Copyrighted music for a Webisode

Richard Allen Crook

Richard Allen Crook

Well-known member
I'm curious about using copyrighted music for webisodes not intended for profit. People do it all the time, but is it legal?

Like let's say I'm doing a webisode and the script calls for a Foreigner song? (Yes, there is a spot in the script for "I Wanna Know What Love Is.")
 
And adding a note to Jeff's response, profit or not-for-profit has nothing at all to do with it. To use copyrighted music you must have licenses from the owners of both the music (words and melody) and of the specific master recording you wish to use, except under a very few, very specialized, circumstances.
 
Yeah profit has nothing to do with its legality, more so the punishment if you were in court, haha. I mean if you weren't making any money from it, you're unlikely to get sued, you'll just get a cease and desist. But if you were profiting big time then you could land in bigger trouble.

You're right, though, people do it all of the time, and right or not it's hard to prevent all instances of copyright infringement.
 
Using copyrighted material is sometimes OK if it falls under "fair use" guidelines (news, parody etc) - google "Fair Use" or search threads here.

When it comes to music- if it's not in the public domain, you need to get clearances for the title of the track, and to clear the rights to the sync track as well.... which also means clearances from any musicians who performed for the track.

If you are just using something for a festival, not for commercial distribution- you could compose something that sounds similar, but is still different. This is a standard industry practice in many commercials- it's somewhat cheesy, and kinda lame, really- cause it screams "we didn't have the cash to clear the REAL song" and should be used sparingly.
 
In the case of using copyrighted materials without permission, IMHO it's not just a simple matter of obeying the law or trying to get away it hoping to fly under the radar. There's a fundmental ethical issue of whether a decent person knowingly screws over someone else. The test of an ethical person is whether they do the right tning even when they know they can get away with doing otherwise.
 
In addition to what Steve has said (very good point BTW) - breaking the very same laws that protect your work from unauthorized use is just not cool.
 
This is interesting, because everyone here is incorrect. For instance, when I purchased coffeecup's website design program and purchased a "jukebox" for the website, they specifically denote the legalities of copywright law, stating that since people will not be able to download the music off of my jukebox and since I own the music via the CD, it is within my rights to play that music on my website.

I think the issue comes in with YouTube and the like when you can "share" the videos, embedding them, etc. If you purchased the music legally and you're simply playing the music on a website that you own and that is not for profit, this is no different than you playing a CD in your car.

YouTube is completely different from your own personal website or blog. Just be sure not to have any e-commerce information listed anywhere on the same page where you're displaying the copywritten material.
 
Steve House said:
In the case of using copyrighted materials without permission, IMHO it's not just a simple matter of obeying the law or trying to get away it hoping to fly under the radar. There's a fundmental ethical issue of whether a decent person knowingly screws over someone else. The test of an ethical person is whether they do the right tning even when they know they can get away with doing otherwise.
Click to expand...


I say HUH???

I buy someone's CD, giving them money for what they produced, and I want to use that music in some art that I created that is NOT FOR SALE and that I will not allow other people to copy or distribute, and I give credit to the artist who created the music, and that's unethical?

No way, no how.

That's like saying it's unethical to play someone's CD at a party I'm throwing. In no universe does that make any sense.

If you're illegally downloading and then illegally allowing others to download someone's art -- THAT is unethical. Buying something and then playing it in earshot of others is what music exists for, period.
 
And I will note that copywright law (ethics) in music is different than copywright law (ethics) with filmmaking. In music, people listen for various reasons and at various intervals, a multitude of times. Films have an intellectual property that is typically spoiled upon a single viewing. That's why you'll notice before your DVD starts that it is copywright infringement, regardless of profit, to watch your movie with anyone who didn't directly pay the retailer or distributor. That means if you buy a DVD and invite your friend over to watch it, you're breaking the law.

Music doesn't have these kinds of strict parameters because musicians understand that the best way to get their music out to the public is by DJs and the average joe playing it again and again and again and again. Radio stations EXIST because copywright laws are written in such a manner.

Thus ethics in music and ethics in film are two different animals. I mean, when's the last time someone told you what note a song ends on and it upset you because they'd spoiled the ending? Absurd.
 
Chamber005 said:
This is interesting, because everyone here is incorrect. For instance, when I purchased coffeecup's website design program and purchased a "jukebox" for the website, they specifically denote the legalities of copywright law, stating that since people will not be able to download the music off of my jukebox and since I own the music via the CD, it is within my rights to play that music on my website.

I think the issue comes in with YouTube and the like when you can "share" the videos, embedding them, etc. If you purchased the music legally and you're simply playing the music on a website that you own and that is not for profit, this is no different than you playing a CD in your car.

YouTube is completely different from your own personal website or blog. Just be sure not to have any e-commerce information listed anywhere on the same page where you're displaying the copywritten material.
Click to expand...

Your software directions are either wrong or you have misunderstood what they say. When you purchase a CD you DO NOT own the music on the CD, you own the circular piece of aluminized plastic that serves as a container for the music and a license to listen to the music that's recorded on it for your own personal enjoyment. It's also legal for someone else to listen to it when they're your guest, so playing it for friends in your home or at a private party is perfectly legal. But you do not own the right to copy, distribute, or otherwise publically perform the music without further licensing and royalty payments. If you perform the music on that CD in public by broadcasting it on a radio or TV station (for profit or not) or posting on a website, or by playing it in a bar or club or as background music in a store or as a DJ for a wedding, for example, you are required to pay a royalty to the composer(s) and publisher(s) through the rights society to which they belong (ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC being the most common in the States). There is a vast difference in playing the CD in your home or car and in posting it on a website where visitors to the site can listen to it. It doesn't matter one bit whether your site is for profit or not or whether there's any advertising or ecommerce on the page. If in public you do play, then the licensing royalty you must pay.
 
Chamber005 said:
I say HUH???

I buy someone's CD, giving them money for what they produced, and I want to use that music in some art that I created that is NOT FOR SALE and that I will not allow other people to copy or distribute, and I give credit to the artist who created the music, and that's unethical?

No way, no how.

That's like saying it's unethical to play someone's CD at a party I'm throwing. In no universe does that make any sense.

If you're illegally downloading and then illegally allowing others to download someone's art -- THAT is unethical. Buying something and then playing it in earshot of others is what music exists for, period.
Click to expand...

If you're the one making it available for download, then YOU'RE the one depriving the artists of their rightful income through further CD sales to the people you hav made it available to for free. You are not simply playing it within their earshot any more than a radio DJ is doing so.

Yes, it is unethical because you are deriving benefit, whether monetary or not is not important, by co-opting someone else's hard work without compensating them for it.

You absolutely must get yourself up to speed on copyright law because the position you're presenting runs almost totally counter to what it really says. If you want an enjoyable good start (for free, no less) give a listen to the series of podcasts from Gordon Firemark entitled "The Law and Video" available on iTunes.
 
Steve House said:
If you're the one making it available for download, then YOU'RE the one depriving the artists of their rightful income through further CD sales to the people you hav made it available to for free. You are not simply playing it within their earshot any more than a radio DJ is doing so.

Yes, it is unethical because you are deriving benefit, whether monetary or not is not important, by co-opting someone else's hard work without compensating them for it.

You absolutely must get yourself up to speed on copyright law because the position you're presenting runs almost totally counter to what it really says. If you want an enjoyable good start (for free, no less) give a listen to the series of podcasts from Gordon Firemark entitled "The Law and Video" available on iTunes.
Click to expand...


But this guy isn't making it available for download. The "show" (or whatever) is on his site. It's viewed on his site. As long as it can't be removed from or shared from his site, it's all good.

And, again, if you rent a DVD and your girlfriend comes over and watches it with you, you are breaking the law. That is fact.

If, however, your girlfriend comes over and you guys listen to a CD together, you are not breaking the law.

To break the law you'd have to make her a mix tape.

I am so up to speed you don't even know, sir.

;)
 
Steve House said:
Your software directions are either wrong or you have misunderstood what they say. When you purchase a CD you DO NOT own the music on the CD, you own the circular piece of aluminized plastic that serves as a container for the music and a license to listen to the music that's recorded on it for your own personal enjoyment. It's also legal for someone else to listen to it when they're your guest, so playing it for friends in your home or at a private party is perfectly legal. But you do not own the right to copy, distribute, or otherwise publically perform the music without further licensing and royalty payments. If you perform the music on that CD in public by broadcasting it on a radio or TV station (for profit or not) or posting on a website, or by playing it in a bar or club or as background music in a store or as a DJ for a wedding, for example, you are required to pay a royalty to the composer(s) and publisher(s) through the rights society to which they belong (ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC being the most common in the States). There is a vast difference in playing the CD in your home or car and in posting it on a website where visitors to the site can listen to it. It doesn't matter one bit whether your site is for profit or not or whether there's any advertising or ecommerce on the page. If in public you do play, then the licensing royalty you must pay.
Click to expand...

This is absolutely untrue. Every single bar and club on the PLANET would be fined and shut down if this were true. I mean, imagine how ridiculous this statement is. That means if you're a bar owner playing a radio station that's playing a song you should pay royalties to the original composer?

LOL...

Hell, we all know it's completely illegal to play a televised football game in a bar, but every bar owner does it because no one cares! And that's ACTUALLY illegal.

If you purchase music online, and that music is saved to the jukebox on your own website, then THAT is where the music was downloaded to in the first place. You haven't copied anything, that's just where you happen to be playing the music you purchased. The fact that others might hear the music playing outside on the street in no way infringes on copywright (or ethics).

It's for your own personal enjoyment and the enjoyment of anyone else who happens to walk past your property.
 
Chamber005 said:
This is absolutely untrue. Every single bar and club on the PLANET would be fined and shut down if this were true. I mean, imagine how ridiculous this statement is. That means if you're a bar owner playing a radio station that's playing a song you should pay royalties to the original composer?

LOL...

Hell, we all know it's completely illegal to play a televised football game in a bar, but every bar owner does it because no one cares! And that's ACTUALLY illegal.

If you purchase music online, and that music is saved to the jukebox on your own website, then THAT is where the music was downloaded to in the first place. You haven't copied anything, that's just where you happen to be playing the music you purchased. The fact that others might hear the music playing outside on the street in no way infringes on copywright (or ethics).

It's for your own personal enjoyment and the enjoyment of anyone else who happens to walk past your property.
Click to expand...

You are most assuredly NOT "so up to speed on this..." as you said in your previous post.

The bar owner doesn't pay the royalties directly to each composer and publisher - just like a radio station they pay ASCAP/BMI for a blanket license and the rights society disburses the money to their members. So does every other public venue that plays music. Many don't pay and fly under the radar, true enough. But they are breaking the law and if they are eventually caught it can get very expenive for them. And yes, ASCAP, BMI, et al DO check continuously. Heck, even my dentist (and many other doctors and dentists in the province) got a notice letter from SOCAN (our Canadian version of ASCAP) a couple of years ago informing him he was required to pay royalties on the music that was heard on the radio station he had playing as background music on the PA in the office. Any PUBLIC performance, no matter what the means of delivery, requires a license. And posting music on your website's jukebox software for site visitors to listen to, even if they can't capture it to their own systems, is a public performance.

For details look at the New Media and Internet licensing FAQs on the ASCAP website - http://www.ascap.com/weblicense/faq.aspx Since your site is supposedly non-commercial with no subscription fees or advertising, I make it you own them either $288 or $340 per year, depending on whether your visitors select the music they want to hear or it just plays without their choosing what they want.
 
Last edited:
Texas Jones said:
I'm curious about using copyrighted music for webisodes not intended for profit. People do it all the time, but is it legal?

Like let's say I'm doing a webisode and the script calls for a Foreigner song? (Yes, there is a spot in the script for "I Wanna Know What Love Is.")
Click to expand...
My 2 cents:
Cent 1: sync license.
Cent 2: Never, ever get legal advise off the internet.


-A
 
Steve House said:
You are most assuredly NOT "so up to speed on this..." as you said in your previous post.

The bar owner doesn't pay the royalties directly to each composer and publisher - just like a radio station they pay ASCAP/BMI for a blanket license and the rights society disburses the money to their members. So does every other public venue that plays music. Many don't and fly under the radar, true enough. But they are breaking the law and if they are eventually caught it can get very expenive for them. And yes, ASCAP, BMI, et all DO check continuously. Heck, even my dentist (and many others) got a notice letter from SOCAN (our Canadian version of ASCAP) a couple of years ago informing him he was required to pay royalties on the music that was heard on the radio station he had playing on the PA as background music in the office. Any PUBLIC performance, no matter what the means of delivery, requires a license. And posting music on your website's jukebox software for site visitors to listen to, even if they can't capture it to their own systems, is a public performance.

For details look at the New Media and Internet licensing FAQs on the ASCAP website - http://www.ascap.com/weblicense/faq.aspx Since your site is supposedly non-commercial with no subscription fees or advertising, I make it you own them either $288 or $340 per year, depending on whether your visitors select the music they want to hear or it just plays without their choosing what they want.
Click to expand...

:::sigh:::

I say...PAY THE MAN.

Seriously, I contacted coffeecup about this and in the meantime looked into it myself. I think I've never had to fully, fully look into this because I've only ever used Indy artists for any website/video stuff, in which case I was able to ask them directly.


Personally I think the promotion of Indy music artists is always the better way to go, but that's besides the point --

If you're playing someone's music on your website and they're covered by ASCAP, pay up, brotha man.

So much for me being "in the know"

And **** if I'm not giving coffeecup and EARFUL about this! They seriously need to send out notices to anyone who has ever bought their jukebox product.

But hey, let's be realistic, I'm sure they're covered somewhere in their disclaimers, right? Like, "Some information on this site may be incorrect..." yadda yadda. Brother...

Thanks for the research! Helped me and the original poster!
 
Oh -- and I still stand by my ethics. I still don't think it's unethical to be playing a song on a non-for-profit website. If you're crediting the artist, in no way could this hurt them, as it assuredly could only bring more listeners and business to thier music.

99% of artists would be thrilled to have people playing something they've produced, especially if you link the artist's website (as I always have when I've posted photographs or videos).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top