Copyright Music in Demo Reel-Let's Discuss

[Sad Max]

Just out of curiosity what does a set decorator have on a reel - just a montage of scenes that show the set really well? Not something I've ever really thought about...

A set decorator would have similar material to an art director or production designer - flattering shots of the sets, as shot for a given show.

Although I was thinking mostly of my 2d/3d animation reels, when I posted that.

I wonder what underlies the apparent "moral" stance that some people take on this - are you going to argue that the copyright owner has suffered a monetary (or any other) loss, because someone puts their music to unauthorized use, on a demo reel? Is your position that someone will now not-buy an album or pay for a download, because the tune was on a demo reel?

Sure, it's probably very easy to make an airtight legalistic case against it. But the law is worth very little, unless you can demonstrate a real harm to the party who's theoretically being protected from loss. And while we can all easily be rules-lawyers, can we demonstrate that there is damage being done, to any party, or are we just blind worshippers of the letter of the law?

 

[Batutta]

I would mitigate a bit in that I would be more cautious on a web reel. The reason being that on the web it's VERY public and god knows what is going to happen to the clip after some high school kid downloads it and reposts it on YouTube. Reels you send to individuals to get jobs are pretty much exempt, not legally but practically.

Again, it's VERY easy to restrict access on a website so that it's NOT public using a password.

 

[Jeff Anderson]

A set decorator would have similar material to an art director or production designer - flattering shots of the sets, as shot for a given show.

Although I was thinking mostly of my 2d/3d animation reels, when I posted that.

I wonder what underlies the apparent "moral" stance that some people take on this - are you going to argue that the copyright owner has suffered a monetary loss, because someone puts their music to unauthorized use, on a demo reel? Is your position that someone will now not-buy an album or pay for a download, because the tune was on a demo reel?

Sure, it's probably very easy to make an airtight legalistic case against it. But the law is worth very little, unless you can demonstrate a real harm to the party who's theoretically being protected from loss. And while we can all easily be rules-lawyers, can we demonstrate that there is damage being done, to any party, or are we just blind worshippers of the letter of the law?

Cool thanks for the info on set decorators reels and such. Forgot you did 3d work as well though. I just dont ever have the pleasure of having a set decorator or art director to hire (low to mid budget corporate work).

As for my reasoning on my "moral" stance. My take is that its someone else's work that I'm using to gain work with. Whether or not people actually would choose my company over another based on a song choice is totally arguable both ways. I definitely dont think that it hurts CD sales to use a song in such a manner but it is a royalty that I should be paying to the artist. If they used my art or footage on a video promoting themselves as a singer/band I'd be a little pissed. Its out of respect to the artist for me. If Toyota has to pay to use a song to promote their products why shouldnt I?

As far as being a rules worshipper I rarely am but have seen too many other businesses go under (or behind bars) because of taking a little shortcut to save a few bucks here or there. In business I treat the law with the same regard I do my backup drives. It may be border line anal-retentive but I've got my ass covered no matter what. Outside of business of course I have to little to no regard for the law

 

[Sad Max]

So...you don't have any actual harm done to the copyright-holder, to point to?

 

[Noiz2]

Well the question for me does become, "is it legal?" Cause if it isnt I'm not doing it. I dont have the time or the money to hope I dont get caught. And yes our reel is on the web so its out there for all to see. Legally the MOST they can do to you is alot more than a cease and desist. Most likely thats all that will happen. I'm not a risk taker when it comes to business practices. I'd rather pay now than later.

But then you name your company as a sound-alike of a major film business? If you want to be totally clear and legal then you need to go get releases from everyone that worked artistically on any clip you have in your reel or who's likeness appears in or who's voice is heard in any clip in your reel AND every recognizable product that is seen or heard and any music used. The exception to for some of those would be for documentaries and news, but even that isn't totally clear because in your reel they are not being used as news or as a documentary.

You practically can't create a reel (unless your just doing graphics) with out violating someone's rights.

Music is the only folks at all likely to care at all and they are very unlikely to care enough to even make a phone call. All of this is assuming your making a reel not a music video. Most music I've seen in reels is a short bit from (usually) a film score. The people in that case who might object are in the same boat your in. They need the visuals for there reel, they probably also want the sound FX and the visual FX and maybe even the acting. It's just not something the industry wants to get too picky about because it's in nobody's interest. They want the protection so when you create your "reel" that is really a music video and start selling it they have some clout to stop you. But folks just don't get hit on legitimate reels.

Sound FX is another area that is in a similar fix. Unless there is a specific all creative work clause in the contract (I've only worked one place that had that) then whoever records the sounds "owns" them. The film can use them but the recordist owns the content. Sounds are used and reused all over the place. It's just not talked about because it's WAY too complicated and in nobody's interest to get anal. There are exceptions but very few have held up because rights that aren't enforced get very little juice in court.

So while in theory someone could object and at that point you should respect the request the fact is that they are not going to court because it won't take long to demonstrate that they have not perused on thousands of other cases. No court is going to side with any big punitive damages on selective enforcement. And they do NOT want to loose a case like that because it sets precedent.

As a matter of interest is there any documented case where there was an action against someone using material in a reel (that wasn't an obvious scam)? I have never heard of any and I've been in the business for awhile. And nobody that I know (some who have been around a lot longer) has ever heard of any. Doesn't mean it can't happen but...

 

[Noiz2]

If Toyota has to pay to use a song to promote their products why shouldnt I?

Were talking reels not national ads. If the discussion was about ads I would totally agree. But that is a completely different animal. A reel is a resume, in video form.

Again I partially agree. Using music that was not part of any of the films you have worked on OR that is just a commercial song, is in my book treading close to the line. Doing that in a publicly open format like (an un protected) web reel is right on the line. I wouldn't do it on line and I have managed not to do it in my own reels. But I don't think in a reel you are in any danger of problems. Except the poss issue a viewer might have with the use.

And that might be a bigger point. You may loose a job because the person viewing has an issue with the use.

And I guess I should go on record as saying I have no problem using my work on there reels. I know some reels where what an editor has chosen was something they actually had very little to do with (in some cases it's been things I have cut) and I still don't have an issue with them doing it. BUT if I got a reel that had that kind of misrepresentation in it I wouldn't hire the person. So be careful about what you put in and what you imply. Gilding the lilly is fine misrepresentation is not.

 

[sean90291]

"Distribution" is a word with a very grey defiition--not black and white.

I'd say it doesn't matter if you're not posting your work on the Internet (which is probably going to count as "distribution") and if it's only on the DVD that you give to a handful of people as a sample of your editing work.

Every big-budget movie I've been involved with starts the edit with "temp music" that they don't have the rights to. They might even like that temp music so much that they later seek the rights to it. But for purposes of showing the rough cut to executives and such, they'll put any music they think is appropriate. I don't think anyone is going to say, you can't use that Beatles track on a privately viewed rough cut. I think it's a lot more like playing the song for your friends in your living room than distribution...but like I said, the definition of "distribution" is not black and white.

I wonder what underlies the apparent "moral" stance that some people take on this - are you going to argue that the copyright owner has suffered a monetary (or any other) loss, because someone puts their music to unauthorized use, on a demo reel? Is your position that someone will now not-buy an album or pay for a download, because the tune was on a demo reel?

I agree. Some people get so bent out of shape about the issue. But if you ask them if they have ever downloaded an mp3 song in their life, or if they happen to have shared a photo of some hottie they found on the Net...well that's probably violating copyright. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones!

 

[Jeff Anderson]

But then you name your company as a sound-alike of a major film business? If you want to be totally clear and legal then you need to go get releases from everyone that worked artistically on any clip you have in your reel or who's likeness appears in or who's voice is heard in any clip in your reel AND every recognizable product that is seen or heard and any music used. The exception to for some of those would be for documentaries and news, but even that isn't totally clear because in your reel they are not being used as news or as a documentary.

Ok first I'll ask a stupid question - what major film business sounds like maxo-facto. Max Factor is closest I can come up with and they make makeup. Its my dogs name. Ipso - Facto is close but not that close. And its actually not the company I generally worry about. It makes no money and never well. Its a total cover to do side non-profit/fun projects with. All of which still follow the law. If someone wants to sue Maxo-Facto Productions, more power to them. We can divide the zero assets amongst whomever in bankruptcy court.

I work for Anderson Marketing Services, Inc. Thats the company I worry about and dont cut corners with. We've got full release for every last bit in our demo to be used for our own self promotion. Its part of our standard contract for any work we do with anyone at all. And I'm not saying everyone should do this or what is right and wront its just how we do it, and thats why we do it that way. Its my livelihood and how I pay the bills so I cant afford to let it get strewn threw the legal system.

 

[Batutta]

I work for Anderson Marketing Services, Inc. Thats the company I worry about and dont cut corners with. We've got full release for every last bit in our demo to be used for our own self promotion. Its part of our standard contract for any work we do with anyone at all. And I'm not saying everyone should do this or what is right and wront its just how we do it, and thats why we do it that way. Its my livelihood and how I pay the bills so I cant afford to let it get strewn threw the legal system.

I'd say if you own a corporation than yes, it's a good idea to tread on the side of caution, but if you're an independent contractor I wouldn't stress...Although part of the reason to start a corporation is so you aren't personally held liable in a lawsuit.

 

[ugafan]

I wonder what underlies the apparent "moral" stance that some people take on this - are you going to argue that the copyright owner has suffered a monetary (or any other) loss, because someone puts their music to unauthorized use, on a demo reel? Is your position that someone will now not-buy an album or pay for a download, because the tune was on a demo reel?

Sure, it's probably very easy to make an airtight legalistic case against it. But the law is worth very little, unless you can demonstrate a real harm to the party who's theoretically being protected from loss. And while we can all easily be rules-lawyers, can we demonstrate that there is damage being done, to any party, or are we just blind worshippers of the letter of the law?

in my opinion, this is one of the biggest problems with current copyright laws. at some point the intent of the law (to protect the rights of creators and distributors) is overtaken by the bureaucracy of the law.

 

[Jeff Anderson]

I'd say if you own a corporation than yes, it's a good idea to tread on the side of caution, but if you're an independent contractor I wouldn't stress...Although part of the reason to start a corporation is so you aren't personally held liable in a lawsuit.

Yeah I'll agree with that. As a corporation it is a great benefit to be protected, but still the corporation is why I get up in the morning So take that away and I'm screwed personally. Sure I could go find another job, but I dont want to. Right now I make way more money than I should and get to makeup my own hours and set my own vacation. That kicks ass! Not too mention we'd possibly lose alot of our repeat clients. That would make starting over pretty hard to do.

As an independent yeah you can get away with alot more probably as people are going to go after whatever prod co made the violation. The problem is that we are the prod co...

 

[Huy Vu]

I wonder what underlies the apparent "moral" stance that some people take on this

I don't do it because I dislike having something in my reel that I don't have clear rights too.

If you showing a clip from a film you worked on your showing a lot of other peoples creations. YOU didn't create that clip, lots of people created that clip. And no you don't get any automatic rights to other peoples work. Nice try but it either works or it doesn't.

Except that the reel only demonstrates the aspect of the production I was actually involved in. If it's a cinematography reel then I don't claim that I did the set design or the editing, only the cinematography. That's why there are different styles of reels for different professions; a director's reel is different then an editor's reel, and depends on what the client is looking for, then they will pick out the appropriate thing from what they see. Assuming that everyone else has also cleared the right to use the same footage in their reel, then they can edit it to reflect their contribution.

 

[Jeff Anderson]

Were talking reels not national ads. If the discussion was about ads I would totally agree. But that is a completely different animal. A reel is a resume, in video form.

I'll agree that legally an ad is most likely going to be treated completely differently than a reel. But how different is it though? My reel promotes my products and services just like anyone's national ad. Granted the distribution of the ad vs reel is where things are very different. But does the scope of distribution matter?

And its not like having the song on an ad is going to hurt cd sales either (probably help them really). Still gotta pay for rights though.

 

[Jeff Anderson]

I also want to add that for me it isnt so much a factor of will I get sued and lose in court - its will I have to take the time to meet with lawyers and show up to court even if we are going to win. I'd rather people just not have a reason to want to sue me, whether they be right or wrong. I'd still have take time to go to court and put up with lawyers and that could cost a fair bit of money in the end. If I'm going to take time off work I'm at least either going to do something fullfilling or fun. Court is neither.

 

[Noiz2]

OK, it's a bit of a stretch and OT, sorry.

Actually unless Maxo-Facto is a corporation you are personally labile so there would be some assets at stake.

You obviously are totally covered. You are also very much in the minority. I have a number of major film credits and there is no way in hell I'm going to get anyone to sign off on anything. I also have a lot of national ads and those also have a zero chance of getting clearances on, and if it was in our contract we wouldn't be getting the jobs. We had to go to letters of agreement because anything that said "contract" had to be vetted by the legal department and that was costing us jobs. We could probably trow something in the letter of agreement but since that agreement is generally not with the folks that would have the rights in the first place it would be meaningless.
SK

Ok first I'll ask a stupid question - what major film business sounds like maxo-facto. Max Factor is closest I can come up with and they make makeup. Its my dogs name. Ipso - Facto is close but not that close. And its actually not the company I generally worry about. It makes no money and never well. Its a total cover to do side non-profit/fun projects with. All of which still follow the law. If someone wants to sue Maxo-Facto Productions, more power to them. We can divide the zero assets amongst whomever in bankruptcy court.

I work for Anderson Marketing Services, Inc. Thats the company I worry about and dont cut corners with. We've got full release for every last bit in our demo to be used for our own self promotion. Its part of our standard contract for any work we do with anyone at all. And I'm not saying everyone should do this or what is right and wront its just how we do it, and thats why we do it that way. Its my livelihood and how I pay the bills so I cant afford to let it get strewn threw the legal system.

 

[Noiz2]

Well the folks we are talking about are not claiming they composed the music either. In fact the most likely people to be in need of some music are editors and cinematographers. No composer (in their right mind) would use someone else's music on their reel. Your argument would favor the use of music since it's not what they are claiming credit for.

I don't do it because I dislike having something in my reel that I don't have clear rights too.



Except that the reel only demonstrates the aspect of the production I was actually involved in. If it's a cinematography reel then I don't claim that I did the set design or the editing, only the cinematography. That's why there are different styles of reels for different professions; a director's reel is different then an editor's reel, and depends on what the client is looking for, then they will pick out the appropriate thing from what they see. Assuming that everyone else has also cleared the right to use the same footage in their reel, then they can edit it to reflect their contribution.

 

[Jeff Anderson]

OK, it's a bit of a stretch and OT, sorry.

Actually unless Maxo-Facto is a corporation you are personally labile so there would be some assets at stake.

You obviously are totally covered. You are also very much in the minority. I have a number of major film credits and there is no way in hell I'm going to get anyone to sign off on anything. I also have a lot of national ads and those also have a zero chance of getting clearances on, and if it was in our contract we wouldn't be getting the jobs. We had to go to letters of agreement because anything that said "contract" had to be vetted by the legal department and that was costing us jobs. We could probably trow something in the letter of agreement but since that agreement is generally not with the folks that would have the rights in the first place it would be meaningless.
SK

I still want to know what company you thought sounded alike just so I'm aware. Was it Ipso-Facto? Not working in the film industry people like that dont come to my mind. If nothing else its always good to know who might come after you. Maxo-Facto is an LLC which I believe protects me to a certain extent.

I also must admit that we are only able to protect ourselves as a company to the extent that we do because of what we do (corporate business to business work). Every new client means everyone sits down and trades contracts that contain all sorts of NDA's and some really stupid things (edit - I dont think NDA's are stupid just to make that clear). Most of our work is in house and we are able to use very few vendors. All of our vendors sign contracts protecting our work and allowing us to use their work for our own promotion. If we did major work on television commercials (we've done a few smaller spots a long time ago before I was working) or anything involved in the film industry I doubt we'd ever be able to protect ourselves like this just from the sheer number of people involved.

My father has also been an employee at or had clients which either cook the books or do some other fantastic white collar crime they werent even totally aware they were doing. He was fortunate enough to not be directly involved and was never actually involved in the court proceedings, but these experiences have made him like to err way towards the side of caution in policy and procedure. Thus I've been pretty much raised on it and had it ingrained into my head. That and management methods have become a consistent conversation topic for us since I was quite young. So thats why I might be a tad anal and hard headed about it. However my grandmother also constantly reminded me she'd rather be wrong than dead right.

I can see where it places alot of people in sticky situations. Especially in films. If you include just a short clip of a major motion picture, I couldnt even fathom the number of releases you would need to cover yourself completely.

 

[ddp]

Again, it's not a question of legality, it's whether or not you'll get nailed for it. Labels are not going to go after you unless they feel they are losing out an an income stream. At MOST you might get a cease and desist. Web distribution is a little more of a gray area, so I wouldn't put a reel on YouTube unless it was private, or on a website unless it's password protected, and definitely not on a website that generates revenue through ads.

So I can steal your camera as long as I don't get caught....... After all you've got issuance so your not losing anything.

 

[Zak Forsman]

you know, come to think of it... I don't think I've ever seen a motion graphics reel that WASN'T cut to The Chemical Brothers.

 

[Noiz2]

Profits don't have anything to do with rights, as a rule. And yes the scope of distribution does matter (though legally I don't think it gets you off the hook). The costs of rights are almost always based on the scope of distribution.

Your reel goes to a very limited and selected audience. Generally at there request to demonstrate your abilities. A national ad goes to everyone and you have no control over who sees it and it's trying to convince someone to buy your product. It doesn't demonstrate your abilities and is put together by people who had nothing to do with the product. I don't have any problem making the distinction.

I'll agree that legally an ad is most likely going to be treated completely differently than a reel. But how different is it though? My reel promotes my products and services just like anyone's national ad. Granted the distribution of the ad vs reel is where things are very different. But does the scope of distribution matter?

And its not like having the song on an ad is going to hurt cd sales either (probably help them really). Still gotta pay for rights though.