-
Copyrighted material problem
-
[Emre Tufekci] “If I wanted to do a research about the music of metallica and it’s effects on teens for educational purposes. And again they would have to be the focus of the study! OK/gray area.”
Yes, grey area.
The key here, as you’ve quoted above, it the nature of the project (for profit or educational).
I think most words of caution from people here are about commercial projects destined for broadcast or “industrials” done by “deep pocket” corporations. In that case, I’d err on the side of caution and clear any and all music.
mark
-
As a musician for well over a decade, I would be the last person to disagree with you on the point of ethics in using copyrighted material. From an ethical standpoint, there is no justification for a client/employer to scoff at paying licensing fees if they so desperately “need” to use a particular song or video clip.
That said, the issue being debated here revolves more around the legal implications, and that is where my own comments upstream have focused.
Brendan Coots
Splitvision Digital
http://www.splitvisiondigital.com -
Well, I will agree with you on your point on the “cease and desist” letters being sent. That’s USUALLY as far as it would go for an internal non-broadcast video…unless it’s a Metallica song that was used. 😉
It’s just a really small world, and the artist’s cousin could very well be in the audience. Paranoid? Maybe. Professional? I do my best.
Like you said… from what I’ve seen in my 15 years in the business, the problem isn’t so much that the “Editor” is going to be sued… the problem is on the Producer’s shoulders.
But if my company gets a “cease and desist” letter because of the (wrong) decisions made by a Producer or Editor that I hired, I’m not hiring the person who made the decision to use the music ever again. They should know better. Plus, they are giving up an extra revenue stream.
If a client insists on using a popular song, it’s incumbent on my Producers to find out how much that “privilege” would cost them. (Plus the charge for our work in finding out and providing that information to them.) If it can’t be licensed under agreeable terms, we offer alternate options, such as stock music or custom music that fits their needs. Again, it’s an opportunity for us to stay professional and perhaps earn a little extra for our trouble. above all, we provide the client with all ethical options and let them make the decision.
Of course, being a business Co-Owner and a Producer as much as I am an Editor these days, I’m pretty cautious about legal issues like this. I’d rather my business close because of lack of clients than because of being sued for using unlicensed music.
-
WRONG WRONG WRONG, Thank you for playing.
It has happened and will happen again as long as people continue to use content that does not belong to them. it doesn’t happen often because most of the people who wold do the suing never see the product. Using clips to motivate your sales force is using the clip for profit. Companies have been sued over this. all it takes sometimes is for someone to play the video and home and the wrong person see it or a disgruntled employee mail the videos out.
And no the editor is not going to get sued as long as they are an employee and not a contractor.
K
-
[John Davidson] “The rule when I was at CNN was that you could use music, but only if it was in the background as natsound (ie. if a radio was on playing “Carry on my wayward son” while a live shot was on location during a standup or some newsworthy event, it was ok). That was the only time fair use was allowed.”
Absolutely, that is the ONLY true “fair use” that I’ve ever seen allowed. If the music happens to in the scene somehow.
Pulling music off the internet, a CD or a TV recording, doesn’t apply to fair use at all.
Walter Biscardi, Jr.
https://www.biscardicreative.com
HD Editorial & Animation for Broadcast and independent productions.All Things Apple Podcast! https://cowcast.creativecow.net/all_things_apple/index.html
Read my blog! https://blogs.creativecow.net/WalterBiscardi
-
[walter biscardi] “Pulling music off the internet, a CD or a TV recording, doesn’t apply to fair use at all.”
Well, it actually could. Techically, almost any intellectual property could be used legitimately if the proper conditions of fair use actually apply. However, as we all know, its almost a rule that if you’ve got to ask if fair use applies, it probably doesn’t.
David
David Roth Weiss
Director/Editor
David Weiss Productions, Inc.
Los AngelesPOST-PRODUCTION WITHOUT THE USUAL INSANITY
-
Unfortunately, none of your ‘fair use’ arguments stand up against the first law that gets violated in EVERY case, which is copying the song or movie clip from it’s original source into your editing system. The Millienium Digital Rights Copyright Act of 2001 (I may have the exact name wrong) was drawn up in response to the pervasive pirating of music and movies on the web. Lawmakers went an extra step in setting up a felony at the point of digitizing. Just read that little FBI warning at the beginning of every DVD on the shelf…
This new law has been used on multiple occasions to go after COLLEGE STUDENTS WITH NO MONEY. They have even sued the parents of 12 year old girls who illegally downloaded material to their home computers. (Google it if you don’t believe me…)
No amount of “You’ll NEVER get caught because no one cares about this minor stuff” rancor would convince me that a lawyer for one of those violated entities would ignore your “deep pocketed” corporate outfit, given knowledge of the activities. The statement that “Federal lawsuits are too expensive to pursue” only makes sense for the defendant wanting to settle out of court. Those lawyers who would dare to rip those deep pockets open to get their client’s compensated will not hesitate to drag you right into court and claim their costs as additional damage.
A standard indemnification clause would release the producer of culpability if drawn up correctly. Record contracts and other productions almost always have something of that sort to protect both the artist and the producer. Otherwise, how would the producer protect his interests if the artist were to submit an obscure song from another artist as their own work? The producer must obtain the indemnification clause to shield himself from the laws protecting other’s intellectual property.
It may be for a small audience and no one who matters may ever see it, but it’s still wrong. What if that artistic video you’d been working on for years was suddenly used to sell or promote a product or idea you didn’t agree with? You’d want to be compensated. The artists your company refuses to pay would probably feel the same way.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up