Copyright infringement, or not?

[daamon]

Hi all,

I'm not looking for a definitive legal answer, just curious as to what people's views and experiences are. Here's the scenario:

I'm employed / contracted to video a couple's wedding for a fee, edit and then produce a DVD for them. Naturally, the use of music will greatly enhance the overall production.

If I use music supplied to me by the couple (i.e. commercial copyrighted CDs), rip the relevant tracks and use either all or portions of those tracks, is this a copyright infringement as the material belongs to the couple?

Of course, there's always the response of "Who cares as long as you're not caught?", but I'm interested in a little deeper analysis than that.

This may have been raised before, but I couldn't find anything in the forums (what do you search for?).

Thanks - I'll be interested to hear people's views...

[guns1inger]

It depends one what country you live in as to whether or not this is technically illegal. In Australia, the current reading of the legislation by some is that even copying a song from a CD to an Ipod is technically illegal.

That said, if the DVD is for private use, not being broadcast or sold, then I can't see anyone taking offense or casuing a problem for you. If you are really concerned, get them to sign a waiver stating that you have explained that this could be breach of certain copyright and IP laws, and they take full responsibility should any legal action be taken in the future by anyone.

[housepig]

from a U.S. perspective - yes, it's infringement. owning a copy of a cd doesn't confer rights to excerpt bits of it and mate them to a homemade video.

to be legal, even for one copy, you'd have to get a synchronization license to use the music.

if you're making them one copy, the likelihood of them (and you) getting caught for it is very, very slim. but it is illegal.

[housepig]

and the problem with gunsllinger's waiver idea is that by producing that in court as a defense, you're making the court aware that you knew beforehand that there could be a legal issue with the use of that music, and you did it anyway....

bit of a catch-22, innit?

[Shocker Milwaukee]

and the problem with gunsllinger's waiver idea is that by producing that in court as a defense, you're making the court aware that you knew beforehand that there could be a legal issue with the use of that music, and you did it anyway....

bit of a catch-22, innit?

Ignorance of the law has never been exculpatory, so what's the difference?

[housepig]

Ignorance of the law has never been exculpatory, so what's the difference?

there's a difference, I would think, between ignorance of the law and willful intent to infringe.

[rkr1958]

Ignorance of the law has never been exculpatory, so what's the difference?

I'm not a lawyer and I'm way out of my league, but, isn't Copyright infringement with no motive to make money a civil versus criminal case (at least in the US)? If so, then I would think that intent and prior knowledge would factor greatly into then.

[adam]

This is exactly what royalties are for. Even if this were a non-commercial job it would still be illegal in most countries. The fact that this is a commercial job would make this illegal in ALL countries that have copyright provisions. The couple does not own any rights to those songs. They own the disks and nothing more. If you want to use copyrighted music on an production, which doesn't qualify for Fair Use, then you must get permission. Since this is a commercial product you can basically forget about falling under Fair Use.

As for knowledge of the existing copyright and the intent to infringe, just filing a copyright gives constructive notice to all, but you must have actual notice to file criminal charges, and actual notice also plays heavily in proving what statutory damages you are entitled to. But just putting the Copyright or Registered symbol on the cd case provides actual notice. But if you were to admit that you had actual knowledge of the copyright and that you knew what you were doing was an infringement, and that you did it anyway? Yeah, that'd definitely have an major effect on the size of your wallet.

A waiver won't help you at all here. You can't contract away contributory infringement by forcing your client to accept full responsibility IF you get caught. That would be like a pimp operating with immunity by forcing his girls to sign waivers.

If you make such a DVD, both of you are infringing on the copyright regardless of what the contract between you says.

If this really concerns you then you can try looking around for public domain songs and audio clips. You'd be suprised at the quality of some. If you want to use recognizable works then you can often get much cheaper rights by using less popular versions.

[Headbanger's Ball]

I'd say go for it.

This is their wedding, their memories. If they provide (ie buy) the music you will use, then they should be able to use it.

If it's ok to make a copy of a cd for use in the car, or rip them for the computer or mp3 players, why not to a photo montage of a couple life together?? This is for their own use and therefore not infringment.

And before anyone says that the guy making the dvd is making money from this remember: he's making money for the whole thing, filming, editting, burning, taking the time, and for having the knowledge to do those things; not for putting a piece of music on a piece of plastic.

Keep in mind, "Happy Birthday" is copyrighted, and I have yet to hear of anyone paying royalties or performance rights to sing that song.

All of the copyright laws needs to be rewritten to be fair (common sense.) Too much of it is just ridiculous (stupid.)

This post copyright 2004 Headbanger's Ball any reproduction whole or in part is in violation of crazy ass copyright laws. You have been warned. Objects in mirror are closer than they appear. Surgeon Generals Warning: squinting at tiny size words on bright computer screens may cause cancer. I can't believe anyone actually would read this.

[adam]

If it's ok to make a copy of a cd for use in the car, or rip them for the computer or mp3 players, why not to a photo montage of a couple life together?? This is for their own use and therefore not infringment.

Under US law NONE of those things are legal. There is no law that says you can infringe on a copyright as long as its for personal use.

And before anyone says that the guy making the dvd is making money from this remember: he's making money for the whole thing, filming, editting, burning, taking the time, and for having the knowledge to do those things; not for putting a piece of music on a piece of plastic.

That is immaterial for two reasons. Firstly, regardless of what you trace the funds to, it nevertheless makes it a commercial endeveavor. This almost definitively rules out any possible Fair Use defense (I don't see one anyway), and that's really the only possible defense that could get you out of copyright infringement in a situation like this. Secondly, you don't even have to have a commercial interest or benefit to infringe on a copyright. Even if he does this project for free, he still violates the copyrights of those respective songs when he republishes them without permission.

Now maybe the law is "stupid" in regards to its application in these matters, but nevertheless that is the way US law works. You may have a moral truth in what you say, but legally its only wishful thinking.

Keep in mind, "Happy Birthday" is copyrighted, and I have yet to hear of anyone paying royalties or performance rights to sing that song.

The copyright to the "Happy Birthday Song" is currently owned by AOL Time Warner and it brings in an estimated $2 million dollars per year in royalties. Everytime you hear it on tv, radio, or even sometimes when they sing it in a restaraunt, they had to pay licensing fees to do so.

http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/music-licensing5.htm

[CaseyComb]

Is it illegal? Yes more than likley. Is this Wedding video ever gonna be shown on such a grand scale that someone would notice? Not likely. Don't sweat the small stuff.

[daamon]

Is it illegal? Yes more than likley. Is this Wedding video ever gonna be shown on such a grand scale that someone would notice? Not likely. Don't sweat the small stuff.

I'm not looking for a definitive legal answer, just curious as to what people's views and experiences are...

...Of course, there's always the response of "Who cares as long as you're not caught?", but I'm interested in a little deeper analysis than that.

Thanks for that CaseyComb. So having got an answer I said I wasn't interested in, do you actually have a view or experience that you'd like to share?

RTFQ...

@ All other contributors - It's made for interesting reading. Thanks for your inciteful inputs.

[hech54]

Besides....have you ever tried to make sense of a "Legal Document"? Fvck 'em - just tell whoever objects that you could not comprehend the wording of any legal document you have ever come across.
Ignorance in bliss....it works for politicians doesn't it?
Tell them that "Some guy named Bob" told you it was OK to do it.

[vitualis]

Yes, it is copyright infringement.

If you are doing it for a fee, you should definitely get a license.

Regards.

[pyscrow]

Well, legality aside, for the morality of the situation -
are you happy for them to copy the wedding video you made, without paying you? If so go ahead and use other peoples music

[aero]

If I use music supplied to me by the couple (i.e. commercial copyrighted CDs), rip the relevant tracks and use either all or portions of those tracks, is this a copyright infringement as the material belongs to the couple?

The music doesn't "belong" to the couple in the sense you are implying. they and you don't have the rights to place it on videos.

to be sure one finds more and more people givig out mixes from a wedding etc as party favors -- but don't let that confuse you about lack of rights to do so, and ownership.



I can't help but observe that you are doing this for money. you are getting income from soneone else's work for which you have no licence.

This is their wedding, their memories. If they provide (ie buy) the music you will use, then they should be able to use it.
]

LOL. this person's failure to understand copyright illustrates the issue. what if they take the disk and don't pay you at all? After all: "This is their wedding, their memories." What right do you have to ask for a dime for your labor?

[dphirschler]

Isn't this a clear example of "fair use"? I know it's legal to make mix tapes, and even sell them. DJ's do it all the time. I even hear stories on the news about the RIAA trying to find a way to stop them, but they are legal.

They (or you) shouldn't have to pay royalties because the couple already did when they bought the music. You are simply compiling the tunes on another meduim and charging a fee for the service.

Now if you released the wedding video for sale commercially (as if people would line up to buy it) then I think you would have to ask permission to use the songs in your release.

But adding music to a wedding video sounds like personal use to me which is covered under the fair use clause.


Darryl

[Headbanger's Ball]

aero wrote:

what if they take the disk and don't pay you at all? After all: "This is their wedding, their memories." What right do you have to ask for a dime for your labor?

I wrote:

he's making money for the whole thing, filming, editting, burning, taking the time, and for having the knowledge to do those things; not for putting a piece of music on a piece of plastic.

If the guys a pro, it will work. He can always find out the make & model player the couple has & make the dvd compatable. He's already found this website.


What I don't understand is why everyone just rolled over & accepted the insane copyright notions. The copyright (& patent) laws were created to keep others from illegally profiting from another's work.
For example: if I wanted to record a song to sell but use the music from someone else or change the words slightly, that's illegal. But the music industry has allowed that and called it "sampling."
When (or if) I buy a cd, I can do whatever I want to with it. The theory that I can buy something & not actually own it is crazy. Try that with other properties & see what happens.
Some say that I'm actually buying the license to listen to the music. OK, what happens when the cd becomes unplayable? Or I "bought the license" of an LP? Do I get a free replacement of the scratched disc? Do I get a free upgrade to cd from lp? Don't think so. I get to buy the same license again & again & again. I can use the cd as frisbee or beer coasters but try to move the song from cd to wedding dvd & the police are on me.
The DMCA is toilet paper! It was only enacted to grease the squeaky wheels of the record companies who lined the pockets of politicians. (Yes, that's how gov't works.) But sometimes the squeaky wheel needs replaced, not greased.

[hech54]

My software never asks me if I have the "right" to do this. And besides....as said previously....I've never seen the Wedding Video Police van cruising around my neighborhood.

[housepig]

Isn't this a clear example of "fair use"? I know it's legal to make mix tapes, and even sell them. DJ's do it all the time. I even hear stories on the news about the RIAA trying to find a way to stop them, but they are legal.

do a little more research - they aren't legal unless the music is licensed for a compilation. and if I can find it, I'll show you a great example of a record store having to shut down because they were selling mix tapes that they assumed were legal.

They (or you) shouldn't have to pay royalties because the couple already did when they bought the music.

you didn't pay any royalties when you bought the disc - you paid the record company. they pay the artist royalties. you have no rights to use the music other than to listen to it - not broadcast it, not play it in your restaurant, not synchronize it to video - unless you pay for those rights.

But adding music to a wedding video sounds like personal use to me which is covered under the fair use clause.

Fair Use is an affirmative defense to infringement ("I know I'm infringing, but..."), not a right. while you're researching mix tape law, you might want to take a look at a good summary of what Fair Use covers :

Fair use is a copyright principle based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials forpurposes of commentary and criticism. For example, if you wish to criticize a novelist, you should have the freedom to quote a portion of the novelist's work without asking permission. Absent this freedom, copyright owners could stifle any negative comments about their work.

more info HERE.

[housepig]

When (or if) I buy a cd, I can do whatever I want to with it. The theory that I can buy something & not actually own it is crazy. Try that with other properties & see what happens.

you mean like the computer software that you're running to access this website?

unless you're running Linux, of course....

[Tranceaddict]

or do what i do, and IGNORE COPYRIGHTS.... the RIAA and MPAA cartels are not honoring what copyright was meant to be in the constitution. so neither do i. i say go for it, and use the ripped tracks.

[handyguy]

I know a guy who sang for a band & each time they use his music he gets a penny.

Im sure you could ask for permission to use the songs from the company that owns them.

[housepig]

if you don't like the law, work to change it. I'm constantly contacting my elected representatives when copyright and IP issues come up on the docket.

if everybody who bitches about how fucked the copyright law is in this country did the same, maybe they'd listen a little more to us, instead of the RIAA.

remember - the MPAA and RIAA may fund campaigns, but they don't vote - if a senator has $10,000 coming from the RIAA, but 10,000 people calling his office pledging to vote against him if he sucks up to the RIAA, he'll start listening to his constiuents.

[Cornucopia]

adam & housepig are right:

Unless you wrote & recorded the music yourself, or got permission to use it from the "rightful owner/creator" (and usually/often pay a royalty/license fee) you can't use it at all.

I don't like it either. In fact [/RANT starts here],

I am all for rolling back the copyright and patent enforcement periods to pre-Disney levels (~20-28 years max).
I am also for much broader guarantees of fair use (time shifting, place shifting, format shifting, personal compilations, classroom & religious use, comic & critic & news use).
I think that the main problem is the breakdown of what I term "the social contract", which should exist between people=people, people=government, people=corporations, etc. Unfortunately, this breakdown has occurred primarily at the hands of those who could afford to leave it intact (namely-government and corporations). The old "I give a little, you give a little" or "I get something, you get something, we share" or "I lose a few rights/freedoms for some guarantees of safety/security/support" or "I do a good job working for you, and you give me decent pay & benefits" is sorely lacking in todays society, much to the detriment of the general populace.
So, what does the populace do? Some gripe but do nothing, some give up and accept defeat, some try to fix the problem, but lots are cutting corners/bending the rules themselves in response. Witness the rise of piracy. Witness the "slacking off" on the job. And it's not going to get better until those who can really do something about it (government & corporations) get conscience and reverse some of their stupid decisions.
[/end RANT]

Nonetheless, you can either be a pure/straight & narrow kind of person, a person who bends the rules but deludes themselves, a person who bends the rules and accepts the facts and risks, or a person who doesn't give a SH!T and breaks them whenever they feel like it.

Scott

[Brent212]

If it's ok to make a copy of a cd for use in the car, or rip them for the computer or mp3 players, why not to a photo montage of a couple life together?? This is for their own use and therefore not infringment.

Under US law NONE of those things are legal. There is no law that says you can infringe on a copyright as long as its for personal use.

I think copying a CD that you own for use in the car, or ripping it for use on an mp3 player is legal. Why would companies advertise products like iPods with descriptions saying things like "store your entire CD collection in your pocket" ?

Also, what's the difference between that and backing up DVD's that you own? That's legal, right? If not, I feel like half the conversation on this website is about how to break the law.

[macleod]

There was a qausi legal document that floated around here awhile back that used a lot of examples for when people technically break copyright law (for music anyway). There was one, where when I tell people, they look at me like I am crazy. The example was if you are in a mall taping your kids play or something and your recorder picks up copyrighted music for more than (I think) 15 seconds and it is audible (you can understand what it is) you have to pay a royalty. If anyone knows the link for that, it may give the original poster some interesting viewpoints on what is and not copyright infringement.

This also brings up (the talk about what is and what isnt illegal, backing up, etc.) a point that I made some time ago. "Everyone" says that backups are illegal, blah, blah, blah.

The purchaser of the music owns a "license" if you will to listen to purchased music. If that is the case than instead of paying $15 for a new CD, I should be able to take my 8 tracks or tapes into my local best buy, pay $1 (or something nominal) to transfer my license from the tape to a CD.

If the music industry would come out and say that they would replace broken CD's (or whatever) with a new one for $1 I think that a lot of people would do it. I get mixed messages on the whole topic of license and media. I now that there are semantics involved with this line of thinking, but I believe the main point remains. Someone purchases a license to hear a song, but they must pay $15 for the new medium. It just doesnt hold water.

It sounds like the artists (really the music producers) want to keep making money off of old works and this is the way to do it. Kinda like the Disney spin I have been hearing about. I own 100's of VHS disney movies. NOW I have to purchase the Disney DVDs for the full price?!!?!?!?!?

[Tranceaddict]

if you don't like the law, work to change it. I'm constantly contacting my elected representatives when copyright and IP issues come up on the docket.

if everybody who bitches about how fucked the copyright law is in this country did the same, maybe they'd listen a little more to us, instead of the RIAA.

remember - the MPAA and RIAA may fund campaigns, but they don't vote - if a senator has $10,000 coming from the RIAA, but 10,000 people calling his office pledging to vote against him if he sucks up to the RIAA, he'll start listening to his constiuents.

that sounds good on paper... but americans are (by and large) clueless sheep that have no idea the BS laws the MPAA and RIAA are getting passed. and they are certainly clueless on copyright law. good luck getting 10,000 sheep to do anything productive.

[Tranceaddict]

adam & housepig are right:

Unless you wrote & recorded the music yourself, or got permission to use it from the "rightful owner/creator" (and usually/often pay a royalty/license fee) you can't use it at all.

I don't like it either. In fact [/RANT starts here],

I am all for rolling back the copyright and patent enforcement periods to pre-Disney levels (~20-28 years max).
I am also for much broader guarantees of fair use (time shifting, place shifting, format shifting, personal compilations, classroom & religious use, comic & critic & news use).
I think that the main problem is the breakdown of what I term "the social contract", which should exist between people=people, people=government, people=corporations, etc. Unfortunately, this breakdown has occurred primarily at the hands of those who could afford to leave it intact (namely-government and corporations). The old "I give a little, you give a little" or "I get something, you get something, we share" or "I lose a few rights/freedoms for some guarantees of safety/security/support" or "I do a good job working for you, and you give me decent pay & benefits" is sorely lacking in todays society, much to the detriment of the general populace.
So, what does the populace do? Some gripe but do nothing, some give up and accept defeat, some try to fix the problem, but lots are cutting corners/bending the rules themselves in response. Witness the rise of piracy. Witness the "slacking off" on the job. And it's not going to get better until those who can really do something about it (government & corporations) get conscience and reverse some of their stupid decisions.
[/end RANT]

Nonetheless, you can either be a pure/straight & narrow kind of person, a person who bends the rules but deludes themselves, a person who bends the rules and accepts the facts and risks, or a person who doesn't give a SH!T and breaks them whenever they feel like it.

Scott

sure you can use it... unless they are gonna be playing the wedding dvd in local bars, or public performance then USE IT! screw the bastardized copyright laws that have no relevance to todays digital world. remember, copyright was supposed to be 14 years. AND THATS IT!. now its up to (last count) life +75 years.... screw 'em.

[housepig]

that sounds good on paper... but americans are (by and large) clueless sheep that have no idea the BS laws the MPAA and RIAA are getting passed. and they are certainly clueless on copyright law. good luck getting 10,000 sheep to do anything productive.

you're absolutely right, that's too much like work. we should just break any law we don't agree with.