|
|||||||||
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
![]() |
#46 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Apple Valley CA
Posts: 4,874
|
This is the challenge - protecting your IP rights in case something "goes big" (like a BBC broadcast!?), vs. having a "fair and reasonable" use right for small limited distribution productions.
One has to have the right to control the use of their own property, including intellectual property. Determine who else is allowed to use it and for what purpose (Hey Joe, can I borrow your mower? vs. Hey Joe, I need to go rob a bank, can I borrow your car for an hour or two?) is a fundamental right. Obviously there need to be "reasonable" boundaries, the problem becomes codifying (written law) vs. "case law" where lawyers (with no boundaries in a court setting) argue points to the extreme, vs "real world" practical situations. And of course your dealing with human nature... and there's where problems erupt. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#47 | |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 5,742
|
Quote:
__________________
Good news, Cousins! This week's chocolate ration is 15 grams! |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#48 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Apple Valley CA
Posts: 4,874
|
Steve -
That's a bit of a stretch - Joe sixpack mixes it down with a song he likes vs. a videographer doing it for him... the videographer is being paid for the VIDEO, not the song. While people like to have a song they like, does it really matter what sound pad the videographer chooses?? Probably not really that much. There's LOTS of music out there... Ultimately this is why some people have a problem with the inability to purchase at a reasonable price the right to listen to a song along with their personal video. The entire licensing concept may well be outdated with modern digital reproduction. It's all just 1's and 0's now, creatively arranged. A videographer takes his work, maybe adds a few 1's and 0's from another artist and creates a derivative work of 1's and 0's... This has been done in music with "samples", I've seen video montages... the real question is what is fair compensation? Yes an artist should be allowed to profit from his/her work if people enjoy it enough (or it means enough to them) to pay for it. I think sometimes though there is an entitlement mentality that "because I created it, I can ask whatever I want for it and anyone who likes it/wants to use it MUST PAY!" I've worked with enough artists to see this sort of thinking (not to mention the mindset of corporate lawyers "protecting" "their artists") - problem is it doesn't WORK, make people pay too much, there's another artist down the street... Making licensing/purchase reasonable and painless, and the artist benefits from more sales - sue everyone in sight, no one wants to buy your stuff - any wonder why the "music biz" went down the tubes?? |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#49 | |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 5,742
|
Quote:
Digital or analog, don't get the vehicle used to carry the physical copy confused with the artistic work itself. The digital revolution hasn't changed anything because the value of an artist's work doesn't depend on the container used to transport it nor the difficulty in reproducing copies. Indeed, digital hasn't obsoleted the concept behind licensing but rather it has strengthened its importance by making clear that the value of a song is in its sound and its emotional impact on the listener, not the physical object used to transport it. You critisize the "entitlment mentality" and yet I think that mentality is perfectly valid. When you labour, you are entitled to the benefit of that labour, whether it is digging a ditch, shooting a picture, or writing a song. The results of that labour belong to you, not to the world at large.
__________________
Good news, Cousins! This week's chocolate ration is 15 grams! |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#50 | ||
Major Player
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Brainerd, MN
Posts: 287
|
Quote:
Quote:
Then your editor is not doing a very good job. Yes music can enhance a scene, but it doesn't become boring without it unless the editor is not doing his job. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#51 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: San Mateo, CA
Posts: 3,840
|
"Synchronization Rights" - the right to synchronize the song to images.
You have to pay for them. Doesn't matter if you make a profit from it. If you use the music, without paying for the rights, it's illegal. Wedding videographers are the 'authors' of the work they create. They will be held responsible for the resale of the product utililizing synch rights in the U.S. It's possible - theoretically - to pass off the liability, at least 'partially' to the couple as the 'producers' - but I'm thinking the court would have to see this liability assumed in writing. (This also opens up the whole 'employee' - independant contractor - can o' worms. Did the couple also hire the editor? Sit in on the editing sessions? Dictate the time and duration spent in the edit? Pay for the equipment used to create the video??? See how complicated passing liability as 'producer' can be?) It's really not that hard to understand. It's theft. I realize people don't like it, but it's the simple truth. Untill or unless the law changes. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#52 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Lowestoft - UK
Posts: 4,039
|
Returning to the BBC non-payment for copyright, there is some confusion with satellite broadcasts intended for reception in areas with different rules, however, from my own dealing with copyright and the BBC they are not always as 'accurate' as we think. I do a fair bit of production work, and was working in Northern Ireland on a live outside broadcast of part of a theatrical show. The musicians wanted extra payments for their clearance of the copyright on their performance, and the composer also wanted extra fees for use of his music - which they did agree to in the end and after much prodding from me, the musicians and composer got their money. However, being a sneaky person, I'd also recorded the off air broadcast, and discovered that they had totally without permission or payment used some additional items form our show by cutting to the show, in the section before, as a teaser. We're not talking lots of money, about £70 for the minute or so they used (per person, so 7 musician = £490) but they didn't even mention the bit the had for free.
Broadcasters will try to get away with it. It may be worthwhile, if you have the date and time, to simply invoice the producer and see what happens. I guess here in the UK you could even take out what we call a County Court Summons - if you have something similar and cheap to do where you are? |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#53 | |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 5,742
|
Quote:
The music doesn't have to be playing while he is shooting for the final work to be a derivative work. It doesn't mean you're shooting to fit to the music. Derivative means that another copyrighted expression has been incorporated as a material part of the work in question. As a rule of thumb, if it's put there on purpose you've got to license it.
__________________
Good news, Cousins! This week's chocolate ration is 15 grams! |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
| ||||||
|
|