Does anyone have an answer for using Copy Right Music in a short film? My last Festival I sat and watched several short films (Low Budget) and they all had several songs we all know well. I have heard Festivals do not care about the music rights as it is not there problem, and I have heard that since you are not making a profit from the music it is OK.... So what is the truth
The Truth behind Copy-right Music and Short films
- Thread starter skrott
- Start date
William_Robinette
Shallow Member
Short answer, it is far from OK.
it doesn't matter if you are making $$ or not making a dime or doing it for the good of mankind .. copyright music is protected - you need permission for a 1 min short of a 6 hr short ...
many festivals assume you have permission - most will have you sign the submit application and in fine print you are telling them that your project is clear for all images & music - everything on the screen ... small festivals don't really care as they need projects to screen - and if asked they'll say the filmmaker stated they had rights to the music/images - it's a easy way out for film festival ... i have a friend that used 10 songs of a well known group in his project and he listed in the end titles he had permission .. he submitted it to festivals and he signed on the application he had all permissions .. when the film played on a local PBS station after that broadcast the crap hit the fan - so to make a long story short - he left the US and hasn't been seen for 3 years (he had investors problems as they got stuck with the infringement problems - project was not set up as a LLC or Corp or limited partnership)
many festivals assume you have permission - most will have you sign the submit application and in fine print you are telling them that your project is clear for all images & music - everything on the screen ... small festivals don't really care as they need projects to screen - and if asked they'll say the filmmaker stated they had rights to the music/images - it's a easy way out for film festival ... i have a friend that used 10 songs of a well known group in his project and he listed in the end titles he had permission .. he submitted it to festivals and he signed on the application he had all permissions .. when the film played on a local PBS station after that broadcast the crap hit the fan - so to make a long story short - he left the US and hasn't been seen for 3 years (he had investors problems as they got stuck with the infringement problems - project was not set up as a LLC or Corp or limited partnership)
Barry_Green
Moderator
The truth is that stealing is stealing. You absolutely cannot go stealing someone else's music. That's the truth.
The rest of the story is: people exceed the speed limit all the time. Not all of them get tickets, but every one of them is breaking the law.
Every festival I've entered requires you to fill out the application form which has a section where you certify that you have proper permission from all copyright holders. So perhaps those films you saw actually got permission? If not, then the filmmakers were not only thieves, but liars as well.
Or they just didn't know that they were misappropriating someone else's copyrighted work and exploiting it to their own advantage without permission or compensation. Which makes them ignorant criminals.
Sorry, not gonna sugar-coat it, using someone's copyrighted material without permission is always illegal and wrong. Get permission, or don't use the stuff.
The rest of the story is: people exceed the speed limit all the time. Not all of them get tickets, but every one of them is breaking the law.
Every festival I've entered requires you to fill out the application form which has a section where you certify that you have proper permission from all copyright holders. So perhaps those films you saw actually got permission? If not, then the filmmakers were not only thieves, but liars as well.
Or they just didn't know that they were misappropriating someone else's copyrighted work and exploiting it to their own advantage without permission or compensation. Which makes them ignorant criminals.
Sorry, not gonna sugar-coat it, using someone's copyrighted material without permission is always illegal and wrong. Get permission, or don't use the stuff.
That brings me to the film, Loose Change it is online and if you watch it in the opening scene it looks like they are using all the Footage without consent from CNN and FOx and Paramount...strange.
Anyway I thought that was the case with the music, Makes me feel that much better about the countless hours spent listing to tracks to find the right score.....Thanks
Anyway I thought that was the case with the music, Makes me feel that much better about the countless hours spent listing to tracks to find the right score.....Thanks
Joshua Provost
Veteran
Documentaries have different standards for use of footage that fall into the oft-debated territory of "fair use." Using music as theme/score/soundtrack for a narrative film is never fair use.
Beyond being flat wrong, using copyrighted music without permission is plain stupid. You might be able to slip it into a film festival or two, but you will never be able to broadcast it, sell it, or the sell the rights to it. So, you are left with a film that is basically DOA.
There is so much great royalty free music out there and indie composers with reasonable rates, it makes no sense to steal.
Beyond being flat wrong, using copyrighted music without permission is plain stupid. You might be able to slip it into a film festival or two, but you will never be able to broadcast it, sell it, or the sell the rights to it. So, you are left with a film that is basically DOA.
There is so much great royalty free music out there and indie composers with reasonable rates, it makes no sense to steal.
Everything 100% true, just a technical note: misusing © music is not theft or "stealing", from a legal point of view it is copyright infringement - the law recognizes the difference:
If you illegally remove a painting from somebody's wall and take it home - you stole it, and the rightful owner no longer has the painting on his wall - you are a thief. If you merely illegally copy the painting and hang that copy in your home, you are copyright infringer, and the original owner has not lost his painting which is still hanging on his wall.
Theft is a criminal offence and can be a felony - copyright infringment has always been something on the order of a tort offence, not a criminal one... laws have recently been changed to toughen up the penalties for infringing, but the distinction is very real.
Infringing can under certain circumstances be economically damaging and certainly morally and ethically objectionable, and nobody should engage in it, but it does everyone a disservice to refer to it incorrectly as "theft" or "stealing". It's not a matter of sugarcoating, it is a matter of TRUTH and accuracy. Still, by whatever name, it is just as wrong.
If you illegally remove a painting from somebody's wall and take it home - you stole it, and the rightful owner no longer has the painting on his wall - you are a thief. If you merely illegally copy the painting and hang that copy in your home, you are copyright infringer, and the original owner has not lost his painting which is still hanging on his wall.
Theft is a criminal offence and can be a felony - copyright infringment has always been something on the order of a tort offence, not a criminal one... laws have recently been changed to toughen up the penalties for infringing, but the distinction is very real.
Infringing can under certain circumstances be economically damaging and certainly morally and ethically objectionable, and nobody should engage in it, but it does everyone a disservice to refer to it incorrectly as "theft" or "stealing". It's not a matter of sugarcoating, it is a matter of TRUTH and accuracy. Still, by whatever name, it is just as wrong.
Barry_Green said:
Yes, and ignorance is no excuse to the law.
Alex.Mitchell
Well-known member
Loose Change did have permission to use all that newsreel footage, but it took the guy a pretty long time to get sorted out.
As far as music is concerned, just grab a copy of garageband and make your own. It's not really all that hard to get something that at least fits in the moment, and if you're not interested in making your own then I'm sure you could find a composer out there who's willing to do it for you.
As far as music is concerned, just grab a copy of garageband and make your own. It's not really all that hard to get something that at least fits in the moment, and if you're not interested in making your own then I'm sure you could find a composer out there who's willing to do it for you.
if you need sum hiphop you can use mine go to http://www.myspace.com/tipsyintrusion for preview
thin email intrusion222@yahoo.com also http://www.myspace.com/nolaboys is availabel for whatever
thin email intrusion222@yahoo.com also http://www.myspace.com/nolaboys is availabel for whatever
Well, here's a different view from a guy who went to law school. I can tell you right now I'll get plenty of feedback disputing this one but, hey, as best I know here's the real deal.
There are two categories of use, commercial and non-commercial, in a nut shell, commercial projects are for the purpose of commerce (making money) when something is broadcast it is commercial. Copyright laws govern commercial use, not private (non commercial use).
Remember the the permits everyone is always whining about? there is an exemption, no commercial use, no permit required. Unless of course you are blocking a street or impeding traffic etc.
So the copyright laws protect the owner of the copyright from losing a commercial benefit (money) to someone who is using their property for commerce (money).
Example, there was a very well known actor who is a film maker. The film contained copyrighted music. The actor didn't want to pay the fees, which were required if the film was to be sold (commerce). So what she did was, gave it away...free!.
Perfectly legal since no money was to be made from it. So she sold the poster to the movie and gave the DVD away free with every poster. Pretty slick right? well it gets even better. The profit from the posters wasn't even taxable since she actually wasn't even selling the poster, but her autograph which she affixed to the poster. Selling your autograph, .....not taxable.
In case you haven't caught on yet, the reason there was no copyright infringement was because no profit was intended. The copyright owner had no loss of profit. She made no money, the copyright owner lost no money.
That's the way it works. Like it or not.
Now I'm not taking anything away from the guys saying it's theft etc. They are perfectly entitled to their point of view about this. I'm just going to have to say that taking a painting from someones home is not a fair comparison to using even copyrighted music. Not even close. (please understand that I'm not bashing anyone or instigating an argument, I'm simply giving you the facts about this issue based on what I know about this subject)
So there you have it. Hopefully I have presented another viewpoint, about what copyrights are and aren't, and what infringement is and isn't.
Any questions?
There are two categories of use, commercial and non-commercial, in a nut shell, commercial projects are for the purpose of commerce (making money) when something is broadcast it is commercial. Copyright laws govern commercial use, not private (non commercial use).
Remember the the permits everyone is always whining about? there is an exemption, no commercial use, no permit required. Unless of course you are blocking a street or impeding traffic etc.
So the copyright laws protect the owner of the copyright from losing a commercial benefit (money) to someone who is using their property for commerce (money).
Example, there was a very well known actor who is a film maker. The film contained copyrighted music. The actor didn't want to pay the fees, which were required if the film was to be sold (commerce). So what she did was, gave it away...free!.
Perfectly legal since no money was to be made from it. So she sold the poster to the movie and gave the DVD away free with every poster. Pretty slick right? well it gets even better. The profit from the posters wasn't even taxable since she actually wasn't even selling the poster, but her autograph which she affixed to the poster. Selling your autograph, .....not taxable.
In case you haven't caught on yet, the reason there was no copyright infringement was because no profit was intended. The copyright owner had no loss of profit. She made no money, the copyright owner lost no money.
That's the way it works. Like it or not.
Now I'm not taking anything away from the guys saying it's theft etc. They are perfectly entitled to their point of view about this. I'm just going to have to say that taking a painting from someones home is not a fair comparison to using even copyrighted music. Not even close. (please understand that I'm not bashing anyone or instigating an argument, I'm simply giving you the facts about this issue based on what I know about this subject)
So there you have it. Hopefully I have presented another viewpoint, about what copyrights are and aren't, and what infringement is and isn't.
Any questions?
Last edited:
Duct Tape Films
Well-known member
corona said:
THAT is so freaking unbelievably smart, I'm simply whomperjawed. However, let's use You Tube for example, and the vast amount of regularly posted copyrighted material, done so for free. In theory, the person posting it, JoeFilmmaker or DailyShowFan16527, whatnot, should not be able to be held liable for posting copyrighted works, either in entirety, partially, or integrated into new works, if that principle holds true - unless there is, and I can't remember right now, a clause in the agreement you sign when you open the account that in effect transfers liability to you (which would that kind of clause even hold up in court?).
Obviously, You Tube itself, who relies on advertising monies that are generated at the site, probably has more to worry about itself, in terms of proving that they are not generating money from the copyrighted works - which in effect would be derived in a parallel to your story, through advertising, not the movies. Perhaps in court that example might hold up, but the type of shakedown you'll get getting there, not to mention the chunk of change you'll have to spend on lawyers - might it actually cost less money to just license the stuff in the first place? Principle and legal technicalities aside, is the risk of a legal battle worth it? This was a well known actor you say, who probably has enough scratch to fight the battle into court in the first place - even knowing you'll win, personally I just can't see the benefit of integrating copyrighted works into your own without permission, simply because most court cases do not go to court - and whoever has the biggest lawyer, usually wins, and this is aside from the fact that as someone who makes creative works, I would have a hard time doing to someone else what I certainly wouldn't want done to me.
Joshua Provost
Veteran
Yep, productiontrax.com. I have used them in over ten projects so far. Most of the time, for short films, you can get a couple royalty-free tracks for commercial use, for $50-100. When I've gotten more ambitious, I might dig up four or five tracks by the same composer, and assemble a makeshift "original score." There are also tons of tracks udner $10, and they have CD's full of stuff you can use.
There are also tons of indie bands that if you got in touch with them, they would likely let you use their tracks for free. Just browse around myspace and start networking with people.
There are also tons of indie bands that if you got in touch with them, they would likely let you use their tracks for free. Just browse around myspace and start networking with people.
Duct Tape,
The actor mentioned didn't spend a dime on legal fees, and didn't ever expect to. She knows the difference between commercial and non-commercial. In the legal industry things work a but different than most people think they should. It's not really whoever has the "bigger" lawyer wins. If someone starts filing suits and there is no actual infringement issue, the suit will not survive. There is a possibility that the plaintiff (the person or entity bringing the suit) will be labeled as a "vexatious litigant". Not good. That means that next time he brings any suit, it must be reviewed first before the court will hear the matter. That applies to all the suits that are brought after that as well. Filing frivolous suits isn't looked upon with favor in the courts. The courts even award the person or entity being sued, court costs, legal fees etc. on occasion, providing they are asked for.
That's probably more than you want to know. But, my point is this. The question was asked, and I answered it. It is clear what this whole copyright infringement issue is really about.
As for the YouTube comment. This stuff is public domain, not for sale. Non-commercial. As for the issue of advertising being sold by YouTube, I don't think that there is a connection there to the films that the site displays. They are selling advertisement. No link to showing how they collect money for displaying films. Because they simply don't.
Copyrighted music is not secret music, you hear it all day on the radio. It's out there for everyone to hear. Anywhere anytime. Just because someone holds the copyright to a song or other such material, doesn't mean others can't use it for non-commercial purposes. If they don't like that, then they are completely able to keep their music to themselves.
Again, here is the whole thing in a nutshell. Copyrights protect the owners from being cut out of the deal, losing money to someone else who is making money from the use of their music or other material.
So despite popular belief, there is nothing unethical, wrong, or illegal about using even copyrighted music for non-commercial purposes.
After all, don't the creators of these works, music, film, etc. do it so that others will hear it or see it?
Do you know anyone who makes music, art or films or any other creative work solely for their own enjoyment, never with the intent of sharing it with others?
I don't and never have.
In fact all the guys I know, including me, can't wait to show someone, ...anyone, a project when it's finished (if they can wait that long). Most wouldn't really care if the whole world saw it and made no money on it whatsoever. Probably because there is such a passion for the creative process. Face it, we all love this stuff and get tons of satisfaction from producing films or other works that make people think, get angry, get happy, cry and laugh.
Another thing we all have in common is that we DO mind when (even if we don't make a cent) some other guy is making money on OUR work and not paying us a thing for it. THAT is what the copyright laws and protections are there for.
The actor mentioned didn't spend a dime on legal fees, and didn't ever expect to. She knows the difference between commercial and non-commercial. In the legal industry things work a but different than most people think they should. It's not really whoever has the "bigger" lawyer wins. If someone starts filing suits and there is no actual infringement issue, the suit will not survive. There is a possibility that the plaintiff (the person or entity bringing the suit) will be labeled as a "vexatious litigant". Not good. That means that next time he brings any suit, it must be reviewed first before the court will hear the matter. That applies to all the suits that are brought after that as well. Filing frivolous suits isn't looked upon with favor in the courts. The courts even award the person or entity being sued, court costs, legal fees etc. on occasion, providing they are asked for.
That's probably more than you want to know. But, my point is this. The question was asked, and I answered it. It is clear what this whole copyright infringement issue is really about.
As for the YouTube comment. This stuff is public domain, not for sale. Non-commercial. As for the issue of advertising being sold by YouTube, I don't think that there is a connection there to the films that the site displays. They are selling advertisement. No link to showing how they collect money for displaying films. Because they simply don't.
Copyrighted music is not secret music, you hear it all day on the radio. It's out there for everyone to hear. Anywhere anytime. Just because someone holds the copyright to a song or other such material, doesn't mean others can't use it for non-commercial purposes. If they don't like that, then they are completely able to keep their music to themselves.
Again, here is the whole thing in a nutshell. Copyrights protect the owners from being cut out of the deal, losing money to someone else who is making money from the use of their music or other material.
So despite popular belief, there is nothing unethical, wrong, or illegal about using even copyrighted music for non-commercial purposes.
After all, don't the creators of these works, music, film, etc. do it so that others will hear it or see it?
Do you know anyone who makes music, art or films or any other creative work solely for their own enjoyment, never with the intent of sharing it with others?
I don't and never have.
In fact all the guys I know, including me, can't wait to show someone, ...anyone, a project when it's finished (if they can wait that long). Most wouldn't really care if the whole world saw it and made no money on it whatsoever. Probably because there is such a passion for the creative process. Face it, we all love this stuff and get tons of satisfaction from producing films or other works that make people think, get angry, get happy, cry and laugh.
Another thing we all have in common is that we DO mind when (even if we don't make a cent) some other guy is making money on OUR work and not paying us a thing for it. THAT is what the copyright laws and protections are there for.
Duct tape,
I almost forgot to mention the comment about the agreement transferring liability to you, and if would be be enforceable. Oddly enough, probably not.
Liability cannot be transferred in most cases, despite what you read. Here's the principle. If you did something that created a liability for you (like theft or fraud) you cannot transfer the liability to someone else (normally) There are exceptions to this, but they get complex. For instance if you walk into a store and the clerk causes you an injury. The employer could be liable, and in some cases the employee is liable, depending on the injury and the nature of the injury (criminal or civil). But in most cases you can't, even by a written agreement transfer lability. Don't believe everything you read. Just because it says so doesn't make it so.
Ever been travelling down the road and seen one of those gravel trucks kicking up pebbles all over your car? and displaying a big sign on the back saying something like "not responsible for broken windshields"? Well, news flash...... NOT SO!
I almost forgot to mention the comment about the agreement transferring liability to you, and if would be be enforceable. Oddly enough, probably not.
Liability cannot be transferred in most cases, despite what you read. Here's the principle. If you did something that created a liability for you (like theft or fraud) you cannot transfer the liability to someone else (normally) There are exceptions to this, but they get complex. For instance if you walk into a store and the clerk causes you an injury. The employer could be liable, and in some cases the employee is liable, depending on the injury and the nature of the injury (criminal or civil). But in most cases you can't, even by a written agreement transfer lability. Don't believe everything you read. Just because it says so doesn't make it so.
Ever been travelling down the road and seen one of those gravel trucks kicking up pebbles all over your car? and displaying a big sign on the back saying something like "not responsible for broken windshields"? Well, news flash...... NOT SO!
dougspice
Veteran
corona said:
That's extremely interesting, and assuming it's true, bordering on brilliant. But, I'd be willing to bet it's the kind of thing that worked once and won't work again. If license-holders let that slide they'd be out of business soon enough. Copyright law (and good god, we need a replacement!) is ever-changing in this country... almost always in the favor of big business (particularly if that business is Disney).
To throw some useful advice into this thread, we use Music Box for a lot of our production tracks when we aren't using a composer, and they're very reasonable to work with.
Well, as I see it the laws haven't changed much in their basic application. It's not a thing that worked once and won't work again. Yup i'ts true, the conversation was even taped. Nothing to hide here, she didn't mind at all telling the story on camera.
I got some private messaging on this subject, so I thought I'd copy my response here so you and others could read it as well.
Here it is:
I talked to the girl at the Directors Guild of America in 2006.
I can't remember her name but she was one of the actors on "Buffy the Vampire Slayer". She was on a panel along with the guys who made "My Date with Drew" and "Napoleon Dynamite" before anyone ever really heard of those movies.
She is one sharp girl. I can try to find the specific info from DGA and find her name and contact info, I believe she is still giving that movie away for free.
I also remember that the guys that did "My Date with Drew" only put about $1,300.00 into their film. But when they were negotiating the deal to distribute they had to pay all licencing fees first, because they had used no original music, just stuff they heard on the radio. Those fees originally came to $800,000. but by calling around and begging and schmoozing got it down to a cool half a million. Just to get thier $1,300. film released.
We know that they didn't pay it, the distribution company did. (I assume)
I'll try to find the info for you, keep in touch.
Well, there you have it.
I wish I could get the video tape of that discussion, it was funny as hell, especially when the "My Date with Drew" guys talked about how they didn't even have a camera to make the film (doc) so they went to Circuit City put the purchase on a friends credit card, shot the film in 18 days, and took the camera back to the store before the 30day money back guarantee was up, .... to get their money back.
Circut City changed their policy after these guys started telling everyone about it.
Anyway, there were alot of creative ideas on how to get things done on no money being kicked around that day. Quite brilliant and very funny, the entertainmant value alone was well worth it, trust me.
I got some private messaging on this subject, so I thought I'd copy my response here so you and others could read it as well.
Here it is:
I talked to the girl at the Directors Guild of America in 2006.
I can't remember her name but she was one of the actors on "Buffy the Vampire Slayer". She was on a panel along with the guys who made "My Date with Drew" and "Napoleon Dynamite" before anyone ever really heard of those movies.
She is one sharp girl. I can try to find the specific info from DGA and find her name and contact info, I believe she is still giving that movie away for free.
I also remember that the guys that did "My Date with Drew" only put about $1,300.00 into their film. But when they were negotiating the deal to distribute they had to pay all licencing fees first, because they had used no original music, just stuff they heard on the radio. Those fees originally came to $800,000. but by calling around and begging and schmoozing got it down to a cool half a million. Just to get thier $1,300. film released.
We know that they didn't pay it, the distribution company did. (I assume)
I'll try to find the info for you, keep in touch.
Well, there you have it.
I wish I could get the video tape of that discussion, it was funny as hell, especially when the "My Date with Drew" guys talked about how they didn't even have a camera to make the film (doc) so they went to Circuit City put the purchase on a friends credit card, shot the film in 18 days, and took the camera back to the store before the 30day money back guarantee was up, .... to get their money back.
Circut City changed their policy after these guys started telling everyone about it.
Anyway, there were alot of creative ideas on how to get things done on no money being kicked around that day. Quite brilliant and very funny, the entertainmant value alone was well worth it, trust me.