Audio for a project!!! what is legal to use??

[ESTEBEVERDE]

Sorry but the courts decide what is "fair use" and they are often not very understanding.
Transformative may be a "help" but syncing music to your video is not "transformative" and apparently three or four notes in a row that were used in some pop song doesn't qualify as "transformative" either. Parody is usually an out but Weird Al Yankovich payed royalties on all the songs he parodied. What it got him was the ability to parody them instead of XXX saying no YOU can't use my song for your shtick.

I agree with what I think it is your saying, but that ain't going to do any good in court. Should our poster be able to use the songs he wants for a nominal fee in this not for profit project? He has my vote. The problem is unless I sit on his jury that isn't going to do him any good what I think.

(See [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] The United States Supreme Court in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. (1994) )

Also see The Wind Done Gone (Suntrust v. Houghton Mifflin Co., 252 F. 3d 1165 (11th Cir. 2001) per curiam, opinion at 268 F.3d 1257,)

I don't have the time to debate this ad nauseum but I do appreciate your sentiment I am just saying the law is the law and there are many many clearly defined instances that meet the requirements of Fair Use.


[/FONT]

 

[ESTEBEVERDE]

Best advice......consult a lawyer. Don't risk your future and everything you own on advice from anyone on a public board. Including me! (Except....um.... the advice to consult a lawyer.)

Awesomeness! :beer:

 

[ESTEBEVERDE]

That is CLEARLY not what the original poster was asking about doing.

Right, that's why I suggested it probably constituted infringement and that he should do further research.

Someone else suggested he check with his school's legal department.

Ultimately in his case that is actually the best place to check since it is their responsibility to make sure the school is in compliance with any and all laws, regulations, and rules. :thumbsup:

 

[David W. Richardson]

Right, that's why I suggested it probably constituted infringement and that he should do further research.

Someone else suggested he check with his school's legal department.

Ultimately in his case that is actually the best place to check since it is their responsibility to make sure the school is in compliance with any and all laws, regulations, and rules. :thumbsup:

Right on the mark!

 

[Noiz2]

Yes seriously. This has been discussed with actual attorneys and you logic has nothing ti do with the law. It is a defense it is not clear cut. If you can point to the "law" that says if you do XYZ your clear and free then go for it and I will gladly change my tune but this has been discussed to death on a lot of boards and a number of people who actually deal with IPR law have chimed in including a former neighbor. And your advice is wishful thinking but not actually true. Your definition doesn't even make sense, anything I alter is a new work? Give me a break.

Here is a little bit you can argue with if you like but is from the US copyright office.

One of the rights accorded to the owner of copyright is the right to reproduce or to authorize others to reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords. This right is subject to certain limitations found in sections 107 through 118 of the Copyright Act (title 17, U. S. Code). One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of “fair use.” Although fair use was not mentioned in the previous copyright law, the doctrine has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years. This doctrine has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law.

Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered “fair,” such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:

the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

the nature of the copyrighted work;

amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The distinction between “fair use” and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.

The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author's observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.”

Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself; it does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in the work.

The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material. The Copyright Office cannot give this permission.

When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted material should be avoided unless the doctrine of “fair use” would clearly apply to the situation. The Copyright Office can neither determine if a certain use may be considered “fair” nor advise on possible copyright violations. If there is any doubt, it is advisable to consult an attorney.

FL-102, Revised July 2006

And you obviously haven't seen a recent photo if you think I'm cute, but I'll take it as a compliment... though I am taken so you out of luck ;~).

You are so cute.

Read the Law.... seriously...

Fair Use is not merely a defense for a copyright infringement claim.

It is actually part and parcel of the law. It is not some loophole.

There is a huge difference between sharing it with your friends, whether it is one or hundreds and "PUBLISHING" a work. It is quite cut and dry actually.

 

[ESTEBEVERDE]

...

And you obviously haven't seen a recent photo if you think I'm cute, but I'll take it as a compliment... though I am taken so you out of luck ;~).

:beer: !!!!!

Yes seriously. This has been discussed with actual attorneys and you logic has nothing ti do with the law. It is a defense it is not clear cut. If you can point to the "law" that says if you do XYZ your clear and free then go for it and I will gladly change my tune but this has been discussed to death on a lot of boards and a number of people who actually deal with IPR law have chimed in including a former neighbor. And your advice is wishful thinking but not actually true. ....

Noiz... somehow there is a HUGE disconnect here.

I stated quite clearly that Fair Use is part and parcel the law.

You said it wasn't and that it was only a defense, and then went on to quote the US Code (Federal Law!!!) that it is codified in!

Here is the pertinent section of the law you quoted. It's the same one I have been referring to:



§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use


Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—
(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.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.




As you can plainly see Fair Use is not merely a "defense' but is in fact "The Law"

I take it to understand you are not an attorney but that doesn't mean you personally cannot research and understand the law. In fact, I would implore you to do so if you are engaged in this business professionally.

I also went on and substantiated my position by quite clearly providing tangible concrete real world examples vis a vis court decisions (THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT no less!!!)

...Your definition doesn't even make sense, anything I alter is a new work? Give me a break.
....

Yes in deed you do need a break!

I never said " anything I alter is a new work" (Here I take it you mean free of copyright restrictions)

I haven't the slightest idea of where you came up with that. I suggest you take your break and spend it by re-reading the post to absorb what was actually said.

Please feel free to quote and question anything I posted.

 

[ESTEBEVERDE]

Yes seriously. This has been discussed with actual attorneys and you logic has nothing ti do with the law. It is a defense it is not clear cut. If you can point to the "law" that says if you do XYZ your clear and free then go for it and I will gladly change my tune but this has been discussed to death on a lot of boards and a number of people who actually deal with IPR law have chimed in including a former neighbor. And your advice is wishful thinking but not actually true. Your definition doesn't even make sense, anything I alter is a new work? Give me a break.

Here is a little bit you can argue with if you like but is from the US copyright office.


...

P.S. Here is the "wishful thinking" and "logic" of The United States Supreme Court in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. (1994)

Just in case you have trouble finding things on the internet. :beer:

I know these Supreme Court Justices aren't the "actual attorneys" that you have "discussed" things with and they are not "a former neighbor" but they are the final say in all of the law of our land.
Here is the Syllabus for those who do not like to actually read the full content of the law:



NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321, 337.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
CAMPBELL, aka SKYYWALKER, et al. v. ACUFF ROSE MUSIC, INC.

certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the sixth circuit

No. 92-1292. Argued November 9, 1993 -- Decided March 7, 1994

Respondent Acuff Rose Music, Inc., filed suit against petitioners, the members of the rap music group 2 Live Crew and their record company, claiming that 2 Live Crew's song, "Pretty Woman," infringed Acuff Rose's copyright in Roy Orbison's rock ballad, "Oh Pretty Woman." The District Court granted summary judgment for 2 Live Crew, holding that its song was a parody that made fair use of the original song. See Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 107. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that the commercial nature of the parody rendered it presumptively unfair under the first of four factors relevant under §107; that, by taking the "heart" of the original and making it the "heart" of a new work, 2 Live Crew had, qualitatively, taken too much under the third §107 factor; and that market harm for purposes of the fourth §107 factor had been established by a presumption attaching to commercial uses.

Held: 2 Live Crew's commercial parody may be a fair use within the meaning of §107. Pp. 4-25.

(a) Section 107, which provides that "the fair use of a copyrighted work . . . for purposes such as criticism [or] comment . . . is not an infringement . . . ," continues the common law tradition of fair use adjudication and requires case by case analysis rather than bright line rules. The statutory examples of permissible uses provide only general guidance. The four statutory factors are to be explored and weighed together in light of copyright's purpose of promoting science and the arts. Pp. 4-8.

(b) Parody, like other comment and criticism, may claim fair use. Under the first of the four §107 factors, "the purpose andcharacter of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature . . . ," the enquiry focuses on whether the new work merely supersedes the objects of the original creation, or whether and to what extent it is "transformative," altering the original with new expression, meaning, or message. The more transformative the new work, the less will be the significance of other factors, like commercialism, that may weigh against a finding of fair use. The heart of any parodist's claim to quote from existing material is the use of some elements of a prior author's composition to create a new one that, at least in part, comments on that author's work. But that tells courts little about where to draw the line. Thus, like other uses, parody has to work its way through the relevant factors. Pp. 8-12.

(c) The Court of Appeals properly assumed that 2 Live Crew's song contains parody commenting on and criticizing the original work, but erred in giving virtually dispositive weight to the commercial nature of that parody by way of a presumption, ostensibly culled from Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417, 451, that "every commercial use of copyrighted material is presumptively . . . unfair . . . ." The statute makes clear that a work's commercial nature is only one element of the first factor enquiry into its purpose and character, and Sony itself called for no hard evidentiary presumption. The Court of Appeals's rule runs counter to Sony and to the long common law tradition of fair use adjudication. Pp. 12-16.

(d) The second §107 factor, "the nature of the copyrighted work," is not much help in resolving this and other parody cases, since parodies almost invariably copy publicly known, expressive works, like the Orbison song here. Pp. 16-17.

(e) The Court of Appeals erred in holding that, as a matter of law, 2 Live Crew copied excessively from the Orbison original under the third §107 factor, which asks whether "the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole" are reasonable in relation to the copying's purpose. Even if 2 Live Crew's copying of the original's first line of lyrics and characteristic opening bass riff may be said to go to the original's "heart," that heart is what most readily conjures up the song for parody, and it is the heart at which parody takes aim. Moreover, 2 Live Crew thereafter departed markedly from the Orbison lyrics and produced otherwise distinctive music. As to the lyrics, the copying was not excessive in relation to the song's parodic purpose. As to the music, this Court expresses no opinion whether repetition of the bass riff is excessive copying, but remands to permit evaluation of the amount taken, in light of thesong's parodic purpose and character, its transformative elements, and considerations of the potential for market substitution. Pp. 17-20.

(f) The Court of Appeals erred in resolving the fourth §107 factor, "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work," by presuming, in reliance on Sony, supra, at 451, the likelihood of significant market harm based on 2 Live Crew's use for commercial gain. No "presumption" or inference of market harm that might find support in Sony is applicable to a case involving something beyond mere duplication for commercial purposes. The cognizable harm is market substitution, not any harm from criticism. As to parody pure and simple, it is unlikely that the work will act as a substitute for the original, since the two works usually serve different market functions. The fourth factor requires courts also to consider the potential market for derivative works. See, e. g., Harper & Row, supra, at 568. If the later work has cognizable substitution effects in protectable markets for derivative works, the law will look beyond the criticism to the work's other elements. 2 Live Crew's song comprises not only parody but also rap music. The absence of evidence or affidavits addressing the effect of 2 Live Crew's song on the derivative market for a nonparody, rap version of "Oh, Pretty Woman" disentitled 2 Live Crew, as the proponent of the affirmative defense of fair use, to summary judgment. Pp. 20-25.
972 F. 2d 1429, reversed and remanded.

Souter, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Kennedy, J., filed a concurring opinion.

 

[Noiz2]

I never said " anything I alter is a new work" (Here I take it you mean free of copyright restrictions)

I haven't the slightest idea of where you came up with that. I suggest you take your break and spend it by re-reading the post to absorb what was actually said.

Please feel free to quote and question anything I posted.

well maybe you should read your posts for a start

If he made the video and sent it to his friends it is Fair Use because it is a trans formative work and he is not publishing it. And, even if he did publish it, it still might fall under Fair Use if it met the criteria.

If he just makes a copy of the cd and gives it to his friends it is most likely not fair use because he hasn't transformed it and it "damages sales."

This concept doesn't show up in anything "official".

THe supreme court does not make laws. They interpret them. However there finding in a given case that a rap band didn't infringe because it was a parody while interesting has nothing to do with the original post. He is not parodying a song, he wants to use it in a video as score.

You also missed some of the key parts of the article I pointed our and by the way that was an article by the copyright office. THey don't make laws either.

Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered “fair,” such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.

The distinction between “fair use” and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission.

The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author's observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.”

The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material. The Copyright Office cannot give this permission.

When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted material should be avoided unless the doctrine of “fair use” would clearly apply to the situation. The Copyright Office can neither determine if a certain use may be considered “fair” nor advise on possible copyright violations. If there is any doubt, it is advisable to consult an attorney.

It's SO clear and "codified" in law that the copyright office can't give a single example of a use that "is" fare use. The closest they can get is "examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use:". You still have to go to court to know for sure.

But hey you go and do what you want, stick that madona song in your film and cry to the wind it's fair use. ANd who knows after a few years in court the Supreme court might agree with you and you can party down. Of course by that time you'll have a few hundred thousand in legal fees to pay off but hey you won.
Me I would rather stay out of court.

 

[Noiz2]

As a poss less contentious description of "fair use" and what it means can be found here.
http://www.pdinfo.com/fairuse.htm

They also have a lot of info on what is in the public domain.

I think the original posters question has been answered so I'm going to leave this thread.

I would encourage folks to do there homework on what they want to use in their films and asses what the realities are about that use. You can get away with a lot most of the time. And "fair use" may be a good defense, but the only sure way to get music rights are a license agreement or public domain.

 

[ESTEBEVERDE]

well maybe you should read your posts for a start


This concept doesn't show up in anything "official".

THe supreme court does not make laws. They interpret them. However there finding in a given case that a rap band didn't infringe because it was a parody while interesting has nothing to do with the original post. He is not parodying a song, he wants to use it in a video as score.

You also missed some of the key parts of the article I pointed our and by the way that was an article by the copyright office. THey don't make laws either.



It's SO clear and "codified" in law that the copyright office can't give a single example of a use that "is" fare use. The closest they can get is "examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use:". You still have to go to court to know for sure.

But hey you go and do what you want, stick that madona song in your film and cry to the wind it's fair use. ANd who knows after a few years in court the Supreme court might agree with you and you can party down. Of course by that time you'll have a few hundred thousand in legal fees to pay off but hey you won.
Me I would rather stay out of court.

Denile just ain't a river!

Happy sailing Noiz! :beer:

 

[Noiz2]

Denile just ain't a river!

Happy sailing Noiz! :beer:

I just watched your little movie which actually states "fair use isn't a right it's a defense". Strange I think I heard that somewhere before? Oh yah I said it, then you said no and posted the film to show me my error.
I'm not really on a river it just another of your delusions.

 

[ESTEBEVERDE]

I just watched your little movie which actually states "fair use isn't a right it's a defense". Strange I think I heard that somewhere before? Oh yah I said it, then you said no and posted the film to show me my error.
I'm not really on a river it just another of your delusions.

Noiz Noiz Noiz ....

You got's to be kidding me right?


First, this is Stanford Law School's "little movie".

2nd it is completely done using Walt Disney Corps intellectual property without permission. It is defining FAIR USE with FAIR USE.

I said Fair Use wasn't JUST A DEFENSE.

I said it is THE LAW.

It is.

I even provided you the law.

The law gives one the right to use copyrighted material for FAIR USE without license.

Again... you have to comply with the FAIR USE standards.


I am totally cool if you don't understand Fair Use.

It's absolutely pointless trying to even discuss it with you and that too is cool!

Such is life!

It will go on with or with out you...


Enjoy your cruise! :beer:


The thread and last words are all yours!

 

[ovaclip]

First off... THANK YOU for your replies

First off... THANK YOU for your replies

to all that replied, I appreciate the depth and detail you went through to provide me with a thorough (sp) explanation to using licensed material. I am in the early development stages of this project, and I will soon be consulting the school board on licenses they might be able to obtain for me. I look forward to the project and learning lots! I will keep people informed!!

 

[Scott W. Smith]

Since you are in the early development stage why not spend your energy finding musicians at your school or surrounding area you can work with on providing you an original sound track? You'll be helping out a fellow artist and making some good contacts. You may even get a music video or two out of the deal.

 

[Noiz2]

Noiz Noiz Noiz ....
I am totally cool if you don't understand Fair Use.

It's absolutely pointless trying to even discuss it with you and that too is cool!

Such is life!

It will go on with or with out you...


Enjoy your cruise! :beer:


The thread and last words are all yours!

ESTEBEVERDE, ESTEBEVERDE, ESTEBEVERDE,

At last we agree. ;~)

Hey, I don't think your correct. But you don't think I'm correct. Since neither of us is a lawyer or a judge, we could both be wrong. If nothing else we did open up both of the sides of the discussion and got people thinking about it so I think that's good. I'll buy you a beer one day and we can talk (about something else!)...
Cheers