Copyrighted music for a Webisode

Weird. What I find most intriguing about all this is that you could actually show a short film on your site using any ASCAP music you wanted, and so long as you pay the 300 bucks annually you're in the clear. Something to keep in mind for the Indy filmmaker who is primarily getting his/her short out via their own website.

Post the trailer on Vimeo and YouTube and then have people go to your site for the goods.
 
I agree with you that showcasing emerging artists is a good thing to do. But taking it upon yourself to decide that the showcase is sufficient payment goes too far. It costs the artist time and effort to create his work and cold hard cash to deliver it to you. Everyone involved deserves to get paid in something more tangible than good will. Good feelings and pride don't pay the rent whether you're a mainsteam artist or an emerging indy. As I believe it was Berkely wrote: "A man can be neither a poet, nor a lover, nor a philosopher lest at some time in the recent past he has had something to eat."
 
Steve House said:
I agree with you that showcasing emerging artists is a good thing to do. But taking it upon yourself to decide that the showcase is sufficient payment goes too far. It costs the artist time and effort to create his work and cold hard cash to deliver it to you. Everyone involved deserves to get paid in something more tangible than good will. Good feelings and pride don't pay the rent whether you're a mainsteam artist or an emerging indy. As I believe it was Berkely wrote: "A man can be neither a poet, nor a lover, nor a philosopher lest at some time in the recent past he has had something to eat."
Click to expand...


It's not me taking it upon myself to decide. I ask them if I can use it, they say yes, and that's it. Most of the indy artists on MySpace are usually delighted to let you use their music so long as you credit them. Of course, I've only ever asked the people whose CDs I've already purchased, so...

And Berkley should have told them poets to get a job.

;)
 
Chamber005 said:
Weird. What I find most intriguing about all this is that you could actually show a short film on your site using any ASCAP music you wanted, and so long as you pay the 300 bucks annually you're in the clear. Something to keep in mind for the Indy filmmaker who is primarily getting his/her short out via their own website.

Post the trailer on Vimeo and YouTube and then have people go to your site for the goods.
Click to expand...

The license you'll get for 300 a year wont cover the scope or purpose of syncing a song to your short film. You'll need rights for each piece of music everytime it appears in the work. And don't forget that this is assuming they'll let you use it. Have been flat out turned down many times for music requests.

But like you've mentioned many indies will grant license to use their music for free or next to it.

Don't agree with you at all about non-profits. You still need permission from the rights holder. Perhaps they don't want to be associated with certain non-profs. I can think of quite a few I wouldn't want myself or any of my work associated with :)
 
LOL, it's not illegal to invite someone over and watch a movie you own, that's the most hilarious thing I've ever heard. They are not required to buy a copy or pay you or anyone else. I own the movies, they are mine for enjoyment however I choose privately. I don't buy the right to the film itself, duh, and I don't have the right to play the movie at my local business or sell tickets to a screening, but of course I have the right to watch it at home and anyone who happens to be in my home can watch it with me. It would be ridiculous to say otherwise!
 
/
Jeff Anderson said:
The license you'll get for 300 a year wont cover the scope or purpose of syncing a song to your short film. You'll need rights for each piece of music everytime it appears in the work. And don't forget that this is assuming they'll let you use it. Have been flat out turned down many times for music requests.

...:)
Click to expand...

Exactly - to clarify, the ASCAP licensing for web use is for when you have music playing on a web site, either a jukebox where visitors can choose songs to listen to, broadcasting as a web radio station, or as music assoicated with viewing the site pages itself. You are absolutely right, this is NOT the same thing as syncing music by incorporating it into a soundtrack of a video which is subsequently posted for viewing.
 
Here's my conversation with my website software provider:

"I'd like further verification regarding coffeecup's assurance that I would not be violating copywright law by posting music (via their jukebox) on my website.

After much research, I cannot find anything in any of copywright law that states what coffeecup asserts is true. In fact, it appears that an individual may be sued if, for profit or not, regardless of downloading capabilities, they're playing copywritten materials on their website.

I already purchased a jukebox because coffeecup assured me that all the legalities are in order.

Please provide some legal reference as to why it is legal to play copywritten material on my published website, as I cannot find anything to support this claim.

Thanks"


<LI class="staff support_post yang" id=post2954545>18 minutes ago
399746

Suzanne Miller
Sales & Office Manager

Hi,

Thank you for contacting us!

We feel that your Website is basically an extension of your home. You are allowed to share the listening experience of your CDs with your friends as long as no copies of the music are made. Since the visitors to your Website will not be downloading or copying the files, you are within your rights to share the listening experience.

For legal documentation, we suggest contacting legal council. Please let me know if I can assist you any further.

Thanks,
Suzanne Miller
Sales Manager
CoffeeCup Software

<LI class="support_post yin last" id=post2954562>2 seconds ago | Edit Post


625956

Registered User

ASCAP Experimental License Agreement for Internet Services – Release 2.1

Interactive 2.1

The Interactive 2.1 license is intended for services that perform music in an interactive manner, meaning performances of specific songs are selected by users.

Examples of transmissions that qualify for Interactive 2.1 include:
'On-Demand' performances (e.g., Internet jukeboxes and music videos)
'Custom radio' (user-determined play-lists)

If you go to ASCAP's website, it states the law quite plainly. If you play copywritten material on your website, regardless of whether people can download it and regardless of whether or not your site is for profit, you must pay an annual fee to ASCAP to secure that right. If you don't, you can assess some hefty fines.

Now, I'm sure coffeecup is protected from any legalities as you guys are obviously not in a position to give legal advice (and I'm sure there's a disclaimer somewhere stating as much), but I personally feel duped having purchased the jukebox under the impression that (legally) everything would be OK.

I think it would behoove coffeecup to simply eliminate that disclaimer regarding the jukebox, maybe instead linking ASCAP or some other authority on the matter, instead of simply stating coffeecup's perhaps moral but not at all legal opinion.

I'm going to keep my jukebox (already paid for it), and I'll pay the annual fee to ASCAP so that I can have streaming music on my site. I just don't want some 16 year old's parents getting sued because his website software told him it was okay to play copywritten music on his/her website, ya know?"
 
Steve House said:
/

Exactly - to clarify, the ASCAP licensing for web use is for when you have music playing on a web site, either a jukebox where visitors can choose songs to listen to, broadcasting as a web radio station, or as music assoicated with viewing the site pages itself. You are absolutely right, this is NOT the same thing as syncing music by incorporating it into a soundtrack of a video which is subsequently posted for viewing.
Click to expand...


I don't know about this.................

I mean, what is the difference between a jukebox on your website and a Quicktime file on your website? What if you played just blacked-out footage (e.g. your lens cap) and then attached the wav file to that? I can't see the (legal) difference between a wav file played in Quicktime and a wav file played on a jukebox. I doubt ASCAP would have any legal grounds in this matter as most jukeboxes have simple graphics that react to the music it's playing (like a pulsing line or rolling text, etc). In the legal sense, having people move around and speak is no different than the limited animation the jukebox provides.

If you're paying to play music on your website, I can't find any legal documentation on ASCAP's site that says you cannot have any animation or live action movement coinciding with that music. The webisode is part of his website on which the music is playing.

Show me the documenation that says otherwise because I can't find it.
 
Chamber005 said:
I don't know about this.................

I mean, what is the difference between a jukebox on your website and a Quicktime file on your website? What if you played just blacked-out footage (e.g. your lens cap) and then attached the wav file to that? I can't see the (legal) difference between a wav file played in Quicktime and a wav file played on a jukebox. I doubt ASCAP would have any legal grounds in this matter as most jukeboxes have simple graphics that react to the music it's playing (like a pulsing line or rolling text, etc). In the legal sense, having people move around and speak is no different than the limited animation the jukebox provides.

If you're paying to play music on your website, I can't find any legal documentation on ASCAP's site that says you cannot have any animation or live action movement coinciding with that music. The webisode is part of his website on which the music is playing.

Show me the documenation that says otherwise because I can't find it.
Click to expand...

You won't find it on ASCAP because they are dealing with performance rights only. If you use music as the soundtrack to a video, there are two different licenses you need to contend with. One is called a synchronization license, granted by the owner of the copyright to the words and musical notes of the song. This gives you the right to use the music but NOT a pre-existing recording of it. If you wanted to use "Stardust" in a movie soundtrack, you secure the license from the estate of Hoagy Carmichel. That allows you to make your own recording and juxtapose it to images. But if you want to use Glen Miller's recording of "Stardust" you ALSO have to obtain a master use license from the record label that released the recording or the present owner of the copyright to the specific master recording. This is completely separate from the performance licenses you obtain from ASCAP/BMI/SESAC
 
Steve House said:
You won't find it on ASCAP because they are dealing with performance rights only. If you use music as the soundtrack to a video, there are two different licenses you need to contend with. One is called a synchronization license, granted by the owner of the copyright to the words and musical notes of the song. This gives you the right to use the music but NOT a pre-existing recording of it. If you wanted to use "Stardust" in a movie soundtrack, you secure the license from the estate of Hoagy Carmichel. That allows you to make your own recording and juxtapose it to images. But if you want to use Glen Miller's recording of "Stardust" you ALSO have to obtain a master use license from the record label that released the recording or the present owner of the copyright to the specific master recording. This is completely separate from the performance licenses you obtain from ASCAP/BMI/SESAC
Click to expand...

I still think the license your referring to would pertain to a work that you plan on selling or distributing. If you have the rights to play Stardust on your website (via ASCAP), I think legally that entitles you to play it on and in any format of your choosing. I'd be surprised to hear of anyone who is paying ASCAP to ever have been sued or reprimanded for playing the song in the confines of a Quicktime movie opposed to a Jukebox.

In the end, it's probably the old tootsie pop saying, though.
 
Chamber005 said:
I still think the license your referring to would pertain to a work that you plan on selling or distributing. If you have the rights to play Stardust on your website (via ASCAP), I think legally that entitles you to play it on and in any format of your choosing. I'd be surprised to hear of anyone who is paying ASCAP to ever have been sued or reprimanded for playing the song in the confines of a Quicktime movie opposed to a Jukebox.

In the end, it's probably the old tootsie pop saying, though.
Click to expand...

It happens all the time. The law is very clear on what rights a performance license such as ASCAP grants and what they don't. Any other use beyond simply playing the music requires additional licenses. There's a famous case just within the last couple of years of a housewife sued by Prince for posting on YouTube a video of her toddler dancing in the kitchen to one of his songs playing on the radio.

Take a look at this discussion ... http://firemark.com/2007/11/17/music-basics-for-film-and-video-productions/

There's also some intersting material on the Harry Fox Agency site, though they no longer deal with sync/master rights themselves.
 
Last edited:
Steve House said:
It happens all the time. The law is very clear on what rights a performance license such as ASCAP grants and what they don't. Any other use beyond simply playing the music requires additional licenses. There's a famous case just within the last couple of years of a housewife sued by Prince for posting on YouTube a video of her toddler dancing in the kitchen to one of his songs playing on the radio.

Take a look at this discussion ... http://firemark.com/2007/11/17/music-basics-for-film-and-video-productions/

There's also some intersting material on the Harry Fox Agency site, though they no longer deal with sync/master rights themselves.
Click to expand...


LOL, well I guess the REAL question would then be -- why not try to make some money off of the webisodes? I mean, if you're going to be begging/paying to use some famous person's crap song, you may as well get something out of it.

I really think it's all kind of bizarre and gross that the music industry is so desperate to pinch every single penny out of people. Paying 20 bucks for your crap CD wasn't enough, now you want to tell me how and when I can listen to it and who can listen to it with me? I get the illegal downloading and distributing. I get when someone didn't PAY for the music. And I get when someone is GETTING PAID to PLAY the music (like in a distributed film). But for these so-called artists to be charging someone money for making NO MONETARY GAIN off of their music -- that is just so completely wretched and completely against the entire point of music's existence in the first place.

Charge when a profit is being made. Charge when profit is being affected. But when no one is profiting and profits are not being affected, that right there is just greed at its most vile.

Just when I didn't think my view of the music industry could sink any further...
 
El Gato Negro said:
why not use a local band song? or hire a composer for original music.
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly. Most of the music I listen to I find on MySpace. Just like in all arts, what is best is not necessarily what is most popular.

Some of my faves are DJ Cybo and Terra Naomi. Solid stuff.

And hey, you might get lucky and end up with a famous song in your film ('er, webisodes) and you will have gotten it for free or next to nothing!
 
Chamber005 said:
Charge when a profit is being made. Charge when profit is being affected. But when no one is profiting and profits are not being affected, that right there is just greed at its most vile.
Click to expand...

Where do you draw the line as far as no profit is being made? I know of one film group who started out making music videos using songs from famous artists without permission. They do it just for fun, then distribute it online for free. But now they have a huge following because of those videos and they're able to make a living by selling their own original content. They're able to self-distribute their own work to their fans and they're able to get investors to bring in the money because they have a solid fan base. You can say that these guys basically took the popularity of those songs to launch their own career, even though they were making no profit directly from the content.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top