excellent article on copyright

[housepig]

THIS ARTICLE covers a lot of good ground - plain english description of copyright basics, and answers to common questions like:

- can I put this Fleetwood Mac song in the background of my wedding video?
- why not?
- but it's only for 25 of my close friends?
- can I use part of Terminator 2 in my class project?
- I thought if I only used 10% of that Britney Spears track, it's okay under "Fair Use".

and tons more exciting topics. check it out.

[equinox137]

This article appears to be the view of what's legal or not in the view of the RIAA....more than anything else

[alenhard]

An interesting article, and it sounds fairly accurate. It was impossible, however, to miss the author's own bias as an artist. He has obviously been ripped off before and wants it to stop now. I guess I can't blame him...

[teegee420]

Seems to me that for the most part, the law is on the side of the RIAA/MPAA. I don't blame them for wanting to protect their intellectual properties. That's not to say that I'll be adhering to their will though. Hypocritical? Maybe. Ambiguous? Totally.

Thanks for sharing the article, housepig.

[AarontheRipper]

Where do I start? Wow... I was okay with most of it, but there is some pretty blatant crap in there. For example, not being able to broadcast a group of people singing happy birthday because the tune is copyrighted? Also, the part about not being able to edit any music or movies, even if for your own personal use and that alone? Well, I guess I should throw out my home theater demo disk because it only has certain scenes from the movie and therefore I am not in keeping with the artists original intentions by not showing the whole movie, and for having it on the same disc as the work of another artist that the first artist might not agree with. Also, any one who enjoys making their own techno remixes of songs is a thief and a villan! How dare you!!! Screw them all.

[Roll Tide]

Typical propaganda crap from a media interest group.

[BJ_M]

Typical propaganda crap from a media interest group.

better check your facts first before typing .... sundance media group is run by Grammy-award winning producer and recording artist Douglas Spotted Eagle (yes that is his name) , a world re-known author, composer , consultant and musician - also a moderator on many forums (and a fine hunter).. does a lot of work for apple , sony and calkwalk and many other companies also ...

his facts on copyrighted material were checked and are basically correct (though you may disagree and for sure some things don't make a lot of sense) for the USA .... always see a lawer for final legal advice ...



http://www.spottedeagle.com/
http://www.ocbtp.com/douglas.html
http://www.cakewalk.com/Artist/SpottedEagle.asp
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoom/0,,51_104_566~10033,00.html

[housepig]

remember, kids - this isn't an article on "should I be able to do this?" it's on "is it LEGAL if I do this?"

your personal feelings are irrelevant - there's a lot in that article that I don't agree with - but it's the law. if you don't like it, go and get elected and change it.

[DaBarrister]

In case ya haven't guessed from my handle, I am an attorney.

The article is 100% correct, but it is not 100% complete (and it's not meant to be a substitute for legal counsel on such matters - CR and trademark law books fill entire libraries and the law is constantly in a state of flux). There is always a little wiggle room in the application of "fair use," but the basic premise is that it is extremely difficult to avoid someone else's copyright. Period.

Practically speaking, and this is NOT legal advice to anyone reading this, if you use Duran Duran's "Rio" to document your vacation video taken in Rio, the RIAA probably isn't going to come knocking on the door if you show it to a few friends. If you broadcast it on TV, cable, theatre, movie festival, or sell it on Ebay, you can bet you'll be in for a treat.

Like housepig said, the issue is not whether you should or should not be able to do something with that kewl Linkin Park tune on your rad sk8tboard video - the issue is whether it's legal. And it probably isn't. Will you get caught? My answer: How badly do you want to find out?

[BJ_M]

In case ya haven't guessed from my handle, I am an attorney.

....................
Will you get caught? My answer: How badly do you want to find out?

how to explain companies like this THIS are still selling "edited dvd's" publicly - and not even including the original dvd with them (they state its the customeer responsability) ....... i assure you the MPAA knows about them now ... but seems to do nothing about this -

[SaSi]

I just now realized why SONY invented the Walkman

Suppose you buy a cassette (or CD nowadays) and played it on your portable player with twin super bass speakers.

Lot's of people that never paid for the work would be listening and enjoying it.

But with the walkman they just have to go and buy it.

So guys,

When you drive your car and listen to a CD in your car stereo, ... , well keep the windows closed. A RIAA guy may be stuck in traffic next to you and you'll get sued before you know it.

When you call people at home, well you sing yourself. Don't play any bought media. Your guests are not allowed to listen to something thy haven't bought.

And finaly, before you enter a bar or disco, ask the manager for a certificate that they pay their RIAA or whetever royalties they have to pay. Otherwise, if RIAA busts the joint, they can arrest you for "receiving" the "proceeds" of the crime.

I am wondering, is there any descendent to Ludvig van Beethoven or Amadeus Mozart to receive royalties for their work?

[BJ_M]

first nine notes of the musical composition Für Elise, by Ludwig van Beethoven is copyrighted as a trademark* ... the rest is not BUT the sheet music may be and could be the performances and media of the music in performance ...







*European Court of Justice on trademarks consisting of sounds, Shield Mark v. Kist.

[mob]

thanks for the links, alot of interesting topics are covered.

[housepig]

Practically speaking, and this is NOT legal advice to anyone reading this, if you use Duran Duran's "Rio" to document your vacation video taken in Rio, the RIAA probably isn't going to come knocking on the door if you show it to a few friends.

however, this has happened - someone doing a personal project that they just showed to a few friends, one of them happened to be hooked up with a publishing company or the RIAA, and people got sued.

I came across some stories of this nature on another board aimed at videographers, I'll see if I can dig up some links.

[lordsmurf]

The guy writing that article sounds like a pompous ass. Reminds me of some people that used to post here (where the hell did all those guys go anyway?).

Anyway, I couldn't read that whole thing. He seems to have interjected too much personal stuff.

It reads too much like an editorial.

Copyright is "THE MAN" trying to make rich people richer. That's my take on it at this time. How many cars do these people need anyhow?

[SaSi]

The guy writing that article sounds like a pompous ass. Reminds me of some people that used to post here (where the hell did all those guys go anyway?).

Probably got a job with the MPAA

And, BJ_M, who is the owner of the "Fur Elise" trademark?

And, since we started this, is Nokia paying royalties for using passages from Carmen or "Fur Elise" as ringtones?

And if I "compose" a ringtone for my phone, not that I would ever bother to, and use a famous refrain for it, I could probably get in trouble.

Well, let those guys "promote" the copyright frenzy as they do. The more they get out of control, the sooner this mess will become a joke. I hope...

So then we can go back to plain logic in terms of defining copyright: Don't steal anybody's work and claim it's yours and don't make any money out of copying somebody else's work.

[BJ_M]

European Court of Justice on trademarks consisting of sounds, Shield Mark v. Kist.

http://www.zsa.ca/En/Articles/article.php?aid=729

http://www.inta.org/downloads/brief_Shield.pdf


and

is Nokia paying royalties for using passages from Carmen or "Fur Elise" as ringtones?

no - they are public domain and not tradmarks (except for the trademark listed above)

[DaBarrister]

Again, don't confuse the law with how you think it ought to be with the law as it is. You may think the guy's "a pompous ass," but he's only conveying the truth.

Don't shoot the messenger. If you don't like the law, change it. There are a couple of ways to do it:

1) Run for national office, get elected, move up the food chain to an Important Position in your party, draft a change in the law, convince your fellow politicians that this is the Holy Grail of copyright law, get it passed by a majority of both houses, and then get the Prez to sign it.

2) Make your own "derivative work" and then sue the owner of the copyright (or wait until you get sued); hire the best lawyers your money can buy when you go up against Sony or Time Warner or ASCAP or whoever (you're gonna need it), and win your case by having the law declared unconstitutional.

DaBarrister wrote:
Practically speaking, and this is NOT legal advice to anyone reading this, if you use Duran Duran's "Rio" to document your vacation video taken in Rio, the RIAA probably isn't going to come knocking on the door if you show it to a few friends.

housepig responded:

however, this has happened - someone doing a personal project that they just showed to a few friends, one of them happened to be hooked up with a publishing company or the RIAA, and people got sued.

I'm sure there is an exception to every rule. That's why I said "probably" in italics. If you use it, you're breaking the law. If you show it to no one you will never get caught, but you've still broken the law. If you show it to one friend, your chances of being noticed are very slim. If you show it to 800 of your closest friends, your chances of being noticed have increased exponentially. The choice is yours.

Let's not get carried away with the endoftheworld keepyourwindowsrolleduporthey'llhearyou rhetoric. If you don't like copyright, stop buying copyrighted works and they'll HAVE to change the model. Chances are, though, you'll get something a lot worse than what you have now - and then you WILL have to keep your windows rolled up.

[lordsmurf]

Again, don't confuse the law with how you think it ought to be with the law as it is. You may think the guy's "a pompous ass," but he's only conveying the truth. .

I convey truth all the time. I don't sound like that. That guy sounds like a smart ass. You can tell truth without all the attitude. Attitude makes it biased, henceforth editorialized, henceforth not just facts.

[DaBarrister]

Attitude makes it biased, henceforth editorialized, henceforth not just facts.

He gave examples, he applied the law, and came to a conclusion based upon the application of the law to the facts. The only "attitude" I could glean from the article is that he expressed incredulity at those who think they ought to be able to take something - for free - that does not belong to them.

If by "bias" you are referring to the fact that he happens to appreciate the fact that the law applies to protect his copyrighted works, then by all means he is biased and he ought to be biased. But that does not take away from the accuracy of his article.

The guy who wrote this article is an artist of some stature. He's not THE MAN, but he sure does appreciate the fact that he can put food on the table because people like me buy his works. I have a copy of his book, Vegas Video 4 Editing Workshop, about 18" from my left elbow as I type this.

Your bias -

Copyright is "THE MAN" trying to make rich people richer. That's my take on it at this time. How many cars do these people need anyhow?

- is apparent, as well. As Bo Diddley, said, "Before you accuse me, take a look at yourself." Perhaps you can write a factually accurate article on copyright and slant it your way, if that's possible. Editorialize all you want.

I'll read it.

[lordsmurf]

Yeah, that's my bias. What more needs to be said? Others have surely beaten me to it by now. I've read many an article already.

[Rookie64]

- can I put this Fleetwood Mac song in the background of my wedding video?
- why not?

Point taken, but maybe another artist should be used for an example, since it's pretty widely known among Mac fans all over the 'net that you can easily obtain every bootleg on the face of the earth from nearly all the hundreds of fan sites out there

Full length mp3 tracks of album outtakes, alternate mixes, demos, live material, full master studio reels (countless takes), videos etc.


This stuff has been in wide circulation for as long as I've been online for ten years already, and has grown ever larger since.
No one from the group or RIAA has done anything about it.

I only know of one site where the webmaster was told to remove all audio and video content...and that was all in Real Media format.

You'd think they'd go after the higher quality stuff and not worry about the crappy stuff


Not saying it's OK for people to violate copyright laws, but I often see it going on and nothing is done about it.


Many many fan sites distribute copyrighted material, which they have taken the liberty to do on their own.


I'm sure some will be facing legal situations sooner or later, but most don't seem to be that concerned about it.



I'd much rather see action taken against the sites that profit from the copyright material instead of them picking on people giving the stuff away.