Encrypting a DVD so that others cannot copy

[robb7979]

You keep mentioning "THE LAW" yet I haven't read a single quote from this law. You my friend are what is called a sh*thouse lawyer. I have read the entire US copyright Act Including amendments made in Public Law 106-113 Sec 1000 (a)9. I may not be a lawyer yet, but I'm not speaking out of the crapper. You see you are incorrectly assuming that this technician is the Artist responsible for the entire contents of this production when he simply is not. The production was made according to the specifications of the Newlyweds. Really argue with facts.
-rob

[triphop]

Robb, all:

work for hire definition – under the work for hire doctrine, if you are employed by a company as an artist, the copyright in your work belongs to your employer, not you, unless you have signed an agreement to the contrary.

http://www.commerce-database.com/legal-terms/work-for-hire.htm

How to Determine if A Work Is Made For Hire
Whether or not a particular work is made for hire is determined by the relationship between the parties. This determination may be difficult, because the statutory definition of a work made for hire is complex and not always easily applied. That definition was the focus of a 1989 Supreme Court decision (Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730, 1989). The court held that to determine whether a work is made for hire, one must first ascertain whether the work was prepared by (1) an employee or (2) an independent contractor.

If a work is created by an employee, part 1 of the statutory definition applies, and generally the work would be considered a work made for hire. IMPORTANT: The term “employee” here is not really the same as the common understanding of the term; for copyright purposes, it means an employee under the general common law of agency.

If a work is created by an independent contractor (that is, someone who is not an employee under the general common law of agency), then the work is a specially ordered or commissioned work, and part 2 of the statutory definition applies. Such a work can be a work made for hire only if both of the following conditions are met:

(1) it comes within one of the nine categories of works listed in part 2 of the definition and

(2) there is a written agreement between the parties specifying that the work is a work made for hire.

IMPORTANT NOTE: It is this last requirement that causes many web site developers and designers to own the copyrights to web sites they create as independent contractors for web site owners. It is IMPERATIVE that when you hire an independent contractor to design or create all or portions of your web site, you must have written agreement that contains the "magic" language by which the creator of the work assigns all copyrights to the web site owner.

http://www.keytlaw.com/Copyrights/wfhire.htm

Now, robb (spoken slowly and clearly )

A wedding videographer is an independant contractor (there is no employee/employer agreement) and therefore MAINTAINS THE COPYRIGHT ON THE WORK UNLESS SAID RIGHTS ARE CONTRACTED AWAY.

Now here are some definitions of interest:

employee
A person who is hired to provide services to a company on a regular basis in exchange for compensation and who does not provide these services as part of an independent business.

http://www.investorwords.com/1696/employee.html

independent contractor
A person or business which provides goods or services to another entity under terms specified in a contract. Unlike an employee, an independent contractor does not work regularly for a company.

http://www.investorwords.com/2425/independent_contractor.html

[triphop]

Rob,

Most (99.999%) people do not do what you describe when it comes to wedding videos. This is my experience as a wedding videographer. What clients want is the ceremony, the rehearsal shot and edited. They do get some oversight (choice of music - to which they must have a personal copy [this is a murky issue that I dont think I want to get into]). They want a nice DVD at the end with all the bits tastefully covered. They certainly do not want to direct every cut and dissolve. They do want some kind of control, but within broad parameters.

Now, OTOH, if they wanted to direct every cut, every title, every shot, thats fine - in that case I charge per person per 1/4 hour. I will gladly cede every right to them. Lets say that I dont cater to such people - I cover the lower end of things - regular folks - not some high-rollers. I am sure that Steven Spielberg would demand this level of control over his wedding, but Joe and Jane Sixpack dont want this. They trust me to deliver a product that accurately and tastefully represents their wedding. They are paying for my experience, my equipment and my time. They are also paying for me not to sell their wedding video to another party. That is why they dont care about copyrights.

regards,
TH

Aero,
You are quite simply wrong. It is clearly spelled out in copyright law. The video is a production. Pelsass is simply a Technician He is not the sole creator of this audiovisual production. Mr. and Mrs. Newlywed can, in fact, be considered the producers of their wedding "film." They told their Technician what they wanted, they paid for his services. If he had faded at a point they didn't want, or added music they didn't like, he would have changed it.(which probably happens often). In short, He is making what they want, not what he wants, which is the discriminator when assigning creative rights. They hired the religion, bought the flowers, picked a cake, rented tuxes, bought dresses, told who to stand where when and how, and...oh yea they HIRED A camera JOE. Not an ARTIST. Get over it. Read the LAW. I did, and the Production is a "work for hire" I gave you the definition, and it is clearly stated in said law that this is the only definition that will be considered when assigning "work for hire" status. Argue with facts, not greed. If you'd want to argue more we can consider the fact that the production is of a social event not for profit or open to public attendance. In which case no person would be author of said material, had the newlyweds not paid for THEIR production. Subject closed.
-rob

[triphop]

duplicated - sorry

[robb7979]

All,
You must consider that the Videographer is using common techniques to perform the technical aspects in the creation of this production. As in common I mean available to any with the inclination. None of the artistic content of the video originated with the grapher. If you think there are ANY wedded persons who did not control all aspects of their wedding (the artistic content of the video) then you are just silly. And please do not provide partial quotes.

If a work is created by an employee, part 1 of the copyright code’s definition of a work made for hire applies. To help determine who is an employee, the Supreme Court in CCNV v. Reid identified certain factors that characterize an “employer-employee” relationship as defined by agency law:

1. Control by the employer over the work (e.g., the employer may determine how the work is done, has the work done at the employer’s location, and provides equipment or other means to create work)

2. Control by employer over the employee (e.g., the employer controls the employee’s schedule in creating work, has the right to have the employee perform other assignments, determines the method of payment, and/or has the right to hire the employee’s assistants)

3. Status and conduct of employer (e.g., the employer is in business to produce such works, provides the employee with benefits, and/or withholds tax from the employee’s payment)

These factors are not exhaustive. The court left unclear which of these factors must be present to establish the employment relationship under the work for hire definition, but held that supervision or control over creation of the work alone is not controlling.

And that is not law it is a court precedent that has very little in common with what we are talking about. The people who had the video made did not hire an artist. they had final say whether the video conformed to their desires.

[tgpo]

I used to think Will and tgpo were the same person.

We are.

[learner1]

As a consumer, I can give two examples.

1. When my children are small, we usually go to Sears
to get the children Christmas portraits. By going to
the studio, we give implied permission (probably because
of privacy laws) to be in the portraits. We paid for
the packages but we never get any negatives. The portraits
are considered an art form and the studio kept the right.

2. My children are now all grown up. I had to pay a hefty sum
for their high school graduation pictures. Did I get any negative
for that amount, NO!

Of course, can I scan those pictures and reproduce them? Proably,
but I didn't.

If the wedding bride and groom want to produce and direct the
video production of their wedding, they can do that. They
can hire an elementary school child and tells him to position
the camera, press the button at the appropriate time. They
can then retains all the right. But if they hire a professional
and rely on his/her creative talent to produce an art. The
professional can retain his/her creative right.

[lordsmurf]

Here's one for you .... so according to most of you, the ones saying the wedding photographer keeps copyright .. simply because he made it ... here's one for you:

When I restore a wedding video, sometimes even upgrade it to DVD from VHS, and maybe re-edit parts out or add in new footage previously left out, and then restore the video quality, rework the audio (remove hiss, etc), add new menus and change the music, etc, etc ... does this now mean I'm the copyright holder?

(FYI: For any of my customers that may be reading this, I believe your video is yours. I'm just being paid to do the grunt work. Your wedding is your copyright.)

Only once have I seen an attempt to copyright a video... the company put it's logo on the front and end of the video (and it was pink, louder than the video itself, and overall highly obnoxious too) ... and it was something that my client asked to be removed ... and I did ... this was his wedding, his video, and the cheap attempt at advertising on his memory was very undesired, so I let Premiere's cut tool fix that right up.

[bugster]

I have been following this thread with interest. I have little knowledge of copyright law or contract law or employee law or whatever law may apply in this kind of situation either here (UK), in the US or anywhere else, but an interesting thought has just occurred to me.

IF the videographer maintains the copyright to the wedding video, does he also have full rights to use any or all of that material for other commercial purposes. Considering that the videographer has been given permission to use his skills at a private social event, why should he be allowed to profit beyond his original fee, at somebody elses 'expense'?

Just a thought

[robb7979]

Last time,
Read the law before you post. Portraits are specifically discluded in the statute. I want someone to tell me how the videographer's artistic vision is responsible for the entire contents of said video. It just doesn't hold water. Triohop I have to compliment you for actually doing some research. However the precedent you mentioned was dealing with a sculpture, which is very different. the summary also contained many references creating precedent to the opposite of what you are saying. I think the most we can do is agree to disagree. -rob

[Roll Tide]

I really don't think I'd want word of mouth about my services to be "He does a great job, very impressive, but the jerk copy-protects his discs so you can't make copies of your own wedding." Seems to me that for every $10 you make extra, you may be losing $100 in business.

I do weddings from time to time, and I also offer copies for about $10-15 a copy. I feel like the copy I provide is superior, so the average customer is willing to pay that. That includes a nice professional case, full color insert printed on high quality inkjet paper, a high quality disc, with the face inkjet-printed in full color to match the case. If they want a copy made on a cheap disc labeled with a Sharpie marker, so be it. I certainly will not risk bad word-of-mouth by telling them they cannot make copies on their own.

It's the client's wedding, not yours. It just doesn't feel right to restrict them from sharing what is rightfully theirs. Besides, with the proliferation of DVD writers and the knowledge that goes with them, this is all a moot point anyway. Decrypting and copying a protected DVD is one of the easiest, if not THE easiest, operation to perform with a DVD writer.

I think you'd be better served to just let it go. My $.02

[triphop]

Try and respond to each in turn:

LordSmurf: Thats your right - if you do not exercise your copyright you lose it. For me, I would not be happy if a client turned around and proceed to duplicate without permission. I probably would not sue, but I would look at them funny if I met them in the supermarket line As for re-editing a video - the original copyright holder DOES NOT LOSE his rights. However removing a companies logos from an existing work is clearly illegal and is something that you would get sued for. If the original client did not like the video, that is something between those two parties.

Robb: Its quite immaterial if the videographer uses common techniques or not [does an author forgo his copyright if he uses a pen to write with] the work (unless specifically contracted away) belongs to the creater. I partially quoted because it was irrelevant to the discussion but at least I provided a link. The work is clearly part of movie production (see point 1 in attributed URL) [which is applicable] and is clearly the work of an independant constractor, ERGO DUDE, he/she maintains copyright. Quit using straw arguments. And personally I am not interested in arguing it in front the Supremes. And it doesn't matter if its a sculpture, a doodle or a video - its a creative work and the creator OWNS THE COPYRIGHT.

Learner1: You got it.

Bugster: Basically yes. However this is something that you would want to limit in the contract that you sign with the videographer. Most of us would never dream of doing that [talk about bad PR] but unless it is specifically excluded, it is legal.

I dont see how you guys can't see the point? Videographers don't just stand there doing sh*t. We walk around, we get the good shots, we point our cameras to get the great shots. We co-ordinate with the wedding photographers and wedding director to make sure that the wedding video is terrific and memorable and something they want to watch again and again. I am NOT a big shot with thousands (I am mostly broke) available to waste or to see my work ripped off. I certainly dont have a big margin on my work. Work it out:

1. 1-3 people on location for 3-5 hours + driving + ...
2. Editing for 2-3x number our hours of footage shot
3. Lots of negotiation about music, pictorials.
4. DVD production, packaging

And then you see some person who has spent $20k on a wedding not wanting to pay $10 extra for a few copies? Who is being the jerk then?[/b]

[IvIark]

And then you see some person who has spent $20k on a wedding not wanting to pay $10 extra for a few copies? Who is being the jerk then?

That really does sound like an MPAA argument. "You spend 4 grand on audio video equipment and then want to backup your DVDs because you don't want to fork out another $10-$15 if you damage the one you've already bought".

Not being funny or anything but if anyone told me I had no right to make copies of my wedding DVD, I'd laugh in their face and then go and make my copies and have no problem sleeping at night. If that stops a bit of extra potential earning for the videographer then so what? I didn't hire them so I can be one of their long term cash cows, and the legal aspect of who owns what copyright is totally irrelevant in my opinion for something as personal as a wedding.

Of course every videographer will disagree with this vehemently but c'est la vie.

[lordsmurf]

if you do not exercise your copyright you lose it

Bullshit.

[Tommyknocker]

Of course every videographer will disagree with this vehemently but c'est la vie.

If a videographer in its strictest sense is a person who records images with a video camera, then I am the exception to your last statement. You see, Mr. IvLark, I agree with your previous arguments. I believe the the wedding party has a right to copy the DVDs of their own wedding. Whether or not it is legal, I really could not care less.

[rhegedus]

OK, so if the videographer is not an employee but an independent contractor, shouldn't there then be a contract in which all this is spelled out - that way, no one can argue. But in absence of a contract, how can the videographer be an independent contractor?

[triphop]

Sure - no wedding videographer would realistically object to that. Look all these arguments look funny when taken to either extreme. No one in their right mind is going to sue anyone for $10. And certainly not for backup purposes - most videographers "back stuff up". Thats not what this is about. This is about whether I can maintain my rights as the copyright holder. This is different to the MPAA shutting down a large scale movie duplication factory. We can probably agree that large scale piracy is wrong.

And then you see some person who has spent $20k on a wedding not wanting to pay $10 extra for a few copies? Who is being the jerk then?

That really does sound like an MPAA argument. "You spend 4 grand on audio video equipment and then want to backup your DVDs because you don't want to fork out another $10-$15 if you damage the one you've already bought".

Not being funny or anything but if anyone told me I had no right to make copies of my wedding DVD, I'd laugh in their face and then go and make my copies and have no problem sleeping at night. If that stops a bit of extra potential earning for the videographer then so what? I didn't hire them so I can be one of their long term cash cows, and the legal aspect of who owns what copyright is totally irrelevant in my opinion for something as personal as a wedding.

Of course every videographer will disagree with this vehemently but c'est la vie.

[triphop]

Then its a verbal contract. The only time you are not an independant contractor is when you are an employee of the company.

OK, so if the videographer is not an employee but an independent contractor, shouldn't there then be a contract in which all this is spelled out - that way, no one can argue. But in absence of a contract, how can the videographer be an independent contractor?

[triphop]

Correct - Sorry - I had a brain fart and was thinking about marks - like terms like Yoyo and Xerox and saranwrap - these are terms that used to refer to a particular brand but now have enter common parlance referring to all similar products.

if you do not exercise your copyright you lose it

Bullshit.

[triphop]

Correct - Sorry - I had a brain fart and was thinking about marks - like terms like Yoyo and Xerox and saranwrap - these are terms that used to refer to a particular brand but now have enter common parlance referring to all similar products.

if you do not exercise your copyright you lose it

Bullshit.

[FT Shark]

If you are a videographer or photographer you are being hired to do a service. The videographer shouldn't have rights to the original, the purchaser should. I had my wedding videographed and photographed and I received originals (negatives) of both the video and photos.

[triphop]

Tommy Knocker!

Thats fine with me. You might think that you have a copyright to the video but that does not mean that you DO HAVE the copyright to the video. Please see my quoted references above. Also be aware that this site specifically prohibits piracy or advocacy of piracy... Of course what you do in your free time is your business

PS. How is CapeTown? It is always lovely this time of year. I grew up in Durban and always suffered from CapeTown envy

Of course every videographer will disagree with this vehemently but c'est la vie.

If a videographer in its strictest sense is a person who records images with a video camera, then I am the exception to your last statement. You see, Mr. IvLark, I agree with your previous arguments. I believe the the wedding party has a right to copy the DVDs of their own wedding. Whether or not it is legal, I really could not care less.

[triphop]

Just make sure that it is stipulated in the contract. If it is not specifically granted, then the copyright remains with the videographer.

If you are a videographer or photographer you are being hired to do a service. The videographer shouldn't have rights to the original, the purchaser should. I had my wedding videographed and photographed and I received originals (negatives) of both the video and photos.

[Tommyknocker]

I was stating an opinion, not advocating piracy. And before you begin to lecture me on the forum policy, I suggest you compare the dates we each joined.

Let me try once more: I am not interested in the legal ramifications of whether or not a videographer has rights to a wedding video. If the wedding party wants to copy them, that is their business, in my opinion. And if you feel I am advocating piracy, say so, and we can take it to the moderators, and sort the bodies out later.

[rhegedus]

Then its a verbal contract. The only time you are not an independant contractor is when you are an employee of the company.

OK, so if nothing is written in paper, why is there the assumption that the independent contractor owns the copyright? Who the hell knows what was said between the parties and whether or not the issue of copyright was mentioned.

I'm sure the wedded couple would not be aware of the law in this case, so would it not be the obligation of the videographer to tell them that he would own the copyright?

How many couples would agree to that?

[triphop]

I was stating an opinion, not advocating piracy. And before you begin to lecture me on the forum policy, I suggest you compare the dates we each joined.

Let me try once more: I am not interested in the legal ramifications of whether or not a videographer has rights to a wedding video. If the wedding party wants to copy them, that is their business, in my opinion. And if you feel I am advocating piracy, say so, and we can take it to the moderators, and sort the bodies out later.

Ah, so the person who makes lots of posts is automatically right? Interesting concept. It does not matter what the wedding party feels about this - if they do not accept the terms of the contract, then they should not enter into the contract. If they are ignorant of the law, it does not mean that they can break it. I certainly do not advocate suing clients but that does not mean that they are in the right no matter what you feel about.

There is no need to shoot the messenger here - this is the law (and the law in the SA too I might add - I did weddings there). As for advocacy of piracy - you are not doing so directly but seem to be advocating that others (the wedding party) have some rights to do so.

What I do with weddings is place a small notice under my mark at the end of the video stipulating that I retain copyright on the video. Of course I would be prepared to transfer copyright upon fair payment - the "up front fee". I have no interests in limiting what other people do with their wedding videos.

[Trenton_Net]

You can copyprotect the DVD by damaging the TOC. If done correctly, PC DVD-Roms will say the disk is un-readable (Windows will eject the disk) before even reading it, yet they will still run in DVD players since DVD Players don't care and just read it like a standard DVD disk. Chinese pirate manufactures have been doing it for a while now (Damaging the DVD layout in a similar way). In most cases you need to compile an ISO first, then apply changes to that image before writing it. At least thats how most of the Chinese tools work.

[triphop]

Rhegedus:

Please read the quotation on the prior page. It quite clearly states that if you contract someone to create a work for you - the contractor retains the copyright. If there is an agreement that the contractor will transfer the copyright to the contractee, then the copyright is so transferred. In the case that there is verbal contract and there is a dispute, then the case will need to be tried in a court of law.

Again, being ignorant of the law does not then allow you to break it. This is the law, its quite another matter to go around suing clients. Not a great way to build a business.

All:

We are arguing a very fine point here - if you are asserting your copyright with a wedded couple over their wedding video then you have some problems right there. I have never had an issue with this - this might be because I have never had an instance brought to my attention. If I had ever heard of this, I honestly don't know what I would do.

Then its a verbal contract. The only time you are not an independant contractor is when you are an employee of the company.

OK, so if nothing is written in paper, why is there the assumption that the independent contractor owns the copyright? Who the hell knows what was said between the parties and whether or not the issue of copyright was mentioned.

I'm sure the wedded couple would not be aware of the law in this case, so would it not be the obligation of the videographer to tell them that he would own the copyright?

How many couples would agree to that?

[rhegedus]

In the case that there is verbal contract and there is a dispute, then the case will need to be tried in a court of law.

And what has happenned in such cases?

[Tommyknocker]

Ah, so the person who makes lots of posts is automatically right? Interesting concept

I never said I was right, I was stating you should not lecture me on forum policy since I have been acquainted with it longer than you have. Get it? Good.

As for advocacy of piracy - you are not doing so directly but seem to be advocating that others (the wedding party) have some rights to do so.

I am glad you have finally said what you feel, that it seems I am indirectly advocating piracy. Since this offends your sensibilities, you must immediately report me to the moderators. Be advised, I do not take kindly to such accusations, so be prepared to defend your position.