Joshua Provost
Veteran
bosindy, thanks for the informative words. "No" is something many people do not want to hear, but need to.
The Truth behind Copy-right Music and Short films
- Thread starter skrott
- Start date
Hey guys, thanks, I needed a good chuckle.
I can definitely see where you guys are coming from, and don't fault you for that, not in the least. With the limited information and material you are able to access on the internet. Which is understandably designed to discourage the use of copyrighted material.
Don't assume that my intent is to encourage it. I merely answered a question that was asked. You didn't like the answer. That's not my concern.
Again, I simply gave you an answer that was based on more than just the route you chose, the typical "google" search.
Bos, you can't just can't make this stuff up. You might be able to sound convincing to some readers, but not this one.
First, copyright does not mean "the right to copy" are we clear on that? Copyright is the ownership of the rights to the works of the creator or those who have obtained them.
Riddle me this batboy, how would a court award triple the amount of damages to someone who had no damages (economic harm)?
"the law has adapted itself to now include statutory and treble damages to those harmed without economic harm".
Was it you who said that? How did you ever come up with that one?
I assume the same way you came up with your information about the Pete Rose case. Read up on the case, "not reporting income for signing" was not the issue in that case. Why would you lead someone to believe that it was? It looks like you might be trying to sound knowledgable to someone who doesn't know any better, and blindly assumes that there is truth to your statements.
I liked the "Wesley Snipes" comment!, can I use that one?
I remember in law school a teacher gave us some advice about strategy in litigating a case, it was really funny at the time, one of those things that stick in your head even after a few years go by. It went something like this....
If you have a very strong case, and your win is certain.... argue the facts.
If your case is questionable, and not sure you can win .... argue the law.
If you case is a loser, and a win is not expected, .... Call the other guy names!
Guys, thanks for your comments about my... comments. I appreciated the fact that you had an interest. Although we have differed in our opinions, you have my respect.
Although I love a good "spirited debate" I'll save mine for those a little (or a lot) more educated or researched on the subject of law and the issues that are shaped by it.
I can definitely see where you guys are coming from, and don't fault you for that, not in the least. With the limited information and material you are able to access on the internet. Which is understandably designed to discourage the use of copyrighted material.
Don't assume that my intent is to encourage it. I merely answered a question that was asked. You didn't like the answer. That's not my concern.
Again, I simply gave you an answer that was based on more than just the route you chose, the typical "google" search.
Bos, you can't just can't make this stuff up. You might be able to sound convincing to some readers, but not this one.
First, copyright does not mean "the right to copy" are we clear on that? Copyright is the ownership of the rights to the works of the creator or those who have obtained them.
Riddle me this batboy, how would a court award triple the amount of damages to someone who had no damages (economic harm)?
"the law has adapted itself to now include statutory and treble damages to those harmed without economic harm".
Was it you who said that? How did you ever come up with that one?
I assume the same way you came up with your information about the Pete Rose case. Read up on the case, "not reporting income for signing" was not the issue in that case. Why would you lead someone to believe that it was? It looks like you might be trying to sound knowledgable to someone who doesn't know any better, and blindly assumes that there is truth to your statements.
I liked the "Wesley Snipes" comment!, can I use that one?
I remember in law school a teacher gave us some advice about strategy in litigating a case, it was really funny at the time, one of those things that stick in your head even after a few years go by. It went something like this....
If you have a very strong case, and your win is certain.... argue the facts.
If your case is questionable, and not sure you can win .... argue the law.
If you case is a loser, and a win is not expected, .... Call the other guy names!
Guys, thanks for your comments about my... comments. I appreciated the fact that you had an interest. Although we have differed in our opinions, you have my respect.
Although I love a good "spirited debate" I'll save mine for those a little (or a lot) more educated or researched on the subject of law and the issues that are shaped by it.
Last edited:
Joshua Provost
Veteran
Corona, I'll let you slide, but you have to put your money where your mouth is: Free legal support to anyone who takes your advice... and get sued for it.
Corona,
Law school, does not a copyright attorney make. I am sorry to say, you are holding yourself out to be a copyright expert when clearly you are not (equivocate all you want about opinion). In fact you have been incorrect or insufficient in other areas of the law you discussed such as tax, abuse of process, permit and liability. Maybe you were out sick when they taught these subjects at your law school, I am truly at a loss.
Statutory damages are awarded by the court when there has been an infringement but an owner can't prove actual loss. An innocent infringement triggers statutory damages between $750 and $30,000. If the infringement is willful (as in your example) damages can be increased to $150,000. This remedy is offered only to someone that has registered a copyright. Rather than duel with an unarmed man, I suggest you read "Clearance and Copyright" by Michael C. Donaldson (in fact read it twice)
Once you have read that and realize you need to fashion an agreement to gain these rights, read Corbin on Contracts. I assisted Margaret Kniffin in revising it.(among her many accomplishments she was the first women Editor In Chief of the Harvard Law Review, and not so noteworthy, my contracts professor at St. John's Law)
As a lawyer, I am very careful here not to give legal advice and advise people to use an attorney. I would hate to see someone's one shot at success with a film be ruined because they misconstrued something I wrote on the boards. You don't have to worry about the misconstrued part, but clearly you don't have similar concerns.
I know you are trying to be helpful, but someone might actually follow your advice without knowing the facts. Everyone here now has fair warning; proceed as you wish.
Law school, does not a copyright attorney make. I am sorry to say, you are holding yourself out to be a copyright expert when clearly you are not (equivocate all you want about opinion). In fact you have been incorrect or insufficient in other areas of the law you discussed such as tax, abuse of process, permit and liability. Maybe you were out sick when they taught these subjects at your law school, I am truly at a loss.
Statutory damages are awarded by the court when there has been an infringement but an owner can't prove actual loss. An innocent infringement triggers statutory damages between $750 and $30,000. If the infringement is willful (as in your example) damages can be increased to $150,000. This remedy is offered only to someone that has registered a copyright. Rather than duel with an unarmed man, I suggest you read "Clearance and Copyright" by Michael C. Donaldson (in fact read it twice)
Once you have read that and realize you need to fashion an agreement to gain these rights, read Corbin on Contracts. I assisted Margaret Kniffin in revising it.(among her many accomplishments she was the first women Editor In Chief of the Harvard Law Review, and not so noteworthy, my contracts professor at St. John's Law)
As a lawyer, I am very careful here not to give legal advice and advise people to use an attorney. I would hate to see someone's one shot at success with a film be ruined because they misconstrued something I wrote on the boards. You don't have to worry about the misconstrued part, but clearly you don't have similar concerns.
I know you are trying to be helpful, but someone might actually follow your advice without knowing the facts. Everyone here now has fair warning; proceed as you wish.
Last edited:
Fair use makes copyrighted work available to the public as raw material without the need for permission or clearance, so long as such free usage serves the purpose of copyright law, which the U.S. Constitution defines as the promotion of "the Progress of Science and useful Arts" (I.1.8), better than the legal enforcement of claims of infringement. The doctrine hereby attempts to balance the interests of individual copyright holders with the social or cultural benefits that follow from the creation and distribution of derivative works. Insofar as this doctrine protects forms of expression that might otherwise be enjoined as copyright infringing, it has been related to First Amendment free speech protections in the U.S.Constitution
Last edited:
Question: How do you deal with underground music in your films?
Music such as "white label" records with no author that include song mashups or remixes?
Here is a good example:
Gnarles Barkley vs Candi Staton
This record was released on a couple different labels that are either non existant or hard to find...
Do you have to go to both the original artists to ask for permission?http://www.dancerecords.com/artists/Gnarls+Barkley
Music such as "white label" records with no author that include song mashups or remixes?
Here is a good example:
Gnarles Barkley vs Candi Staton
This record was released on a couple different labels that are either non existant or hard to find...
Do you have to go to both the original artists to ask for permission?http://www.dancerecords.com/artists/Gnarls+Barkley
Franky I am surprised the moderators here have allowed corona to continue dispensing questionable legal advice without qualifying him as an expert in the field of IP copyright.
If people here would really like to understand copyright as it applies to the entertainment industry, then perhaps the mods should arrange for someone recognized in the field to step in and spell it out. Since this is such an important topic maybe even pay such a person for their time and charge a small amount for people to view it in order to defray the cost.
If people here would really like to understand copyright as it applies to the entertainment industry, then perhaps the mods should arrange for someone recognized in the field to step in and spell it out. Since this is such an important topic maybe even pay such a person for their time and charge a small amount for people to view it in order to defray the cost.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Problem is, every situation is different. There are some pat answers that apply in most circumstances, but you can never take that advice and run with it. For example, some people will say "if you can shoot it from the street, you don't need permission to include it in your film." Well, the city of Hollywood would tend to disagree; the Hollywood sign is a registered symbol and you cannot go including it in your film without getting permission.
I think Corona's advice is 100% off, and it directly conflicts with and disagrees with everything I've ever heard about copyright. But that doesn't make me right, because I'm not a lawyer. And Corona's not a lawyer. All I can say is -- if you have a serious question about the law, you should be asking a qualified/competent attorney who specializes in that field of the law, and not go asking on an internet discussion forum.
I think Corona's advice is 100% off, and it directly conflicts with and disagrees with everything I've ever heard about copyright. But that doesn't make me right, because I'm not a lawyer. And Corona's not a lawyer. All I can say is -- if you have a serious question about the law, you should be asking a qualified/competent attorney who specializes in that field of the law, and not go asking on an internet discussion forum.
Well, Barry, as a guy who graduated from law school and took a state-sponsored quiz to that effect, I can tell you that you're not off base in thinking that just about everything Corona posted is approximately worth the paper it's printed on.
But then, you should never place much stock on what you read on a website without checking with the relevant professionals first, no matter what someone holds himself out to be.
But then, you should never place much stock on what you read on a website without checking with the relevant professionals first, no matter what someone holds himself out to be.
Barry_Green said:
Amen, speak to an attorney because everything is fact specific and that is the advice I have given two people via PM. Also the law is unsettled so it can become a probability game. Many lawyers (including myself) are not competent to answer complex copyright, it is a subset of the law that is a specialty. Some even say, the only attorneys you can rely on are in New York, LA, Toronto and London (not sure why London, but that is what I've been told.)
There are many free resources for artists states provide. In California there is California Lawyers for the Arts (LA and San Fran). I encourage everyone to get the Donaldson book I mentioned earlier. It may not give you all the answers (it will some) but it will give you the ability to ask the right questions.
Wow, pretty amazing amount of incorrect info in this thread. Corona, your posts may be concerning certain exceptions that you have personal knowledge of but I can assure you, they are not generally true. Most your "legal" advice is so off it is laughable.
I am not a lawyer but I have worked with many music labels and have even been vice-president of an indie label. There are many kinds of royalties, rights, etc. etc. the fact that something is non-commercial has ZERO to do with most everything. The example you use of selling a poster and giving away a DVD does not make it legal, it just means that the owners of the publishing decided not to sue them. When you put copyrighted music in any physical form you owe mechanical royalties, period endstop. Fair use? That is thrown around a lot but unless you a filming a doc in a public place that has music bleeding over from a radio station that is not easily identifiable or prominent....you can forget that crutch.
As far as the legal damage done for using copyrighted music in a non-commercial way... uhh....again...way way way off man. Let's say you have a reel here on DVXuser and it is awesome... so, I decide to use it in my production reel to enhance my reel. Someone sees it and offers me a job directing a $5,000,000 movie. I didnt sell that reel did I? Have you been damaged? Please dude...stop spreading info that might get some poor kid in trouble.
ash =o)
I am not a lawyer but I have worked with many music labels and have even been vice-president of an indie label. There are many kinds of royalties, rights, etc. etc. the fact that something is non-commercial has ZERO to do with most everything. The example you use of selling a poster and giving away a DVD does not make it legal, it just means that the owners of the publishing decided not to sue them. When you put copyrighted music in any physical form you owe mechanical royalties, period endstop. Fair use? That is thrown around a lot but unless you a filming a doc in a public place that has music bleeding over from a radio station that is not easily identifiable or prominent....you can forget that crutch.
As far as the legal damage done for using copyrighted music in a non-commercial way... uhh....again...way way way off man. Let's say you have a reel here on DVXuser and it is awesome... so, I decide to use it in my production reel to enhance my reel. Someone sees it and offers me a job directing a $5,000,000 movie. I didnt sell that reel did I? Have you been damaged? Please dude...stop spreading info that might get some poor kid in trouble.
ash =o)
arrestthisman
Well-known member
To quote Woody Allen, I think this all sounds like Mental Masturbation...
Copyright is very clear in law, and very grey in practice. If you want to be sure, get a lawyer. If you don't want to deal with it, get a producer who doesn't mind working with needle drops.
It's not hard to ask for, nor obtain permission for most music. Provided it isn't this weeks top #1 song.
That goes double for documentaries.
In m circumstances, working at ultra low budgets, under my legal counsel, I was advised off the record to seek permission but if I heard nothing back in time for the deadlines stated in my attempt to contact, to use it anyway and prepare for a cease and decist (my spelling sucks, I know) letter, and take the song out.
For higher budgets that certianly would not fly.
The only thing I'll add is regardless of the law, the publishers are scum. We CAN talk about the morality of copyright, but only the real lawyer on this thread should probably be giving advice, and even then, to everyone here: GET A LAYWER or someone who knows one.
Entertainment lawyers often work pro bono for low budget filmmakers because it's not a lot of work for them (provided you don't overstep your gratis bounds), and it's in their interest to help you in case you make it big. Then they charge you an arm and a leg. And, it was then worth their pro bono time
Back to the publishers. The artists rarely see even a small percentage of the money filmmakers pay to get the songs in their movies. The artists always beenfit from exposure, but according to most of their contracts they don't even have the right to tell a filmmaker it's okay to use their music.
I have a friend who's a lead in a small band, but they have two albums, and are nationally distributed, so he knows the ropes. And the smaller the band, the smaller the cut they cut from THEIR OWN music. But that's the nature of the business. The RIAA has made it so you have to sell your soul to make a record.
It's a real shame. That's why I get a bit upset when people ride the high mighty horse about copyright. Unless it is a HUGE band, they don't get a say in who gets to use their music, AND they don't get much of a cut. The band isn't screwed by copyright violators. they're screwed by the very companies they got in bed with. And No it isn't their fault. Most musicians will sign anything you put in front of them to get an album made or distributed. This is all a generalization, but I believe it to be true from what I've seen directly. Don't take my word for it, though.
The best way to learn about the music situation is to meet up with a local band with moderate success and find out what the biz is like straight from the source.
Copyright is very clear in law, and very grey in practice. If you want to be sure, get a lawyer. If you don't want to deal with it, get a producer who doesn't mind working with needle drops.
It's not hard to ask for, nor obtain permission for most music. Provided it isn't this weeks top #1 song.
That goes double for documentaries.
In m circumstances, working at ultra low budgets, under my legal counsel, I was advised off the record to seek permission but if I heard nothing back in time for the deadlines stated in my attempt to contact, to use it anyway and prepare for a cease and decist (my spelling sucks, I know) letter, and take the song out.
For higher budgets that certianly would not fly.
The only thing I'll add is regardless of the law, the publishers are scum. We CAN talk about the morality of copyright, but only the real lawyer on this thread should probably be giving advice, and even then, to everyone here: GET A LAYWER or someone who knows one.
Entertainment lawyers often work pro bono for low budget filmmakers because it's not a lot of work for them (provided you don't overstep your gratis bounds), and it's in their interest to help you in case you make it big. Then they charge you an arm and a leg. And, it was then worth their pro bono time
Back to the publishers. The artists rarely see even a small percentage of the money filmmakers pay to get the songs in their movies. The artists always beenfit from exposure, but according to most of their contracts they don't even have the right to tell a filmmaker it's okay to use their music.
I have a friend who's a lead in a small band, but they have two albums, and are nationally distributed, so he knows the ropes. And the smaller the band, the smaller the cut they cut from THEIR OWN music. But that's the nature of the business. The RIAA has made it so you have to sell your soul to make a record.
It's a real shame. That's why I get a bit upset when people ride the high mighty horse about copyright. Unless it is a HUGE band, they don't get a say in who gets to use their music, AND they don't get much of a cut. The band isn't screwed by copyright violators. they're screwed by the very companies they got in bed with. And No it isn't their fault. Most musicians will sign anything you put in front of them to get an album made or distributed. This is all a generalization, but I believe it to be true from what I've seen directly. Don't take my word for it, though.
The best way to learn about the music situation is to meet up with a local band with moderate success and find out what the biz is like straight from the source.
Im curious about this as well. I was planning on making a 35-40 min short. It's a drama and I was all set on using a certain song from the 80's by a group who is no longer around today. Can someone give some info on the cheapest and easiest way to be able to use this song in a short.
Joshua Provost
Veteran
GGF NYC said:
Use BMI or ASCAP search functions to find the publisher of the song, and work with them to get permission/pay any related fees. The publisher should also be listed in the liner notes or the tape/LP/CD, if you have it, but that information may be outdated, as rights to songs can be bought/sold/passed around. BMI or ASCAP should point you in the right direction.
If the band isn't repped by a publishing company, that doesn't mean you are free and clear, it just means it'll be harder to reach them.
PaPa
Major Contributor
hmm, very interesting topic.
however the majority of hte professors at my film school recommend to stear clear from using copyrighted music, however they also made it clear that if one needed ot use someone elses music, for purposes of film fests, its dooable, is done often, and is generally accepted. ( coming from the judges )
however the majority of hte professors at my film school recommend to stear clear from using copyrighted music, however they also made it clear that if one needed ot use someone elses music, for purposes of film fests, its dooable, is done often, and is generally accepted. ( coming from the judges )
I am clearing a song possibly being performed in my spyfest short and the publisher sent me the following questions. If I was using an actual recording, I would have had a professional music clearance company do it for me bc it is more complex. I though it may interest some of you to see the questions asked. The song was found through ASCAP, I contacted the publisher and they asked the following questions:
Here's the info I'll need to get you a quote. In parentheses below are descriptions of
what I need in that field. Please ERASE and fill in your reply.
YOUR NAME/COMPANY NAME/ADDRESS/PHONE/FAX:
LICENSEE NAME/COMPANY NAME/ADDRESS/PHONE/FAX (if different):
SONG:
WRITER(S):
PUBLISHER:
PROJECT TITLE:
USAGE TYPE(S): (i.e. Visual Vocal, Background Instrumental, End Credits, etc.)
TIMING OF THE SONG:
MEDIA: (i.e. Free & Basic Cable TV, Film Festivals, Video, etc... where will you be showing it?)
TERRITORY: (i.e. US only, US & Canada, World, your city only, etc...)
TERM: (how long do you want the rights for?)
START DATE: (when does the term begin?)
DESCRIPTION OF SCENE:
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF YOUR PROJECT & BUDGET:
If you are using the song in more than one place, be sure to specify the usage type & duration for each.
Here's the info I'll need to get you a quote. In parentheses below are descriptions of
what I need in that field. Please ERASE and fill in your reply.
YOUR NAME/COMPANY NAME/ADDRESS/PHONE/FAX:
LICENSEE NAME/COMPANY NAME/ADDRESS/PHONE/FAX (if different):
SONG:
WRITER(S):
PUBLISHER:
PROJECT TITLE:
USAGE TYPE(S): (i.e. Visual Vocal, Background Instrumental, End Credits, etc.)
TIMING OF THE SONG:
MEDIA: (i.e. Free & Basic Cable TV, Film Festivals, Video, etc... where will you be showing it?)
TERRITORY: (i.e. US only, US & Canada, World, your city only, etc...)
TERM: (how long do you want the rights for?)
START DATE: (when does the term begin?)
DESCRIPTION OF SCENE:
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF YOUR PROJECT & BUDGET:
If you are using the song in more than one place, be sure to specify the usage type & duration for each.