Creative Communities of the World Forums

The peer to peer support community for media production professionals.

Activity Forums Business & Career Building Commercial Music Usage Background Information Please

  • David Roth weiss

    July 31, 2007 at 5:45 pm

    [Todd at Fantastic Plastic] “In some instances a signed “waiver” like that might actually hurt, because you can no longer “play dumb”… you now basically have paperwork saying that you fully know you shouldn’t be using the music.”

    Absolutely true!!! Knowing that its wrong beforehand constitutes a willfull act. As you will see below, in the eyes of the law a willful act of copyright infringement carries penalties that are indeed much more severe.

    The law reads as follows: “In a case where the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that infringement was committed willfully, the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000. In a case where the infringer sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that such infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of statutory damages to a sum of not less than $200.”

    David Roth Weiss
    Director/Editor
    David Weiss Productions, Inc.
    Los Angeles

    POST-PRODUCTION WITHOUT THE USUAL INSANITY

    A forum host of Creative COW’s Business & Marketing, and Indie Film & Documentary forums.

  • Grinner Hester

    July 31, 2007 at 6:43 pm

    It’s best to just not wallow with pigs. You will get dirty.
    I once had a boss that loved to pirate not only music but movie content. Didn’t bat an eye at it. I knew if/when push came to shove, he’d certainly throw me, the person that pushed the red button under the bus. No thanks.
    heck, I had a client try to get me to pirate a freakin FBI warning.
    lol
    There is alot of money in compromising principals but not much pride involved.

  • Arnie Schlissel

    July 31, 2007 at 7:39 pm

    [RocklinDave] “…the developmentally disabled kids really need current songs with lyrics that they relate to them”

    To which the answer should be, “Then you should buy the proper cleances for these songs.”

    This is why there are ‘needle drop’ services, which often have cleared versions of popular songs available.

    Arnie
    Now in post: Peristroika, a film by Slava Tsukerman
    https://www.arniepix.com/blog

  • David Gerberding

    July 31, 2007 at 7:57 pm

    I’m interested in this needle-drop clearance route. Are we talking hundreds, or thousands of dollars per song for 50 disk copies? Is there a one-stop shop for this, or a number of places? Thanks.

    Dave

  • Ron Lindeboom

    July 31, 2007 at 8:12 pm

    [grinner] “I once had a boss that loved to pirate not only music but movie content. Didn’t bat an eye at it. I knew if/when push came to shove, he’d certainly throw me, the person that pushed the red button under the bus.”

    Great point, Grinner.

    Some people believe that they can get a release signed absolving oneself of liability in these matters. It is simply not the case. You cannot in any court of law I am aware of, get a release signed that allows you to break a law and assign the responsibility to someone else — not when you are the one who is doing the work.

    Beware of red buttons that place oneself in front of buses,

    Ron Lindeboom

  • Tony

    July 31, 2007 at 8:30 pm

    Can you get a release for any other crime such as murder, robbery or other?

    So why would you think a release for a federal copyright infringement would be any different?

    The fact is clear the client is asking you to become a party to a crime and you want no part in it.

    Plain and simple “do not pass go”.

    Tell them you can do all the other work which is legal but any violations of established federal or state laws you will be forced to comply with.

    Tony Salgado

  • Steve Wargo

    July 31, 2007 at 11:27 pm

    For a free consultation:

    https://www.bzrights.com/

    More info:

    https://www.bzrights.com/101.htm

    This is who we use. They are right on the money.

    Steve Wargo
    Tempe, Arizona
    It’s a dry heat!

    Sony HDCAM F-900 & HDW-2000/1 deck
    5 Final Cut Pro systems
    Sony HVR-M25 HDV deck

  • Brendan Coots

    August 1, 2007 at 12:30 am

    I know this issue has been hammered about already, but I just wanted to weigh in briefly. Here are the four benchmarks used to evaluate Fair Use:

    1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
    2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
    3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
    4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

    In short, you could use a popular song in an internal-use corporate video because:


    1. It is not commercial in nature – the work is for private use

    2. The song does not make up a substantial portion of the work you have created. If the work was little more than the song with a blank screen, that might be different but the song is more supportive than substantive

    3. The work is not being resold to the public, so the copyright holder could not claim damage to market value or lost revenue.

    If the government agency you are doing the work for is planning to sell the video, it is illegal. If they are merely showing it to people or even giving it away, that is non-commercial in nature, and the plaintiff could not prove damages since no profit was made.

    Brendan Coots
    Splitvision Digital
    http://www.splitvisiondigital.com

  • Kerry Brown

    August 1, 2007 at 12:47 am

    Check out “ZOOM”
    https://www.zoomlicense.com/

    KB

  • Mark Suszko

    August 1, 2007 at 1:24 am

    Fair Use does you no good up front.

    It only comes into play as your DEFENSE when you are hauled into COURT to defend yorself against a claim of a copyright violation. It may or may not protect you; that’s up to a judge. But tell me, WHY would you open yourself and your clients up to costly litigation in the first place? Can you afford the weeks or months the case will take to work itself thru? Do you want to spend production funds or profits on attorney fees and court costs, just to prove your point? Do you think this would make you look good to future clients? Even if you win, you lose.

    Fair Use is not some miraculous fairy forcefield around your project, or a magic incantation to make lawyers turn tail and run away. Your noble intentions in the program are no defense at all. You should consider it the last life preserver after all other strategies have been exhausted, because music companies have deep pockets for their legal teams to work from. You on the other hand, may have a small business with loans secured against your personal property. Is this guy’s need to hear “Somewhere Over The Rainbow” on his touching kid’s video for free, worth you losing your studio, car, house, everything? Because worst case, it could happen. Likely? Can’t say. Possible? Most definitely.

    Go ahead with this and you are playing Russian Roulette and the “boss” is handing you extra bullets each time you spin the chamber. Some day the gun will go off.

Page 2 of 3

We use anonymous cookies to give you the best experience we can.
Our Privacy policy | GDPR Policy