold that there is an, "it's okay if it's non-commercial" copying exception to copyright infringement, nor is there any such exception.

Also remember that the U.S. Supreme Court, in Sony, based its decision, in part, on its belief that no one would build a home library of copyright-protected material, nor did the Court anticipate a video rental and sales market that included previously-broadcast material. Of course, these beliefs were completely wrong. I'm not sure how the Court would rule on this issue today (and we have a very different Court now then the one which decided the Betamax case).

ANY unauthorized copying (with a very, very few limited exceptions which expressly appear in the Copyright Act) constitutes copyright infringement and may result in liability, including using copyright-protected music in home videos. Fair Use is an equitable doctrine that is a _defense_ to infringement and is applied on a case-by-case, fact specific basis, meaning that you won't know whether what you've done is subject to Fair Use doctrine until you are sued and a _judge_ decides whether or not Fair Use should apply. There are no hard rules for what does or does not constitute Fair Use (though there are non-dispositive guidelines published in the statute), and only an experienced intellectual property attorney is going to be able to provide an accurate prediction as to whether or not a specific use might constitute Fair Use.

It is, of course, true that you're not going to get sued for infringements that are kept at home, but that's true of any illegal act. There's no way for a copyright owner to know what you do in the privacy of your own living room. Do not assume, however, that just because you're a "little guy," and not making money from your infringment, that you're immune to suit. Intellectual property owners will frequently sue the "little guy" to send a message to other infringers that the IP owner aggressively polices its property.

With that said, I freely use copyright-protected music in my home videos in the belief that it is highly unlikely that I would be caught (I frequently drive my car at speeds exceeding the posted limit for the same reason). I also think it is at least arguable that the AHRA covers such use (its a nice theory, but completely untested). However, there's a difference between getting away with it, and claiming, as you have, that it's legal to do it.

Paul Tauger,
Intellectual property attorney.

I appreciate this detail from an attorney, but now I'm confused.

Isn't anything I copy from broadcast with my VCR going to fall under time-shift fair use? The idea of any recording is to view it later.

I understand that fair use is a defense. So as a defense, what is your opinion about whether it will work if I use "Here Comes the Sun" as background for a home movie and I'm the unlucky guy who gets sued?

Regarding speeding, when I was in the Army I was required to attend a U.S. Department of Transportation class on defensive driving. The correct answer to the question "What is the safest speed at which to drive" was "At the pace of the traffic." Unfortunately, my excellent training does not appear to be binding on state troopers.

It's the old story- Nothing is illegal... unless you get caught doing it. If you feel safe showing your Auntie copies of your movie, complete with 'Here Comes the Sun' as BG music, go for it. If you feel safe showing it to your friends, again, go for it.

If one of your friends is still holding a deep grudge because of something you did to him, he may blow the whistle on you.

If you want to start doing videos as a business, and want to use the same song, you are blatently violating all copyright laws. Maybe you'll get away with it, maybe not. Don't whine when you have an attorney hauling you into court and the HUGE fines and penalties thrown at you.

You remember Baretta? "Don't do the crime, if you can't do the time".

By the way, I am not an attorney, nor do I play one on TV. I have however, I have seen them on TV.

Isn't anything I copy from broadcast with my VCR going to fall under time-shift fair use? The idea of any recording is to view it later.

Pretty much -- that was the holding in Sony v. Universal.

I understand that fair use is a defense. So as a defense, what is your opinion about whether it will work if I use "Here Comes the Sun" as background for a home movie and I'm the unlucky guy who gets sued?

But this has nothing to do with Sony v. Universal -- there's not time-shifting involved.

As for using "Here Comes the Sun," a lot of my answer would depend on how you define "home movie," and where, and to whom, your home movie gets shown. Fair Use is a fact-specific doctrine which, as I indicated, is a defense to infringment, meaning it will only be addressed in the context of litigation against you. If you're only showing it in your living room to your wife and kids, it's hard to imagine how that would result in a lawsuit. If you're doing more, e.g. entering it in home movie competitions, showing it at your local Elks Club, bringing it to "Travel Night" at the local senior citizens center, etc., it's more likely you'd be found out, but those circumstances would influence whether Fair Use does or does not apply.

Also, as I said, I think I can make a reasonable argument that the AHRA applies (Audio Home Recording Act). This amendment to the Copyright Act precludes liability for making "personal use" copies of music in either analog or digital form. The Act was intended to "de-illegalize" the kind of casual music swapping that many people engage in. It did not, however, anticipate readily-accessible NLE, which makes it an easy matter to copy music to a video soundtrack. Accordingly, it's an open question whether it applies to adding music to videos, and will remain so until it is adjudicated.

Upon re-reading what I've written, I need to clarify: I am _not_ providing a legal opinion that the AHRA authorizes copying music to video soundtracks. On its face it does not. However, if I ever got sued, I'd raise it as a defense. Would it work? That's anyone's guess.


If you want to start doing videos as a business, and want to use the same song, you are blatently violating all copyright laws. Maybe you'll get away with it, maybe not. Don't whine when you have an attorney hauling you into court and the HUGE fines and penalties thrown at you.

You remember Baretta? "Don't do the crime, if you can't do the time".

That's real good advice. Copyright infringment is strict liability, meaning it is not defense to say, "I didn't know it was illegal to do this."

By the way, I am not an attorney, nor do I play one on TV. I have however, I have seen them on TV.

I am an attorney, and I've been on TV, but I've never played one on TV. ;)

There's no question in my mind about my commercial project. I'll pay for what I use, period. That's not worth the risk -- it could cost my business. I don't want to give the impression I'm trying to steal; nothing could be further from the truth.

It's only the personal stuff I'm trying to grasp.

if you use "Here comes the Sun" for your "home" video - nobody is going to do anything as long as you keep it at home. YES, you can take it to a friends house to show em.. it's when you put it out so the general public can view or you attempt to distribute it you will draw attention.

the so called fair use is for a X number of seconds/sentences NOT the whole song/video/written word etc ...

the so called fair use is for a X number of seconds/sentences NOT the whole song/video/written word etc ...

Sorry, but that's wrong. One of the non-dispositive fair use factors is the amount that has been taken, but I can think of contexts in which wholesale and verbatim copying would still consitute fair use.

X amount of seconds of a song, are licensed as "needle drop" use. This is still someone elses property. It is still illegal to use without definitive license agreement. Whether it is for home use, or public broadcast. That is right, I-L-L-E-G-A-L. You are just not likely to get busted showing it to friends or family.

However, if THEY found out about it, THEY could prosecute, and likely win. You are alowed to listen to it, to make a copy of it for your car, and that is it. Anything else is a violation. Period.

Right now, there is a Judge-turned- Congressman, that is pushing for legislation to IMPRISON college students for 3 years, just for downloading mp3s. Just for their personal use.

Now...What was the original question?

By the way Paul, you have illegaly used MY quotes, without a license agreement. See you in court ;)

y the way Paul, you have illegaly used MY quotes, without a license agreement. See you in court ;)

Hey, that's fair use! ;)

I copied the following from a website awhile ago. No idea of how accurate it is... your mileage may vary:

============================================================
What is fair use?

Fair use provisions of the copyright law allow for limited copying or distribution of published works without the author's permission in some cases. Examples of fair use of copyrighted materials include quotation of excerpts in a review or critique, or copying of a small part of a work by a teacher or student to illustrate a lesson. New issues about fair use have arisen with the increased use of the Internet. At the time of publication, a bill is pending in Congress concerning whether fair use provisions will be extended to appropriate users/uses of copyrighted Internet materials.

When is copying is allowed by fair use provisions of the law?

There are no explicit, predefined, legal specifications of how much and when one can copy, but there are guidelines for fair use. Each case of copying must be evaluated according to four factors:

* The purpose and nature of the use--If the copy is used for teaching at a nonprofit institution, distributed without charge, and made by a teacher or students acting individually, then the copy is more likely to be considered as fair use. In addition, an interpretation of fair use is more likely if the copy was made spontaneously, for temporary use, not as part of an "anthology," and not as an institutional requirement or suggestion.
* The nature of the copyrighted work--With multimedia material there are different standards and permissions for different media: a digitized photo from a National Geographic, a video clip from Jaws, and an audio selection from Peter Gabriel1/4s CD would be treated differently--the selections are not treated as equivalent chunks of digital data.
* The nature and substantiality of the material used--In general, when other criteria are met, the copying of extracts that are "not substantial in length" when compared to the whole of which they are part may be considered fair use.
* The effect of use on the potential market for or value of the work--In general, any use that supplants or diminishes the normal market for the original work is considered an infringement, but a use does not have to have an effect on the market to be an infringement.

Although all of these factors will be considered, the fourth factor is the most important consideration in determining whether a particular use is "fair." Where a work is available for purchase or license from the copyright owner in the medium or format desired, copying of all or a substantial portion of the work in lieu of purchasing or licensing a sufficient number of "authorized" copies would be presumptively unfair. Where only a small portion of the work is to be copied and the work would not be used if purchase or licensing of a sufficient number of authorized copies were required, the intended use is more likely to be found to be fair.

How can I reference the copyright owner of digital works?

Make sure that the copyright symbol ("Copyright" or "(c)" can be used) and the name of the copyright owner is attached directly on, under, or around the digital work. It should be visible to anyone who will be using the excerpted material.

Copyrighted images, graphics, video, sounds, and written material must always be referenced; this is true even if the material is only being used once for a class presentation or project. This is important in case you should change your mind and want to use material for commercial or extended purposes; you would have a record of the copyright information and of where and when you found the material.

Fair use provisions of the copyright law allow for limited copying or distribution of published works without the author's permission in some cases. Examples of fair use of copyrighted materials include quotation of excerpts in a review or critique, or copying of a small part of a work by a teacher or student to illustrate a lesson.
Well, not necessarily. A very famous case, Harper v. Nation, involved an advance review published in Nation magazine which contained a one-paragraph except from, if I recall correctly, a book by Gerald Ford. The excerpt dealt with Ford's pardon of Nixon, and was _the_ central focus of the book. Harper, the book's publisher, sued and Nation defended on the grounds of fair use. Nation was held liable on the ground that publication of this central paragraph effectively destroyed the market for the book and did not, therefore, constitute fair use.

As for teachers using copyright material to illustrate a lesson, that's also not quite right. There is a fairly comprehensive list of criteria that have been developed by the courts for determining educational fair use. Among other things, they require tha the use be spontaneous, i.e. not part of a prepared lesson plan, that the number of copies be limited (I think the number cited was 20), and so on.

Fair use is an _equitable doctrine_ meaning that it is committed to the discretion of the court. It is impossible to look at the fair use statute and make a prediction as to whether a given use is or is not fair use without considering the entire corpus of common law which address such uses. That's why only an IP attorney can give an accurate prediction as to whether a given use would be deemed "fair use" or not.


New issues about fair use have arisen with the increased use of the Internet. At the time of publication, a bill is pending in Congress concerning whether fair use provisions will be extended to appropriate users/uses of copyrighted Internet materials.

When is copying is allowed by fair use provisions of the law?

There are no explicit, predefined, legal specifications of how much and when one can copy, but there are guidelines for fair use. Each case of copying must be evaluated according to four factors:

The above is accurate and so important that it's worth repeating:

There are no explicit, predefined, legal specifications of how much and when one can copy, but there are guidelines for fair use.

Note that these are only guidelines. The four factors referenced in the article come from the statute, which is a codification of the common law doctrine. These factors are _non-dispositive_, meaning that all four may be present and it still may not constitute fair use, and vice versa.

* The purpose and nature of the use--If the copy is used for teaching at a nonprofit institution, distributed without charge, and made by a teacher or students acting individually, then the copy is more likely to be considered as fair use.
Yes, but . . . see what I wrote above.
In addition, an interpretation of fair use is more likely if the copy was made spontaneously, for temporary use, not as part of an "anthology," and not as an institutional requirement or suggestion.
* The nature of the copyrighted work--With multimedia material there are different standards and permissions for different media: a digitized photo from a National Geographic, a video clip from Jaws, and an audio selection from Peter Gabriel1/4s CD would be treated differently--the selections are not treated as equivalent chunks of digital data.
This last is rather obtuse and, I think, simply wrong. A digitized photo from National Geographic, a video clip from Jaws and an audio selection from a Peter Gabriel CD are all works of authorship. It doesn't matter at all that they are in digital format. Note, though, that the photo is an _entire_ work of authorship, whereas the film clip and audio selection are merely excerpts. The amount of taking is signficant. The format from which they were taken is not.
* The nature and substantiality of the material used--In general, when other criteria are met, the copying of extracts that are "not substantial in length" when compared to the whole of which they are part may be considered fair use.
* The effect of use on the potential market for or value of the work--In general, any use that supplants or diminishes the normal market for the original work is considered an infringement, but a use does not have to have an effect on the market to be an infringement.

Although all of these factors will be considered, the fourth factor is the most important consideration in determining whether a particular use is "fair." Where a work is available for purchase or license from the copyright owner in the medium or format desired, copying of all or a substantial portion of the work in lieu of purchasing or licensing a sufficient number of "authorized" copies would be presumptively unfair.
This is just plain wrong. Fair use presumes that permission is _not_ sought, nor does it have to be. One of the more interesting fair use categories is parody. By definition, the parodist is not going to seek permission from the owner of that which is parodied.
Where only a small portion of the work is to be copied and the work would not be used if purchase or licensing of a sufficient number of authorized copies were required, the intended use is more likely to be found to be fair.

How can I reference the copyright owner of digital works?

Make sure that the copyright symbol ("Copyright" or "(c)" can be used) and the name of the copyright owner is attached directly on, under, or around the digital work.
I'm not sure what the author means, here. It is _not_ necessary to afix notice to obtain copyright protection. Since the US joined the Berne Convention in 1978, there has been no notice requirement (though it's not a bad idea, since it helps obviate a defense of non-intentional infringement).

If, however, the author is implying that attribution is somehow relevant to a fair use determination, that is totally and completely wrong. Attribution will NOT avoid liability for infrignement. Ever. Under any circumstances.


It should be visible to anyone who will be using the excerpted material.

Copyrighted images, graphics, video, sounds, and written material must always be referenced; this is true even if the material is only being used once for a class presentation or project. This is important in case you should change your mind and want to use material for commercial or extended purposes; you would have a record of the copyright information and of where and when you found the material.
This makes no sense at all. See above.

Paul, Esq.

You attorneys are just soooo long winded!

Paul has had this discussion before on other forums. I remember the Pinnacle forum discussion.
Long winded? YES! Correct? I'm sure! Would I want Paul on my side in court? YOU BETCHA!
Paul, thanks as always for your expertise and willingness to type out all that legal stuff and for spending the time to go to law school to figure out what it all means.
Now if you could just help me with a speeding ticket... :)

After reading this thread regarding Fair Use, it appears that the law has, in effect, said, 'We're gonna leave this open ended so no one can make heads nor tails out of what is and isn't acceptable. If you do anything that might even remotely resemble copyright infringement, we'll haul your butt into court and decide then what to do with you. So, you might be thinking to yourself, have I violated copyright law? You also have to ask this, Do you feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?'

How far off am I?

How far off am I?

Well, you'll really hate this answer: it depends.

Certain activities are clearly and absolutely not going to result in copyright infringement liability. You can copy a music CD to another music CD or tape or MP3 with relative confidence (see Audio Home Recording Act). You can give away, sell, loan or rent a copyright-protected video (see First Sale Doctrine). You can use material in the public domain to your heart's content.

Other areas are clearly and absolutely infringing. You can't make copies of protected videos and sell them, give them away, loan them, etc. You can't copy a CD to the soundtrack of a wedding video if you are a commercial videographer.

Then there are all those gray areas. As a rule, almost anything involving fair use is going to be difficult to predict, because the doctrine is not black and white; predicting the probably applicability of a fair use defense requires familiarity with the holdings of all the other fair use cases, which is why lay people usually can't do this.

The best advice is, if your livelihood depends on this and you are doing anything that skates closer to the edge, i.e. using someone else's protected material without permission, check with an IP lawyer. The cost of doing so will be relatively low (on the order of a few hundred dollars or less, and possibly free if you already have a relationship with a lawyer), particularly when compared with the costs of defending (even successfully) a copyright infringement action.

(trying to be less long-winded ;) )
Paul

quote:
Well, you'll really hate this answer: it depends.


LOL -- Spoken like a true attorney, Paul! ;o)


quote:
Then there are all those gray areas... because the doctrine is not black and white...


I think therein lies the real issue. It's hard enough to apply such law as it is, when the jurists themselves recognize it's a matter of interpretation it seems inevitable that there will be mass confusion and misunderstanding along the laymen. One gets the feeling that the Powers That Be planned it this way.

This thread seems to have drifted somewhat from Brad's original 'quick question'! But it's interesting nevertheless :)

Copyright does seem to be an emotive issue, but in reality (as in all walks of life really) common sense and the willingness to ask the kind of questions Brad originally posted go a long way to preventing nasty surprises.

Such as: stop and think about how *you'd* feel if the video you'd lovingly created and posted on the 'net suddenly appeared on TV or elsewhere under someone else's name?

I'm a novelist, and some of my works are on the 'net. I get a buzz when I check my web logs and see that someone's downloaded one of my books, I hope they enjoy the read. But if a friend tells me that he's just rented a video from Blockbuster and it's *my* story, *my* characters, *my* work, dammit, and no-one so much as asked my permission to adapt the book for the screen? Well yes, I'd find meself in a somewhat dischuffed and litigious mood...

It's not 'the law' that presses suit.

The "THEY" that bring suit in copyright cases are the copyright owners, which (unless the artist has sold the rights) is the creative soul whose skill and imagination produced the work...in other words, *you* (and if modesty permits, me! :)

BTW...there's plenty of 'Royalty Free' sound-track material to be had from the likes of eBay, and a great deal of it is really rather good!

Just my 2p

Actually, it's easy enough for even an idjit like me to understand-
If you BOUGHT it, or it is on TV or radio, you can:
A) Listen to, or watch it.
B) Make a copy to listen to in the car.
C) Give it away.

You CANNOT:
A) Make 5 copies and give them away or sell them. (Distribution)
B) You cannot use it as a componant of your project, whether it is for yourself, friends, family. It doesn't matter if you make any money off of it or not.
C) Say it is yours.

" If you want to use something, and it has been created by someone else, you must have permission. "( Quote is copyrighted, trademarked, and patented, Capt Quirk, 2003. No Paul, you cannot use it :)

Keith, first of all, I can only speak for myself...

You're assuming I'm an idjit. Which I'm not. Had I scored a mere 5 points higher on the von Dryburne Standard I.Q. Test they would have classified me as a mineral!

Jay- I am not assuming that anyone here is an idjit, altho I have had idjit-like tendencies from time to time. I also did not mean to imply that. It is just really simple to understand what is and is not allowed with copyrighted material. There are some grey areas, but for the most part, it is simple to understand.

"If it ain't yours, you can't use it without permission." Also copyrighted, trademarked and patented- You can't use this either, Paul ;)

If someone takes your car, without your permission, it is THEFT.
If you use someone's music, without permission, it is THEFT.
Most items that are copyrighted will tell you what you can't do with their property. There are alot of people that break these laws every day, and nothing happens because it is minor infractions, or they just don't get caught. Is it still illegal? Yep. Is it immoral? Maybe. Do I lay awake at night worrying about it? Nope.

Sorry, Keith, I was just kidding around!

My point was I didn't even make it to the idjit level. ;o)

An interesting site I just learned about that might interest some here: www.ipjustice.org.

So what if I am just making a demo tape of a project that I want to send off to TV companies?

Anyone? I'm not going to be making profit from a pilot, just put my foot in the door and to show the TV companies what I'm capable of.

Stewart,

I think it's pretty clear from the whole foregoing thread that 'profit' or lack thereof is irrelevant where the use of copyright material is concerned...

If the imagery or sound-track belongs to someone else, you can't use it (without permission or license).

All the video/multimedia work I do is Corporate, and the corporate legal types are twitchy enough about stuff I post on the company intranet for internal use only; they'd go ballistic if I violated copyright internally, let alone if I did so and it 'leaked' through the firewalls into the public domain. You wouldn't believe the 'approvals' I have to get just to release a 'talking head' interview with an executive (not just legal, but PR spin, HR policy, Sales and Marketing, corporate branding, blah blah blah).

I doubt very much a TV or prodco would be too impressed to see 'demo' material which clearly infringes copyright. I mentioned in my earlier post, there's a lot of *good* royalty-free imagery and sound-effects/music available from places like eBay...far better to be safe than very very sorry...

just my 2p!

I did a 10 min short as a media project a while ago for my Media Studies assignment. I was told that we could use any music we wanted, but just had to give credit to the artists at the end of the piece. Wouldn't this be the same as providing a demo to a production company?

Stewart....

No, not in my humble opinion anyway.

See Paul's previous posts in this thread regarding educational use... your media studies assignment was clearly in an "educational" context (or at least, that would be your argument in court).

But sending a 'demo' to a Prodco is your way of saying "Hey guys, this is me and *my* work, buy me!" But if you're using copyright material, without permission or license, it's not *your* work at all (or rather, bits of it aren't).

It'd also be pretty embarrassing I reckon if the TVco or prodco you sent your demo to was a subsidiary of one of the entertainment conglomerates who actually held the copyright to any of the material you used.

Have a look at: http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/circs/circ1.html

And in the UK: http://clans.cla.co.uk/copyright.html

Where they sum it up nicely:

"Now that it is so easy to copy material, it is vital that we respect copyright so that more and more people produce the creative works which the information superhighway must carry if it is to add value to our lives."

Gary

<<<-- Originally posted by Stewart McDonald : I did a 10 min short as a media project a while ago for my Media Studies assignment. I was told that we could use any music we wanted, but just had to give credit to the artists at the end of the piece. Wouldn't this be the same as providing a demo to a production company? -->>>

Doing a short for a school project is WAY different than offering a work which will represent you to a professional company. Whereas you probably wouldn't get in any legal trouble for doing it, it is very, very unprofessional to use someone else's work without permission.

Gary summed it up nicely already.

First please folks stop using the words theft and steal.

There can be no theft or stealing since its not possible to deprive an artists of real property via "copying" something. they still retain the original real property (this is LITERALLY the same thing as me walking by your house seeing an apple hang from the tree. if I TAKE the apple I "stole" it. if I scan it and replicate the apple later with my own matter and energy I "COPIED" it you still have your apple)

this is why its called copy right infringement. NOT copy right theft.

this does not make infringement "OK" or "right" but it also does NOT justify the much "worse" offense moniker of Theft or Stolen.

the Labels LOVE trying to brain wash people into calling it "theft"

Second

The court did NOT hold that there is an, "it's only for my family" exception to copyright infringement," nor is there any such exception. The court did NOT hold that there is an, "it's okay if it's non-commercial" copying exception to copyright infringement, nor is there any such exception.

this is not entirely correct.

Reference the home recording act

later court ruling have also applied much of this to "video" as well IIRC.

Fair Use is pretty broad especially if the "point" of the recording is not the "work in question"

so if you make a home video and the radio happens to be playing in the background as long as its not obvious that you INTENTIONALLY put the radio on (or a cd pretending to be radio) as accompaniment music for your video YOUR COVERED under fair use.

so when I post my video of me off roading my minivan to youtube the fact that 107.3 is playing in the background for some of this video is irrelevant to copyright.

the labels TRY to claim otherwise. so far the courts have upheld fair use in all challenges instances like this.

Also profit is a HUGE part of fair use.

oddly enough fair use does not mean you can't make a profit (new media for example reporting etc..)

but it IS primary. what people seem to misunderstand is that both potential profit YOU can make "AND" potential profit THEY can LOSE is what counts.

when you post a home video that happens to have music in the background not intentionally put their as a soundtrack YOUR profit is irrelevant AND there is no reasonable expectation that THEY (the labels) will lose profit as a result.

but when you upload an MP3 (the same song from your home video) or INTENTIONALLY add a sound track to your video. THAT IS a valid concern for lost profits. even if you are making nothing THEY are losing valid profit potential.

but YOU TOO can make profit and still be covered by fair use.

the issue comes down to. are you making profit BECAUSE of the song (not fair use) or BECAUSE of your reporting or review or satire etc..? (fair use)

Stewart.

if your media project was for school (educational) then you are 100% unquestionably covered by Fair Use and CAN NOT get into lawful trouble over that. Educational usage is EXPLICITLY covered under the fair use law in the USA. you do NOT need permission you DO need to give credit though (though I do not think your legally required its the right thing to do I have not read the law in a while)

if its for a demo reel THEN YES you need permission.

Personal Use is a valid copyright claim. its almost impossible to defeat (which is why NO ONE has been sued for "downloading" music) what they get sued for is SHARING the music they download back (which is part of file sharing)

Remember the lady still fighting up north? for the 24 songs she downloaded? the offense was "making available" since they were in her "shared" folder. even though they can not prove she ACTUALLY uploaded them. (which I find hilarious since should I not also be sued if I leave a CD on my desk at work since its "made available" now ?)

I had an interesting experience the other day. A new client was interested in purchasing several nature videos I had done for practice and posted on vimeo. These videos were set to a music score which he liked that I had purchased the appropriate license for (non-commercial use). The music would only have cost about $59 - $80 per video for a commercial music license but he declined based on the additional cost. He bought the video minus an audio track which really didn't make any sense as it will have to be re-synced to a new music score. He continued to press the point that I had used the music for a token license fee and why couldn't he. Oh well....there seems to be a mentality out there that music use is free....

Chris and Mark - you two DO realize that you are responding in a thread where the most recent message before the two you posted was dated in 2003, 9 years ago?

so when I post my video of me off roading my minivan to youtube the fact that 107.3 is playing in the background for some of this video is irrelevant to copyright.

As soon as you post your video on a venue such as YouTube you have published it publicly and any provisions that may have applied because it was made for your own private personal use (what you're calling "home use") are effectively nullified - the video is no longer being used exclusively for your private personal use. Whether you have published it in hopes of making a profit or not is completely irrelevant.

What you are referring to in the example of music in the background to your off-roading video is called "incidental use" and cases have gone both ways, so relying on that instead of clearing a license for any recognizable music is a real roll of the dice, especially if you're going to use the video commercially such as selling it to a client or submit it for broadcast.

Also look up "Fair Use Doctrine" - it's actually nowhere near as broad and as vague as you suggest. The law provides a very limited number of specific uses (copying for purposes of classroom instruction in grades K-12, for example) where Fair Use may be raised as a defense against a charge of infringement but "home use" is not one of them. It's true the courts have held that copying for your own private personal use is permissible but that comes from case law and is NOT part of the Fair Use Doctrine defined in the Copyright Act.

When I purchased the non-commercial license it stated in the license description that it "could" be used on youtube.

The thing nobody mentioned is that tv broadcasts have already cleared the rights on the content. So if you time-shift, the rights are covered. Using here comes the son in your own video isn't cleared - if you clear it for broadcast, then people watching it via time-shift are fine.