Copyright -- Various Issues

[Harikrishnan Ponnurangam]

http://publishing.wsu.edu/publishing...ng_permission/

[Harikrishnan Ponnurangam]

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

[Bob Costa]

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.

[Richard Alvarez]

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.)

[Boyd Ostroff]

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....

[Paul Tauger]

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."

[Don Donatello]

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 ...

[Michael Plunkett]

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????????

[Steve House]

Originally Posted by Michael Plunkett

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?

[Jay Gladwell]

Originally Posted by Michael Plunkett

... 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

[Bob Costa]

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?

[Jay Gladwell]

Originally Posted by Bob Costa

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

[Michael Plunkett]

Originally Posted by Steve House

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.

[Steve House]

Originally Posted by Bob Costa

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 House]

Originally Posted by Michael Plunkett

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.