The Truth behind Copy-right Music and Short films
- Thread starter skrott
- Start date
Joshua Provost
Veteran
Corona, you could not be more wrong in your analysis of copyright infringement. Copyright protects that exploitation of works. Whether the exploitation if for-profit or non-profit, public or private use, it makes no difference. Copyright law protects the right of the author to control when, how, and where their work is used, or if it is used at all.
Please don't post such misleading information. I think most rational people understand what copyright is about. It seems some people don't want to deal with the consequences of that (that they cannot simply use whatever they want whenever they want at no cost or obligation). To not respect that, or try to find a way to circumvent it, is to show lack of respect to the creative people that create this content. I would think that someone on this forum, which I would infer means you have an interest in actually creating content of your own, would have such little respect for other people trying to do the same.
skrott, you need to read up on fair use. I recommend the following document: http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/resources/publications/statement_of_best_practices_in_fair_use/ It's not law, but it is a well-thought and considered practical application of existing laws.
Please don't post such misleading information. I think most rational people understand what copyright is about. It seems some people don't want to deal with the consequences of that (that they cannot simply use whatever they want whenever they want at no cost or obligation). To not respect that, or try to find a way to circumvent it, is to show lack of respect to the creative people that create this content. I would think that someone on this forum, which I would infer means you have an interest in actually creating content of your own, would have such little respect for other people trying to do the same.
skrott, you need to read up on fair use. I recommend the following document: http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/resources/publications/statement_of_best_practices_in_fair_use/ It's not law, but it is a well-thought and considered practical application of existing laws.
David W. Richardson
Chapelgrove Films
I agree with you, Joshua. After all, I can't take my Lyle Lovett CDs and start making copies and giving them to all my friends, can I? Even though I'm giving them away FREE and not making a dime, it's still illegal copying.
Read that copyright warning at the beginning of every movie you get from the video store. It says that the copying of a movie is illegal -- it doesn't specify whether or not the person doing the copying plans to profit from it or not.
Read that copyright warning at the beginning of every movie you get from the video store. It says that the copying of a movie is illegal -- it doesn't specify whether or not the person doing the copying plans to profit from it or not.
Duct Tape Films
Well-known member
Joshua Provost said:
Actually, I think he might very well be right, at least in specifically legal terms, about the non-profit uses - which I know for sure includes schools, (ie you CAN use copyrighted material for your college movie - many people don't do that, because they want the opportunity to get into it into festivals if they can; in theory the school can be sued - but the award cannot exceed $200 - so no one ever does) and other things of that nature. He's not talking about "Fair Use" doctrine much at all if I'm not mistaken (edit: just noticed that was to Skrott), which is itself a first amendment issue and completely seperate from the language of copyright law which is Article I section 8 clause 8 and addressed seperately, and while two certainly overlapr, it is not the only factor in determining copyright. It does sound like someone found a crazy loophole in the language of the copyright law itself- although being from Missouri originally (the Show Me state) I'd feel better about the source if it was not so vague as to who it was, could know exactly what his lawyer's interpretation was, and conferred with my copyright lawyer here to see if this is reading was really right.
It certainly may not be the intention of the law, and does give me pause as a creator of works, perhaps this is something that needs to be addressed in a new law, or case law - since this didn't get to court apparently - if the loophole does in fact exist, but as near as I can tell from a quick reading of the language it does verify that it could be read that way - and where no law exists, the rights therefore belong to the "people", okay there are exceptions brought about by other somewhat blanket laws. I'm certainly not willing to find out the hard way, as it would rule out many other avenues - like ANY festival for example, most, if not ALL broadcast avenues, and also share doubts as to whether this is anywhere close to the original intent of the law, which to me is clear, even if the law itself may not be. Technically speaking though, he very well may be right. Morally speaking, and in questioning the intent of the clause, it would not surprise me if something like this eventually makes it's way to the Supreme Court, perhaps wrapped in an online infringement case - which would/could be then probably used as precedent. Until then, it's business as usual for me, file copyrights, pay license fees or use cheap/free stuff.
Last edited:
See? what did I say? Didn't I tell you there would be some dispute about this?
Josh I respect you, but have a difference of opinion about this issue.
The thread was entitled " the truth behind copyright, music and short films".
The question was asked and I answered it, in the most straightforward way I know how and to the best of my knowledge.
Please don't say that I'm misleading someone simply because you don't agree with me or the way that the legislation is constructed. I don't believe that is a fair evaluation. Here is your statement:
"Corona, you could not be more wrong in your analysis of copyright infringement. Copyright protects that exploitation of works. Whether the exploitation if for-profit or non-profit, public or private use, it makes no difference. Copyright law protects the right of the author to control when, how, and where their work is used, or if it is used at all."
What was it that brought you to that conclusion? That is very simply not true.
I don't have the time to get into explaining the difference between exploitation and infringement, there is a difference, trust me on this.
You also stated:
"Please don't post such misleading information. I think most rational people understand what copyright is about."
Why is it that you don't? Josh, I really don't intend to sound argumentative here, we have a difference of opinion about this, but ultimately you have my respect.
You are very welcomed to send me a private message or email, I will then send you (or any other readers) some materials that I wasn't able to upload here. The docs were rejected since they were in pdf format. These are some law reviews and copies of the actual legislation. It might be a little difficult reading for most, but it is not unclear on these issues. You can read up on this issue, then we can talk about it and bounce it around. We can even have a phone conversation if you wish.
Duct Tape, you are absolutely correct, you can use even copyrighted materials for educational and private use. That is part of the provisions of "Fair Use" (it's not directly connected to the constitutional protection of free speech that you mentioned in Art. 1. It's in Title 17 of the US Codes where the copyright laws are.)
There aren't really any "loopholes" it is just the way the legislation is constructed. It isn't close to the intention of the law, it is exactly the way it was intended. No Mistake there.
Unfortunately most people derive their knowledge of the law and legal issues from watching television, and not reading for themselves.
Chapel, you wrote:
"I agree with you, Joshua. After all, I can't take my Lyle Lovett CDs and start making copies and giving them to all my friends, can I? Even though I'm giving them away FREE and not making a dime, it's still illegal copying.
Read that copyright warning at the beginning of every movie you get from the video store. It says that the copying of a movie is illegal -- it doesn't specify whether or not the person doing the copying plans to profit from it or not."
Remember what I said about believing everything you read? Well, here it's not what they say that is questioned, but what they don't tell you. For instance they didn't tell you that it may not apply in every case and that there are exceptions. They didn't tell you that part, did they?
About the copying of CD's and giving them to all your friends. You have to keep in mind what the copyright laws do protect and what they don't. Read what I have already written in my previous replies carefully.
One of the factors that is considered when determining whether the use of copyrighted material is fair (as in Fair Use) or infringement is it's effect on a potential market, and it's effect on the value of the material.
For instance, if you copied the cd and gave it to everyone on the planet, then they wouldn't be able to sell any cd's right? They would have lost money, right? Can you see how that would ultimately effect the value of the material, are you catching on yet?
If you don't like my answer, then prove me wrong, show me, I don't claim to know it all, perhaps I could learn something from you.
Josh, again, I don't understand why you are making statements like these:
"Please don't post such misleading information. I think most rational people understand what copyright is about. It seems some people don't want to deal with the consequences of that (that they cannot simply use whatever they want whenever they want at no cost or obligation). To not respect that, or try to find a way to circumvent it, is to show lack of respect to the creative people that create this content. I would think that someone on this forum, which I would infer means you have an interest in actually creating content of your own, would have such little respect for other people trying to do the same."
Why would you say that I have no respect for "other people trying to do the same"? and that I "show lack of respect to the creative people that create this content".
Josh, remember I wasn't the guy who wrote these laws, so don't get nasty with me for telling you the truth.
The actual laws governing copyrights do allow for "Fair Use" and may not be precisely what you may have learned about them by watching television.
Skrott, sorry about this detour. I hope I answered your question or cleared up some issues about copyrights.
If you have any questions, I'll do my best to answer them for you, and if I don't know I can research them. I promise not to take up your thread dealing with anyone who is disputing the information.
Some of these people sound extremely and emotionally attached to their beliefs, despite how ridiculoulsly wrong and incorrect they are. I guess they are entitled to that.
Keep shooting bro.
Josh I respect you, but have a difference of opinion about this issue.
The thread was entitled " the truth behind copyright, music and short films".
The question was asked and I answered it, in the most straightforward way I know how and to the best of my knowledge.
Please don't say that I'm misleading someone simply because you don't agree with me or the way that the legislation is constructed. I don't believe that is a fair evaluation. Here is your statement:
"Corona, you could not be more wrong in your analysis of copyright infringement. Copyright protects that exploitation of works. Whether the exploitation if for-profit or non-profit, public or private use, it makes no difference. Copyright law protects the right of the author to control when, how, and where their work is used, or if it is used at all."
What was it that brought you to that conclusion? That is very simply not true.
I don't have the time to get into explaining the difference between exploitation and infringement, there is a difference, trust me on this.
You also stated:
"Please don't post such misleading information. I think most rational people understand what copyright is about."
Why is it that you don't? Josh, I really don't intend to sound argumentative here, we have a difference of opinion about this, but ultimately you have my respect.
You are very welcomed to send me a private message or email, I will then send you (or any other readers) some materials that I wasn't able to upload here. The docs were rejected since they were in pdf format. These are some law reviews and copies of the actual legislation. It might be a little difficult reading for most, but it is not unclear on these issues. You can read up on this issue, then we can talk about it and bounce it around. We can even have a phone conversation if you wish.
Duct Tape, you are absolutely correct, you can use even copyrighted materials for educational and private use. That is part of the provisions of "Fair Use" (it's not directly connected to the constitutional protection of free speech that you mentioned in Art. 1. It's in Title 17 of the US Codes where the copyright laws are.)
There aren't really any "loopholes" it is just the way the legislation is constructed. It isn't close to the intention of the law, it is exactly the way it was intended. No Mistake there.
Unfortunately most people derive their knowledge of the law and legal issues from watching television, and not reading for themselves.
Chapel, you wrote:
"I agree with you, Joshua. After all, I can't take my Lyle Lovett CDs and start making copies and giving them to all my friends, can I? Even though I'm giving them away FREE and not making a dime, it's still illegal copying.
Read that copyright warning at the beginning of every movie you get from the video store. It says that the copying of a movie is illegal -- it doesn't specify whether or not the person doing the copying plans to profit from it or not."
Remember what I said about believing everything you read? Well, here it's not what they say that is questioned, but what they don't tell you. For instance they didn't tell you that it may not apply in every case and that there are exceptions. They didn't tell you that part, did they?
About the copying of CD's and giving them to all your friends. You have to keep in mind what the copyright laws do protect and what they don't. Read what I have already written in my previous replies carefully.
One of the factors that is considered when determining whether the use of copyrighted material is fair (as in Fair Use) or infringement is it's effect on a potential market, and it's effect on the value of the material.
For instance, if you copied the cd and gave it to everyone on the planet, then they wouldn't be able to sell any cd's right? They would have lost money, right? Can you see how that would ultimately effect the value of the material, are you catching on yet?
If you don't like my answer, then prove me wrong, show me, I don't claim to know it all, perhaps I could learn something from you.
Josh, again, I don't understand why you are making statements like these:
"Please don't post such misleading information. I think most rational people understand what copyright is about. It seems some people don't want to deal with the consequences of that (that they cannot simply use whatever they want whenever they want at no cost or obligation). To not respect that, or try to find a way to circumvent it, is to show lack of respect to the creative people that create this content. I would think that someone on this forum, which I would infer means you have an interest in actually creating content of your own, would have such little respect for other people trying to do the same."
Why would you say that I have no respect for "other people trying to do the same"? and that I "show lack of respect to the creative people that create this content".
Josh, remember I wasn't the guy who wrote these laws, so don't get nasty with me for telling you the truth.
The actual laws governing copyrights do allow for "Fair Use" and may not be precisely what you may have learned about them by watching television.
Skrott, sorry about this detour. I hope I answered your question or cleared up some issues about copyrights.
If you have any questions, I'll do my best to answer them for you, and if I don't know I can research them. I promise not to take up your thread dealing with anyone who is disputing the information.
Some of these people sound extremely and emotionally attached to their beliefs, despite how ridiculoulsly wrong and incorrect they are. I guess they are entitled to that.
Keep shooting bro.
Last edited:
corona said:
Isn't "selling your autograph" considered income therefore taxable?
Correct me please but as I understand it, simplified of course, if someone gives you a buck you didn't already have you pay tax on it.
As a songwriter myself, I of course back the "if you use it you should pay for it" mentality. But I'm biased
Great DVX site by the way people. Very informative and more then a bit entertaining at times....
DDP
Well, DDP, when it comes to the issue of taxation, that's one that I'm very certain of.
This is way off of the subject of this thread so I'll give you an answer to that question, without going into detail. If you would like a more detailed answer send me an email or private message and I can explain it in detail, and give you the legal references, court cases etc. to read and research yourself.
This has got to be the most misunderstood area of law that I can think of.
The answer is NO. "Income" is not taxable in most cases. Are you surprised? Despite the deceit and misinformation you have been exposed to, "Income" as you know it, such as money created as a result of your labor is NOT subject to taxation.
Let me say that, .... I am not offering legal advice here, only sharing the information which is the result of my legal education and personal research. I encourage any reader to use no substitution for your own study and research.
Although this is not a substitute for your own legal research, it is legally accurate and a very informative film based on what I consider some of the most sound legal research I've seen in a long time. (put into a film of this kind), just click on the link below and watch the full length film.
"In a time of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act"
George Orwell
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4312730277175242198&pr=goog-sl
You might recognize the producer of this film, Aaron Russo, he produced the movie Trading Places with Dan Akroyd and Eddie Murphy, among many others.
About the copyright issue and how it relates to you as a songwriter, I replied to another thread posted by Skrott, in that thread he asked about photos and the use of them in his mocumentary. I inserted some material, exerpted from a law review. It might clear up some misconceptions or at least serve as an informative read.
here's a link to it. http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=93348
This is way off of the subject of this thread so I'll give you an answer to that question, without going into detail. If you would like a more detailed answer send me an email or private message and I can explain it in detail, and give you the legal references, court cases etc. to read and research yourself.
This has got to be the most misunderstood area of law that I can think of.
The answer is NO. "Income" is not taxable in most cases. Are you surprised? Despite the deceit and misinformation you have been exposed to, "Income" as you know it, such as money created as a result of your labor is NOT subject to taxation.
Let me say that, .... I am not offering legal advice here, only sharing the information which is the result of my legal education and personal research. I encourage any reader to use no substitution for your own study and research.
Although this is not a substitute for your own legal research, it is legally accurate and a very informative film based on what I consider some of the most sound legal research I've seen in a long time. (put into a film of this kind), just click on the link below and watch the full length film.
"In a time of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act"
George Orwell
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4312730277175242198&pr=goog-sl
You might recognize the producer of this film, Aaron Russo, he produced the movie Trading Places with Dan Akroyd and Eddie Murphy, among many others.
About the copyright issue and how it relates to you as a songwriter, I replied to another thread posted by Skrott, in that thread he asked about photos and the use of them in his mocumentary. I inserted some material, exerpted from a law review. It might clear up some misconceptions or at least serve as an informative read.
here's a link to it. http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=93348
Last edited:
DerrickTempleton
Well-known member
I was told by my teacher who's made films for PBS and Sundance that submitting clip reels and demo reels with copyrighted music is ok.
arrestthisman
Well-known member
It's always best to err on the side of caution, but to me if "artists" really consider their work "art" then it's subject to the same use of ALL art.
If someone makes a parody of the mona lisa, is it considered THEFT because they didn't paint the original picture? There is a difference between law and morality.
The RIAA is one of the most digusting orginizations on the planet. They rape their artists, and they rape the consumer. DRM is evil. Plain and simple.
If you take an artist's track, burn it on a CD, repackage it and sell it for money, yes, that is stealing, IMO.
Is Stanley Kubrick a thief? He did NOT have permission to use that all to famous piece of music (with a million names: also sprach zarathustra, the most common) in 2001. In fact he didn't have permission for about half the music in the film. That is a FACT, don't take my word for it. Go look it up.
I talked to some local filmmakers in my area to get the straight dope on this, and at least in my area, copyright is hardly ever enforced unless the movie makes a lot of money, and in that case a cease and decist (sP) letter is sent, and the option of retroactive payment is given. I'm sure there are cases of both harsh penalties, and "off the hook" scenarios everywhere.
But back to morality versus law. They just aren't the same.
There is a big difference in using pop music to try and generate more interest in your film, or using your favorite rendition of a classic piece that is "PERFECT" for your scene, and you just couldn't get a reponse back from Sony.
I think filmmakers should always try to obtain permission, but if the music companies are too snobby to even call you to say "no!" I say go for it.
Now I've only done documentaries so far, and in my experience I haven't had any problems obtaining permission for music, and free at that! I've been very lucky so far, but some publishers I spoke with acted like I was almost wasting their time. They seem to prefer small films to just use the music and deal with it later. Again, this is all in my limited personal experience.
But Barry, c'mon, with your logic, Stanley Kubrick is a lying thief. I didn't know him, but I doubt that is true, and if he didn't make 2001, I think the world would be worse off for it.
If someone makes a parody of the mona lisa, is it considered THEFT because they didn't paint the original picture? There is a difference between law and morality.
The RIAA is one of the most digusting orginizations on the planet. They rape their artists, and they rape the consumer. DRM is evil. Plain and simple.
If you take an artist's track, burn it on a CD, repackage it and sell it for money, yes, that is stealing, IMO.
Is Stanley Kubrick a thief? He did NOT have permission to use that all to famous piece of music (with a million names: also sprach zarathustra, the most common) in 2001. In fact he didn't have permission for about half the music in the film. That is a FACT, don't take my word for it. Go look it up.
I talked to some local filmmakers in my area to get the straight dope on this, and at least in my area, copyright is hardly ever enforced unless the movie makes a lot of money, and in that case a cease and decist (sP) letter is sent, and the option of retroactive payment is given. I'm sure there are cases of both harsh penalties, and "off the hook" scenarios everywhere.
But back to morality versus law. They just aren't the same.
There is a big difference in using pop music to try and generate more interest in your film, or using your favorite rendition of a classic piece that is "PERFECT" for your scene, and you just couldn't get a reponse back from Sony.
I think filmmakers should always try to obtain permission, but if the music companies are too snobby to even call you to say "no!" I say go for it.
Now I've only done documentaries so far, and in my experience I haven't had any problems obtaining permission for music, and free at that! I've been very lucky so far, but some publishers I spoke with acted like I was almost wasting their time. They seem to prefer small films to just use the music and deal with it later. Again, this is all in my limited personal experience.
But Barry, c'mon, with your logic, Stanley Kubrick is a lying thief. I didn't know him, but I doubt that is true, and if he didn't make 2001, I think the world would be worse off for it.
DerrickTempleton
Well-known member
I don't think Kubrick logic applies to people like us...unless we also happen to live in castles and spend endless resources tinkering away at our films.
However I do agree the RIAA does not deserve anyone's cooperation. It's just like immigration; why come here legally when you have to wait in line and be treated like an animal instead of just hop the fence?
On the other hand, you can always tell what movies are good on their own, and what movies rely on someone else's music to sell the product. In high school I made crappy action films but dropped in some Hans Zimmer and it turned out amazing. I wouldn't do that now. But only because I want full credit for my movie being good, not because I give 2 shits what the RIAA has to say.
However I do agree the RIAA does not deserve anyone's cooperation. It's just like immigration; why come here legally when you have to wait in line and be treated like an animal instead of just hop the fence?
On the other hand, you can always tell what movies are good on their own, and what movies rely on someone else's music to sell the product. In high school I made crappy action films but dropped in some Hans Zimmer and it turned out amazing. I wouldn't do that now. But only because I want full credit for my movie being good, not because I give 2 shits what the RIAA has to say.
Joshua Provost
Veteran
Corona, I was a little taken aback that you cite "fair use" as your justification for using copyrighted material in the way you advocated. Obviously, I disagree with your interpretation of fair use, but what matters is that case law really determines what "fair use" is in reality, and it's far from your interpretation. In other words, not being careful about copyrights can be hazardous to your legal health.
BTW, I don't agree with RIAA/MPAA, and I think DRM is just plain bad business. I was when I was younger, a huge copyright offender. I had one of the first MP3 web sites, offering over 1000 Smashing Pumpkins MP3's back in early 1996. A number of my friends got in a lot of trouble (one of them may have been kicked out of college and deported), though I happened to escape any consequences.
Being on the other side of the equation now (being in bands, run an indie record label, indie film production company) has helped me to appreciate the value of everyones work, and the right of each content creator to control their content's destiny. It's morally right, no matter how you read the law of the land.
BTW, I don't agree with RIAA/MPAA, and I think DRM is just plain bad business. I was when I was younger, a huge copyright offender. I had one of the first MP3 web sites, offering over 1000 Smashing Pumpkins MP3's back in early 1996. A number of my friends got in a lot of trouble (one of them may have been kicked out of college and deported), though I happened to escape any consequences.
Being on the other side of the equation now (being in bands, run an indie record label, indie film production company) has helped me to appreciate the value of everyones work, and the right of each content creator to control their content's destiny. It's morally right, no matter how you read the law of the land.
Corona, although well intentioned, is incorrect in his analysis (commercial v. non-commercial). The law is unsettled as to copyright and therefore fluid contrary to what has been stated. Copyright means "the right to copy" and if you do so, get permission.
I don't want to go into the law because there are so many different areas that have been touched upon. What I will say is that much of what has been said here does not go to whether someone has a valid cause of action, but to damages. (the law has adapted itself to now include statutory and treble damages to those harmed without economic harm)
As often happens when the subject comes up of copyright on DVXuser, a story is told about someone mailing a script to themselves or giving away a film, and the presumptions start flying. It is dangerous curbside advice to extrapolate off those facts and often the original story is problematic. A little bit of knowledge ....
BTW, I am not sure why it has been said that it is tax free income if you sign an autograph, just ask Pete Rose, he did a little time for tax evasion for not reporting income for signing. Sounds like we have someone from the Wesley Snipes school of tax law. (no offense, couldn't resist)
Finally, commercial use has very little to do whether or not you need to get a permit to shoot and everything to do with local law, insurance, fees and trespass.
I don't want to go into the law because there are so many different areas that have been touched upon. What I will say is that much of what has been said here does not go to whether someone has a valid cause of action, but to damages. (the law has adapted itself to now include statutory and treble damages to those harmed without economic harm)
As often happens when the subject comes up of copyright on DVXuser, a story is told about someone mailing a script to themselves or giving away a film, and the presumptions start flying. It is dangerous curbside advice to extrapolate off those facts and often the original story is problematic. A little bit of knowledge ....
BTW, I am not sure why it has been said that it is tax free income if you sign an autograph, just ask Pete Rose, he did a little time for tax evasion for not reporting income for signing. Sounds like we have someone from the Wesley Snipes school of tax law. (no offense, couldn't resist)
Finally, commercial use has very little to do whether or not you need to get a permit to shoot and everything to do with local law, insurance, fees and trespass.
Last edited:
arrestthisman
Well-known member
I think this thread has overlooked the fact that 99% (a made up number) of what goes on in this country in terms of law is not based on law, but by precedent.
It would be interesting to see a real statistic as to how much litigation goes on based on well defined law, and merely precedent.
It would be interesting to see a real statistic as to how much litigation goes on based on well defined law, and merely precedent.
well, actually precedent (or stare decisis) and law are one and the same. Our system is based on British common law and courts are reticent about overturning a previous courts decision (vertically and horizontally) in jurisdictions. It happens, but it is rare. Legislatures make laws, courts interpret them, but it's all "Law." The problem is that many times courts narrow their decision to the facts before them, and they may even go out of their way to say so.
In the case of "fair use" courts have narrowed their decisions to the facts of the case before them and that leaves much uncertainty. You really need a copyright attorney to navigate the waters if you plan on using someone else's work in your film without permission, and most times you will be advised against it. because, well, YOU CAN'T!
We can get a glimpse from cases about how future case will be decided though, and it is very clear that non-commercial purpose alone (as defined by others in this thread) is not nearly enough and it was reckless to suggest here that it would be. Even the most liberally decided cases ( a trio of cases from NY) are no way close (miles away) from what has been suggested in this thread.
So what's the harm? Well when you try to get a distribution deal they will ALWAYS require that you present them with clean title (chain of title) to your film. They will not accept "Don't worry the guy on DVX said it was fair use" (nor will the E&O insurance company) And since fair use is only a defense, you have to invite litigation to clear it. Not to mention injunctive relief and statutory damages (even though you didn't profit from it.)
I
In the case of "fair use" courts have narrowed their decisions to the facts of the case before them and that leaves much uncertainty. You really need a copyright attorney to navigate the waters if you plan on using someone else's work in your film without permission, and most times you will be advised against it. because, well, YOU CAN'T!
We can get a glimpse from cases about how future case will be decided though, and it is very clear that non-commercial purpose alone (as defined by others in this thread) is not nearly enough and it was reckless to suggest here that it would be. Even the most liberally decided cases ( a trio of cases from NY) are no way close (miles away) from what has been suggested in this thread.
So what's the harm? Well when you try to get a distribution deal they will ALWAYS require that you present them with clean title (chain of title) to your film. They will not accept "Don't worry the guy on DVX said it was fair use" (nor will the E&O insurance company) And since fair use is only a defense, you have to invite litigation to clear it. Not to mention injunctive relief and statutory damages (even though you didn't profit from it.)
I
Last edited:
Copyright is secured automatically when the work is created, and a work is “created” when it is fixed in a copy or phonorecord for the first time. “Copies” are material objects from which a work can be read or visually perceived either directly or with the aid of a machine or device, such as books, manuscripts, sheet music, film, videotape, or microfilm. “Phonorecords” are material objects embodying fixations of sounds (excluding, by statutory definition, motion picture soundtracks), such as cassette tapes, CDs, or LPs. Thus, for example, a song (the “work”) can be fixed in sheet music (“copies”) or in phonograph disks (“phonorecords”), or both. If a work is prepared over a period of time, the part of the work that is fixed on a particular date constitutes the created work as of that date.
Limitations on exclusive rights " Fair use"
Is the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes,
the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
the reproduction or distribution is made without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage;
Is the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes,
the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
the reproduction or distribution is made without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage;
mr.X said:
Not limitations, factors to consider and you failed to include all of them
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.
Folsom v Marsh, 9 F.Cas. 342. later codified in USC 107.