Unofficial music videos

chapelgrovefilms said:
It IS against copyright laws. I don't know how you think it isn't.
Click to expand...

Wrong. It's only illegal when it's published or distributed, and then it's the publisher or distributor's problem, not the content creator.

chapelgrovefilms said:
And taking someone else's work for your own use without their permission is unethical, pure and simple. Whether or not anyone is 'hurt' is not the point.
Click to expand...

Wrong again. It's fair-use. If you have a problem with fair-use, then that's your little hang-up, not anyone elses.
 
DVXguy said:
do you have a reel? what bands you like? are you looking to do a video for free or cheap? if cheep then how much?
Click to expand...

Yeah I have a reel, the last music video I directed, Winded, was about a $10,000 shoot, which is kind of insane for an indie video but to me it was worthwhile. It won an Honorable Mention at The Accolade Competition and was an Official Selection at Planet Ant Film and Video Festival last month and is also an Official Selection at Action on Film International Film Festival and Hermosa Shorts Film Festival. It was only rejected from one festival thus far, but we'll see how it does in the future.

Because I'm trying to put together this "Making of" indie music videos project, gathering interviews from some of my cinematographer / director connections, providing information throughout that I wish I had when I was starting out, tips and tricks for low budget music videos, and advice about how to do bigger stuff too, I am looking to do two more music videos for free because I need the behind-the-scenes footage, like I had a DP film for Winded (he's a DP normally, of course just a camera guy on Winded). The idea, though, is to divide my DVD project into three parts, beginner, intermediate, and advanced, basically. The last video would be the advanced video, because it was done with a crew and on a level similar to a low budget record label video, or very high indie anyway. The next two are supposed to be cheaper, to demonstrate that you can still do really solid work on lower budgets, but you need smaller crews and more favors, etc. So the idea is to do one video for about $4,000 that will be the intermediate video, and the beginner video will be a crew of just 3 of us probably, really low budget, something your average high school student or film school student could do with a few friends and a few hundred bucks. Now, of course we're idealizing this, because I will in fact have a DP who has done more than 25 music videos, several features, commercial work, etc. He is very experienced. My editor is a professional too, and I'm a professional director, so we are going to be able to get a better result than what our viewers would probably get but the point is only to show what's possible. [And as a side note, of course I have to pay my DP and editor, etc., but the idea is that if you did this with your friends you would keep costs low].

I still expect both of these next videos to be very good and high quality, otherwise they are useless to me. If either one of them wasn't good, it's basically going to convey the message that you can't make a great video if you don't have tons of money, which is a message that will kill my product. I want people to see that you can make a really neat, enjoyable music video for cheap with a small crew, but you just have to be more creative with how you use your resources and contacts, and you can't have the same type of production value that a larger video would but you can do other things that still make for a great result. So the goal is to have each of these levels have a good video, but each one different, with more complication added as you move up the ladder.

The irony is I did the advanced one first.

Anyway, I could send you a link to a few of my videos if you want. I want to do these two videos for free, but the only condition is the band has to agree to allow me to place the finished video on this DVD and use the behind-the-scenes footage. That's the only "catch," which for many bands wouldn't be a catch but another promotional opportunity. It just depends how they see it.
 
Last edited:
pmark23 said:
Wrong. It's only illegal when it's published or distributed, and then it's the publisher or distributor's problem, not the content creator.
Click to expand...

It's illegal to play copyrighted music on a stereo in a restaurant unless you have a license to do so. It's illegal to copy CD's that you have bought, even if they're for your own use.

The poster indicated he wanted to be able to screen his video. That is clearly a violation of copyright.


Wrong again. It's fair-use. If you have a problem with fair-use, then that's your little hang-up, not anyone elses.
Click to expand...

My understanding of fair use is it principally applies to material used for news, documentary, or sometimes parody work. This does not seem to be any of the above. Perhaps you could quote the relevant part of the law with regards to this?

And there's no need to be derisive. It's the law, not my 'hang up'.

No one has yet addressed the question I've asked. If it's YOUR work -- a film you've produced and are making profits from -- will it be alright with YOU if someone takes it IN ITS ENTIRETY and puts it into their own film, which they then distribute for free? If it's my film, you can bet you're going to get sued if you didn't ask for and receive permission.

Best advice for the original poster -- consult a lawyer before proceeding, if you want to be sure you're protected.
 
Fair Use

Section 107 of the Copyright Law allows for the "fair use" of a copyrighted work for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research. Additional guidelines (H.R. Rep. No. 94-1476, and The United States Copyright Law: A Guide for Music Educators) permit multiple copies for classroom use under certain circumstances.

The following four factors, taken together, determine what constitutes fair use. The first three factors are usually important in determining the fourth.

1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether it is intended for commercial or non-profit educational use. This provision permits certain duplication of library materials for the purposes of scholarship, research, and teaching in all areas of music study. Students and faculty members may make copies of protected materials for such uses, and librarians are permitted to make one copy of protected materials for a user upon the submission of a signed request with the adjoining copyright disclaimer statement. Section 107 applies to all copyrighted works. Certain specific uses not in the non-profit educational domain can also qualify under this provision, for example when a paid reviewer quotes briefly from a copyrighted literary or musical work in a review.

2. The nature of the copyrighted work. In evaluating this factor, case history has taken into account whether a work is published or unpublished, factual or creative. In general, unpublished and creative works have been given more protection by the courts than published and factual ones. MLA takes the position that most tools of music learning are creative works in themselves and therefore cannot by their very nature be appropriately evaluated on the factual or creative criterion. In addition, an evaluation of fair use should acknowledge that reasonable use of unpublished sources is critical to the advancement of music research.2 Conversely, fair use does not apply if a copyrighted work is intended to be consumed in the course of a class assignment (such as in the case of workbooks, text books, musical exercises, etc.).

3. The amount and substantiality of the portion to be copied as it relates to the work as a whole. This factor is related to the purpose of the use (no. 1 above), and is usually relevant in determining the degree of harm to the copyright owner (no. 4 below).

4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of the copyrighted work. Criteria used to determine adverse market effect include (a) accessibility of the work, (b) date of its creation or publication, (c) economic life of the work, (d) price, and (e) evidence of abandonment.

Source: http://www.uwm.edu/Library/Music/copyright.html
 
§ 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works

Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:

(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;

(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;

(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;

(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;

(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and

(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.

§ 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.

Source: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106
 
Thanks everyone for your advice.

As for the copyright issues - again - I am well aware of that. If I'm going for this, I have no intention of doing anything beyond putting it online and adding it to my reel.
As for someone else stealing my work - if someone takes my short film and puts it on their website without paying me I will consider it a huge compliment, but of course it's not the same, since I made this short film not to make money but to create a presence, which is different from established artists who are doing it for the money...?

But are established artists REALLY doing it for the money?

I bet that if I contact the artist himself/herself/themselves they wouldn't have any problem with me making an unofficial video from their work and may even consider it a compliment. After all, I'm getting out there, spending money, working hard, not only because I want to add it to my reel but because I'm a FAN and have a good idea for a video for a song I LOVE and to which no official video was ever made...

The only ones who will have a problem with that aren't the artists - they don't give a **** - it's their lawyers and their record labels. They don't care about art but only about the bottom line, which is the money.

The challenge to getting that kind of permission is going above the heads of all the lawyers and agents and reaching the artist directly. If the artist says yes, then all the lawyers in the world won't be able to say no.

That's the beauty of it, and I'm at least gonna give it a try.
 
Hey Lynos... I'm in Toronto too. Seems like there's tons of us. I made this super lo-res fan video in 2003ish and sent it to the artist when it was done. He liked it a lot and it went on his label's website, Genetic Music in Germany.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iV3htvGE1E

If he hadn't of liked it, I wouldn't have put it online. That said, I say go for it. But I don't agree with you that the artist won't give a ****. They might not like it and they might have a problem with it being online, especially if it's good quality and looks official. Fortune favours the brave, though, and I wouldn't worry to much about copyright. As chapel pointed out, you aren't even allowed to copy your owm music by the letter of the law, and no one's being hauled to court for that.
 
Lynos said:
Thanks everyone for your advice.

As for the copyright issues - again - I am well aware of that. If I'm going for this, I have no intention of doing anything beyond putting it online and adding it to my reel.
As for someone else stealing my work - if someone takes my short film and puts it on their website without paying me I will consider it a huge compliment, but of course it's not the same, since I made this short film not to make money but to create a presence, which is different from established artists who are doing it for the money...?

But are established artists REALLY doing it for the money?

I bet that if I contact the artist himself/herself/themselves they wouldn't have any problem with me making an unofficial video from their work and may even consider it a compliment. After all, I'm getting out there, spending money, working hard, not only because I want to add it to my reel but because I'm a FAN and have a good idea for a video for a song I LOVE and to which no official video was ever made...

The only ones who will have a problem with that aren't the artists - they don't give a shi* - it's their lawyers and their record labels. They don't care about art but only about the bottom line, which is the money.

The challenge to getting that kind of permission is going above the heads of all the lawyers and agents and reaching the artist directly. If the artist says yes, then all the lawyers in the world won't be able to say no.

That's the beauty of it, and I'm at least gonna give it a try.
Click to expand...

But putting it online is exactly what violates the copyright laws.

Sure, if someone copied your SHORT film you'd be fine with it. Nobody makes money on a short. But taking someone's MUSIC is like someone stealing your FEATURE film -- one that you are trying to make money from. Would you be okay with that too?

This isn't about whether or not the artist cares if you steal their work. It's about whether or not it's LEGAL -- and whether the people who OWN the work care if you use it. It's their right, not yours.

And you're wrong -- it doesn't matter what the artist says, it matters what the copyright owner, which is usually the record label, says.

Do what you want.
 
Ok, so what happens to the people who produce these "unofficial" videos? And what happens to those people who use the same type of songs for their demo reels that are online?

I imagine if it was an unofficial video on YouTube and someone complains enough, it will get taken off. But what if these are hosted on other websites - like the DP who is showing off his reel?

I think chapel has made it clear that it is illegal, but does anyone really know what really happens to these people?
 
I dont think you need to worry about copyright at all.. As a person who has hired 100's of directors and currently commissions for the one of the largest record labels in the world, I could tell you that if you approach these artists, most likely they will allow you to do it. This may not apply to someone like madonna or Justin Timberlake.. however, it will work for the indie band that comes to your local club.
 
Sorry David, I didn't have time to explain further.

Infringement is tied to broadcast and distribution. If you read what you posted a little closer you'll see that. If you don't broadcast or distribute, then no problem. Even then it's the broadcaster or distributor's problem, not the content creator (unless they distribute it themselves).

Showing a few people (like ad or record execs) your video for a popular song (or existing product) in order to get a job directing is absolutely positively not infringement (it's not broadcasting or publishing, and it's not performing to the public). Everyone does this all the time to get work. Professional's reels are filled with "spec" ads and videos. No one has ever been sued in the history of the world (nor could they).

However, if you put it on You-tube... You'll may get a cease-and-desist notice, but most likely not. (You're right that this is very definitely infringement -- no argument here.)


And you asked if it was okay if someone "stole" my work. Absolutely! I had a band in the 90's that was somewhat popular in the IDM/Industrial scene. Without the permission of my label (who were completely useless and stiffed me) I put all of my music online under a Creative Commons license. After more than 10 years I still get about a hundred downloads a month directly from the site, and who knows how many people are file-sharing it. It gives me a warm glow just thinking about it.
 
Sorry pmark23, but if you read what I posted, you'll see that copyright law gives the copyright holder exclusive rights to all public performance and distribution. See Section 106, items 1, 3 and 6. There is nothing ambiguous about that at all. It says ONLY the copyright holder has the right to COPY the material or authorize someone else to copy it. And ONLY the copyright holder has the right to distribute the work publicly. And ONLY the copyright holder has the right to " to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission". I think that pretty much covers it.

The original poster wants to (a) copy the band's recording and (b) put his video on the Internet. Both are absolutely and strictly forbidden by copyright law. Ask an attorney.

You're right, it's very likely nothing (legal) will happen to him if he does this. But that doesn't make it legal, moral or ethical. If I were a person hiring someone to make a music video, I might overlook a demo reel with an 'unauthorized' music video on it -- but I would take a dim view of a person putting such a video on any website or displaying it publicly. If he's willing to steal that band's music and distribute it illegally for his own purposes, then who's to say he can be trusted with MY band's music?

And with all due respect to other poster(s), I personally would not take legal advice from any anonymous person posting on a public board, regardless of his stated credentials. Just because someone says something, that doesn't make it true. Not casting aspersions on anyone here, but the Internet is full of liars and cons. If you want legal advice, then consult a legal professional. It's the best way to protect yourself, your family, and your future.
 
pmark23 said:
And you asked if it was okay if someone "stole" my work. Absolutely! I had a band in the 90's that was somewhat popular in the IDM/Industrial scene. Without the permission of my label (who were completely useless and stiffed me) I put all of my music online under a Creative Commons license. After more than 10 years I still get about a hundred downloads a month directly from the site, and who knows how many people are file-sharing it. It gives me a warm glow just thinking about it.
Click to expand...

Yes, but with all due respect, you're not Madonna, The Rolling Stones, or Sugarland. If you were, your perspective might be a bit different. Or, more to the point, if you were the record label who owns the music of Madonna, the Stones or Sugarland, then you might have some pretty serious objections to your property being copied and distributed for free.

Actually, though, let's put it into a more relevant context. Say you're hired by a band to produce a music video for them. Say you execute an agreement whereby for the price they are paying you, they get 100 DVD copies of the video. If they want more, there is a per-disc price for additional copies. (Far fetched, I know, but I'm trying to draw a parallel here.) So they pay you, they get their 100 copies, and they're happy. But somebody who bought one of their 100 DVD's starts copying it and giving it away free on the Internet -- or puts it up on YouTube -- thus robbing you of additional income. Will you be upset then?

The bottom line for me is -- if it's illegal, immoral or unethical then I won't do it. Everyone else has to make their own choices.
 
Spec music videos are fair-use if you never distribute them. Period. It's no different than if you took your CD and played it at your friend's house. It's also very common on reels.

Fair use definitely doesn't apply to this type of work. It's also not parody, although the exception for parody is what would allow you to rewrite the lyrics, use the music, and (possibly) not pay for the rights to it.

If you are broke and not famous, getting sued might be the best thing that could happen to you.

"It's illegal to copy CD's that you have bought, even if they're for your own use."

This is simply not true. You may make a reasonable number of copies for your own purposes as long as you don't distribute them, and you must destroy them if you ever give ownership of the original to someone else.

The DMCA has made it illegal to circumvent copy protection, so it's illegal to copy anything that is considered copy-protected, even if that use qualifies as fair use.
 
all legal issues aside, I think making an unofficial music video is a big waste of time because IMO, its equivalent to a cover band ... yeah, some people may see it, but unless it is incredible, its just a fun little exercise in filmmaking.

Being a good music video director isn't about coming up with incredible concepts for songs you like, but being able to create a great video out of a song someone else approaches you with...be it good or terrible.

We all have ideas for videos for songs we know.. don't waste those ideas on an unofficial music video for a band on a major label. In most cases a major label would love for you to make these extra "ads" for their artists, its one less thing they have to pay for...

Go to myspace music, click on top artists, browse stuff in the toronto area under unsigned, you'll find something good, I'm sure of it
 
Last edited:
ProfessorU said:
Spec music videos are fair-use if you never distribute them. Period. It's no different than if you took your CD and played it at your friend's house. It's also very common on reels.
Click to expand...

That's fine if all the original poster intends to do is take his DVD and show it to agents, labels or band reps, and then take it with him when he leaves. You can take your CD and play it at your friend's house. What you can't do is make a copy of your CD and leave it at your friend's house or send it to your friend to listen to and keep. I presume the original poster would make copies of his DVD and send them to agents, etc. This would be a form of distribution, which I doubt would be protected.


If you are broke and not famous, getting sued might be the best thing that could happen to you.
Click to expand...

Getting sued is never a good thing if you hope to be taken seriously as a professional in this business -- especially getting sued for copyright infringement. You may be broke now, but losing a damaging lawsuit can keep you broke for a long, long time. Just ask O.J. Simpson.

"It's illegal to copy CD's that you have bought, even if they're for your own use."

This is simply not true. You may make a reasonable number of copies for your own purposes as long as you don't distribute them, and you must destroy them if you ever give ownership of the original to someone else.
Click to expand...

Where do you find this? I'd be interested in seeing the factual support for this statement.

The DMCA has made it illegal to circumvent copy protection, so it's illegal to copy anything that is considered copy-protected, even if that use qualifies as fair use.
Click to expand...

This very statement would tend to contradict the statement before it. The two taken together imply, "It's perfectly okay to make copies for your own use unless the disc has copy protection." That doesn't seem logical to me. Then again, the law isn't always logical, is it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top