the copyrighted question again, but different?

ian lucero

ian lucero

Well-known member
Ok so i know you can ask permission to use copyrighted music(if you will be making $$ off of it) but the process can take a while. You can also go the route of not asking permission and hope the publisher won't care, etc. But what about 'sampling' parts of the tune and looping it, like for background sound, almost turning it into muzak or elevator music?

Is that legal?
 
Re: the copyrighted question again, but different?

Hrmmm...don't think so, because you're using someone else's work.

Why not take some royalty-free loops and do the same thing? Then there's no question about the legality.
 
Re: the copyrighted question again, but different?

..copyright protects works in whole or part. so you cant take the lower left corner of a rembrandt.. and claim it as your own.. and you cant take the chorus.. or background music, or whatnot from a song and do it either.

gwangung is right.. just stick to what you know will be legal. :)
 
Re: the copyrighted question again, but different?

[quote author=iamloser link=board=audio;num=1092072621;start=0#2 date=08/09/04 at 12:57:51so you cant take the lower left corner of a rembrandt.. and claim it as your own.. [/quote]

That's where it breaks down, though. You can buy a Rembrandt (or even a print of one), and use it however you want...even putting it up in the window of your coffee shop to drawn in customers, i.e. make money with it.

Same with books. Buy copies and scatter them around the coffee shop and let customers read 'em. Or read them to the folks yourself.

It's pretty much just with sound and visual recordings that you run into trouble. Or even the sources of them (sheet music, scripts).

Sooner or later, someone will notice the discrepency in the law.

Dan
 
Re: the copyrighted question again, but different?

Dan, that's a total mischaracterization.

Rembrandt's works are in the public domain.  Most popular music isn't, nor are most movies.  (Those which are get skewered on MST3K.)

As for books, you can scatter them around, but under the First Purchaser Rule, you can do that -- rent them, lend them, sell them, whatever, as long as you're the first purchaser of a legal copy and that you don't claim it as your own.  The same holds true for video, which is how movie rental places are possible.

What you CAN'T do is take that book, video, song, whatever, and claim that it's yours or incorporate it in full or in part in a derivative work.  Nor can you take that legal copy of a movie, and, say, charge people to come into your establishment and watch it -- without permission.  (Or even play copyrighted music in public.)

As for people "noticing" discrepancies in the law, well, they aren't "discrepancies," they're intentional differences for good reason, and far from anyone needing to "notice," it's quite well-known.  It's what we refer to as "settled law."

Assuming you're referring to US law, of course, and not Germany's.
 
Re: the copyrighted question again, but different?

Do what you think is right.

tho, most answers to the copyright/synchronization question- are NO, its not legal unless you PAY$$$. which is the answer no one wants to hear. video/"film" production is not cheap. People make up ways around this issue to clear their conscience.

Are you going to get skinned for it? probably not.

I would not trust anyone who blatantly, and consitently ripped other peoples work and made loads of dough off it. because they know something is not quite right. "i had no idea" just doesn't work.

I suppose, grayline, what you are asking about just using it "a little" is probably better than ripping the whole thing. Ask yourself are you harming anyone by this, causing them loss of income, or making yourself look like a crook, copy cat, or loser? probably not. A little snippet probably wont' kill anyone..but where then, do you draw the line?

If you plan on producing a lot the best thing to so is invest in music. befriend some composers and / or buy buyout- royalty free. A good, varied library will cost you a few hundred $$ to $1k. and you will be happy about it and be more professional in the long run.
 
Re: the copyrighted question again, but different?

[quote author=David Jimerson link=board=audio;num=1092072621;start=0#4 date=08/09/04 at 18:42:47]Dan, that's a total mischaracterization.
Rembrandt's works are in the public domain.[/quote]

Rembrandt just used as a generic example. Same holds true for a modern painting.
 
Re: the copyrighted question again, but different?

But, to bring it more in line with the original question, and filmmaking...

Can I shoot a scene in a livingroom in which John pops in a DVD of Koyaanisqattsi and has ecologically-friendly sex with Mary? No, not without making arrangements with the copyright holder.

Can I shoot a scene in a livingroom in which John pops in a Springsteen CD and has blue-collar sex with Mary? No, not without making arrangements with the copyright holder.

Can I shoot a scene in a livingroom which has prints by Michael Whelan and David Mattingly on the walls during which John has futuristic sex with Mary?

Yes, I can. Thus, the discrepency.

It's even possible that the pattern on the sofa's upholstery is copyrighted!

AFAIC, someone needs to take a look at the law and make it make sense. Me, being as musician of sorts, and a wannabee filmmaker...I wouldn't care if someone used bits and pieces of my work in such a manner, as long as I was properly credited. The user would not be making money from my work...unless the whole point of their film was to watch *my* film second-hand. And that would be plain silly.
 
Re: the copyrighted question again, but different?

in israel you can shoot sex with springstin coming from the radio in documentary film , you cant do it with springstin coming from the cd :-)
 
Re: the copyrighted question again, but different?

..the recording of a peice of still visual medium  is allowed as long as it was obtained while access was granted to the location the shot was taken from. but that changes if you bring have your character carry a bottle of coco cola around as he shoots people in the head.. you might run into trouble there.  as david said. you just cant then take a picture of a picture, and try to make money off of that new picture or display it publically as an attraction in and of of itself. it would have to be a part of a greater scene in which it is clearly not the focus of attention.  

in the case of the music.. you just simply cannot copy it period.

the law is varied becuase you cant stop possibly stop people from looking at things that are clearly in the public view..  however it would be very easy to avoid copying part or whole of a written or audio work.

and even video rental places have to pay licensing fees to be able to rent out the movies and video games and so on.  they buy copies of the films at much higher prices than you would pay retail, and that price reflects the licensing for that copy of the tape, and the right to publically show, or rent and sell the copy.  regular retial stores do not pay licensing fees because they are simply a licensed/contracted distributor. they are not supposed to publically display the films, and usually are provided with licensed "sample" tapes/discs for advertising a group of films by the distributor. and of course a private party such as you or me only really have the right to privately display the film.
 
Re: the copyrighted question again, but different?

[quote author=GenJerDan link=board=audio;num=1092072621;start=0#7 date=08/10/04 at 06:16:48]But, to bring it more in line with the original question, and filmmaking...

Can I shoot a scene in a livingroom in which John pops in a DVD of Koyaanisqattsi and has ecologically-friendly sex with Mary?  No, not without making arrangements with the copyright holder.

Can I shoot a scene in a livingroom in which John pops in a Springsteen CD and has blue-collar sex with Mary?  No, not without making arrangements with the copyright holder.

Can I shoot a scene in a livingroom which has prints by Michael Whelan and David Mattingly on the walls during which John has futuristic sex with Mary?

Yes, I can.  Thus, the discrepency.  

It's even possible that the pattern on the sofa's upholstery is copyrighted!

AFAIC, someone needs to take a look at the law and make it make sense.  Me, being as musician of sorts, and a wannabee filmmaker...I wouldn't care if someone used bits and pieces of my work in such a manner, as long as I was properly credited.  The user would not be making money from my work...unless the whole point of their film was to watch *my* film second-hand.  And that would be plain silly.[/quote]

I have no idea who Michael Whelan or David Mattingly are, but if the copyrights are still valid on their work, then, no, you can't, if they're prominently displayed and you have them there purposely -- which would seem to be the case if they're thematically important.
 
Re: the copyrighted question again, but different?

One question I have is we do weddings. People often play or perform music during the ceremony, and of course the DJ plays music st the reception. The first dance etc, is usually popular music. Now our distribution is limited 3-5 copies made max....is it legal or illegal for us to record the music that is played.
We use music throughout the video that is instrumental and we have an agreement with the artist. I also use my aunt wedding song she wrote that I pay her when I use it. But the other stuff that is played while we are taping is something that is weighing on my mind.

I don't want to shoot someone's wedding and then they hear their music and try to sue me.
 
Re: the copyrighted question again, but different?

Technically, the music played by the DJ is a violation if recorded and used.
 
Re: the copyrighted question again, but different?

There's theory, and then there's practice. Every wedding video I've ever seen included the audio of the first dance, regardless of the tune's copyright status. Last year I wrote to WEVA (Wedding and Event Videographer's Association, the main professional organization for wedding videographers in the USA) about this specific issue. They apparently get this question a lot and they had a canned answer, which to summarize said: (1) the law is "gray" in this area and such use is not necessarily a violation, (2) it's standard practice in the wedding video market (3) the studios are well aware of this and if they wanted to make a case about it, they could and (4) to WEVA's knowledge, no wedding videographer in the US has ever been sued over this issue. Take this for what it's worth. It's not legal advice, and I'm not a lawyer. I'm a videographer :-)
 
Re: the copyrighted question again, but different?

As Barry said once before, using driving as an example. Speeding is illegal, no matter what. You're not allowed to do it. But if you're just 5 over, most likely nobody's going to care, it's only when you're going so fast that you're posing a threat to others that most people will think it matters.

Again, take this all for what you will - I ain't no lawyer, and am loosely quoting Barry, who isn't a lawyer (as far as I know :P)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top