Copyright infringement, or not?

[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....

Not knowing doesn't make you any less guilty.

[bhouseman2004]

Here's one for you. What happens to the twelve year old kid playing music on his portable CD player who turns the volume up so that everyone for 50 feet can hear it clearly? If he happens to be at a mall, should the cops cuff him for public performance/display of a copyrighted work? What if someone glances in your car and watches the Disney film playing on the portable DVD player in your back seat? These are technically illegal actions because they violate the LETTER of the law. Some of the laws need to be revoked/rewritten because they are ridiculous, but many are fine as long as the legal interpretation isn't performed by a slimy lawyer who works for the sleazy MPAA or RIAA (both of which would probably like to prosecute for the examples I gave above.)

[daamon]

Thanks for that bhouseman2004 but, although loosely related to the general theme of the thread, I think it strays a little too far from the original scenario / question.

And, yes, we all know how nasty people think the MPAA and RIAA are... blah blah rant rant...

It doesn't add anything to a situation I my be facing if I choose to pursue this line of hobby + income.

[bhouseman2004]

My intent was to point out that the RIAA and MPAA don't actually go after people for usage in "private situations". You are going to get people who say it's illegal no matter what or the typical "screw 'em and use it anyway" belief, but it comes down to interpretation and intent does play a part in that. Your wedding videos are being created for private, personal viewing, not for public display or profit by yourself or the clients. Your profit is from filming, editing and creating a video of their private event. The fact that it's private is also the reason you don't have to ask permission of any guest to film them or get a waiver from them.

[daamon]

@ bhouseman2004

Ah - Now I see where you're coming from... I read it as the usual rant that is so often posted without regard to the original question - especially where copyright / MPAA / RIAA are concerned.

But, now you've elaborated, I see the point. Thanks for the clarification.

[illgamma]

so what, if u do a birthday movie and they sing happy birthday, do u have to bleep it out. lol, some laws are so riduculous. but for this situation now that u know its prolly illegal just think wether the risk is worth it. i ask you, do will u think u will lose customers for this? if yes then just do it only if they complain alot.

[Afterburner]

Why,
Can't you buy the music, "back it up" onto the DVD and then transfer the original CD to the happy couple.

[vitualis]

Firstly, a lot of people here are completely missing the point and obviously don't understand what "Fair Use" is. "Fair Use" doesn't mean you can do whatever you want as long as YOU consider it "fair". It is a very specific and narrow set of provisions where it is considered "okay" to breach copyright.

Here is one example that is not covered by fair use: providing a service (free or otherwise) to somebody else to backup their CDs/DVDs.

Under "Fair Use" provisions, you can backup your own CDs / DVD etc. Format shifiting is generally considered okay (e.g., CD --> tape or MP3, etc.) However, that does not cover re-broadcasting the audio, especially for commercial purposes (e.g., playing back a commercial CD in the waiting room of your business, etc.).

It can probably be argued that Fair Use also does not cover you for using the audio in your OWN creative projects (e.g., using music in a wedding video) or broadcast during an event (e.g., at a wedding) though this is firmly in a grey area.

In terms of using music to create somebody else's wedding video and doing so for profit, is is definitely outside the bounds of Fair Use. If you get caught, you will probably be fined and/or sued.

It would be no different for me providing a service where I will create a "music mix" CD for other people as long as their own all the original music. As long as YOU own all the music, you can do it for yourself but you can't provide a service to another person.

As for the faecitious argument of "buying" the music, doing the backup and then "selling" it back, that doesn't work. You can't buy or sell the backup. You should be destroying the backup when you sell it back.

Regards.

[dphirschler]

If you have a party at your house and you play a CD for all to hear. Do you need to pay royalties? How about if you let the radio play or one of those cable radio stations? This is so fucked up.


Darryl

[Supreme2k]

Here's one for you. What happens to the twelve year old kid playing music on his portable CD player who turns the volume up so that everyone for 50 feet can hear it clearly? If he happens to be at a mall, should the cops cuff him for public performance/display of a copyrighted work?

No. For disturbing the peace.
Seriously, though, it's not a violent crime, so the police would say "Turn that off!", if they gave a crap. Very few (if any) uniformed cops know/care about copyright laws.

What if someone glances in your car and watches the Disney film playing on the portable DVD player in your back seat?

That's Invasion of Privacy.

These are technically illegal actions because they violate the LETTER of the law.

So is jaywalking. Rarely will police cite you for jaywalking, unless it's on a busy street. It's all about enforcement.

[aero]

If you have a party at your house and you play a CD for all to hear. Do you need to pay royalties? How about if you let the radio play or one of those cable radio stations? This is so fucked up.
Darryl

these discussions always turn out have comments by people who have no idea of copyright just bandying about really false analogies.

If you charge for that party, make a living doing it, then yes you need to pay royalties.

If I rent amovie and play it for my friends at my house do I need to pay more royalties? No. But if I charge to attend? duh, of course

How about if I make copies of my wedding reception music mix and hand them to my friends? Of course it is a violation. If yuo don't think so, then how about if I showed "my big fat greek wedding" at my wedding. Hey I bought a copy. you may as well ask why you can't tack the film onto a wedding video?

[overloaded_ide]

I skipped about half of this threads replies. But having read much of the copyright laws and done business with comercail cd stampers hears my thoughts and knowledge.

1, first and formost, go look at the contracts and statements nearly EVERY comercail press has! The client is resonsible for any copyright violations!!
YES it can, may, and will hold water for those of you I read claiming it will not. It MAY NOT also, but forcing them to sign the paper is NO addmision of anything!! Actually you should have at least a generic form that says ANYTHING supplied by the client is their resonsibilty. Then you don't have to say Hounddog by Elvis presley was supplied by client, as that would be knowledge of what it was. One of the key things to a defense would be that you did not know what the item was! It was music or a song, but you have NO other knowledge of it other than what the clients states!
As they say ignorance of the law is no excuse, BUT that is not the case here. You can be fully aware of copyright laws, the question is did you know the item was copyrighted though??

Do you really think anyone anywhere in the world really knows what every piece of music is, where it came from, every artist that ever sung a solo, how old it is, if it has a copyright etc....

If you never heard of Elvis Presly in your life then you would not know what any of his hit songs were RIGHT. You would not reconize the voice etc..., so if a client walks in and says this is me singing in the bath tub how do you know it was elvis on a bad day at home like some of those un-released songs were?? I am a big Elvis fan, but some of that stuff was not re-leased for reason!!!
So you never heard of the song, You don't reconize the aritist, etc.. you have no way to know the client is lying to you! That IS a reasonable defense and would probably win. On the other hand a number one hit of Elvis it might be hard to get away with especially if professionally recorded in a studio.

I make CD's for bands at times, I don't listen to that type of music and actually hate to make some of those disks when I have to listen to them.
It is THIER responsabilty to secure the rights to use any song, NOT MINE!
If some punk rapper says hey I just wrote this make me a CD, how am I to know it's somone elses song and he stole it? I don't listen to that crap!!
As a CD producer, yes I have to take the word of the client that they actually wrote the song themselfs unless it's something I actually know myself. Most of the time the law will account for this and it's the client that's gonna get hit for a violation though it's still a pain in the rear to be involved at all! It actually says so in the copyright laws!

2. Copyright laws are confusing and just plain stupid at best. But it does state direct and to the point, I think it was around chapter 11 articall 13 or something like that, that producing a product with beleave that the client owns or has secured the rights is NOT a copyright violation! SOmewhere about that same section or subsection it also states that SELLING a product is not a violation if you had nothing to do with it's production. Like if I buy a bunch of disks wholesale to resale I am not quilty of anything if those disks are pirate copies and I had no knowledge of that fact. It clearly states this fact in those laws!!
I am required on notice to surrender the merchandise, destroy it, or whatever. But I am not guilty of copyright violations in either case, it would be the person or company contracting the manufacturing of any product that is the guilty party. READ THE LAWS!

Although it does also state I must stop upon notice, so If I am told of a violation and continue to manufacture or purchase the items after being notified, then that is a violation of some type!

3. It clearly states that the copyright holder must notify you personally themselfs that you are violating their copyright and inform you to stop. If you do not stop they can file against you etc.. but they must provide you with notice first and the burden of proof is on them. If you question rather they actually own those rights, then they must supply the proof to you that they do! This is BEFORE they can take any legal action!

4. Most of the courts don't even know what the laws are themselfs so good luck with anything in court if you get there!!!

5. Reproduction for advertising purposes is NOT considered a copyright violation! That IS in the laws somewhere, I have read it Myself Personally!!

You could always claim the addition of the music was to advertise that artist and album. Give space in the credits in the end, mention available to purchse from Amazon, you advertised! But don't expect that to hold up in court to well though. I was being sarcastic, but that is in the LAWS!

People need to read the laws, not just talk about them or listen to the opions of other people who have never read them either.
That's why this country is getting to be such a mess, no-one does anything themselfs, hire a lawer to read them for you and you still know nothing yourself!! Read them yourself, then ask a lawer questions if you want! The laws are on the web!!! Ready to read anytime!! Don't have the link handy, it's been about a year since I last read through them. I needed something specific at the time.

Knowing that part about reproduction for advertising purpose saved my but big time once, long ago! I was a reseller for a product and I was advertising it, but in a way I geuss the company did not like to well because one day I got a call from a bigtime corperate lawer informing me legal action was going to be taken because I was violating their copyrights. I shut him up real fast when I quoted back that part of the law to him. Then I informed him I would be happy to stop selling the poducts and stop advertising it also.
I never heard from them again!
Talked to 2 lawers about it just in case, only one of them even knew the law and was confused on it, I had to show it to the other one myself. Then he said oh yea.
So if I had hired him and went to court, even though I was perfectly legal and within my rights under the law I would have lost if I had not read them myself to show to the lawer!

It's a major pain to do, but read the law yourself, understand it yourself the best you can, anything your not sure about ask several lawers the same question and see if you get the same answers!

Look up those things I mentioned, they are in there!

Now if that's a comercail #1 hit CD it would be kinda hard to claim you had no knowledge. BUT if it were a homemade cassette tape or cd of a so so song you could claim you never heard of it yourself, that the client claimed it was her bothers band, playing a song they wrote themselfs, recorded while they played a gig at the local bar one Saturdaynight.

I've actually had a couple people try to pull that on me a few times wanting copies made, but I didn't do it because I knew the song itself.
It was them recording the song, but they did not write it!! I knew who did though and relayed the message to them. They weren't too happy about it either and I never hear of that little band anymore!

The fact is most artists and songwriters I have known don't really mind the little things like this. It's a different story if your doing something big like a movie, TV show, comercail, etc... then they care. Most of these guys I know would rather you make 3 or 4 and never bother them at all than get a thousand letters from fans asking can I use this for one video for personal use of my kid swimming in the back yard pool. They don't want the bother of answering all those letters and asking for $2 they know over half would never send anyway. They can't answer that many letters and don't want too either.

Now the RIAA pigs would probably demand $100 at least though.

Rather it's legal or not depends on exactly what it is! Today there are groups, single artists, writers ect.. that favor people having the right to use the things we buy, like thier CDS!! Many of them kinda silently support buyers rights, but cannot openly say so because they would be black balled by the RIAA and you'd most likely never hear of new CDS from them and old ones would not be played on the radio nearly as much either. SO many of them favor our rights and don't care about these little things, but cannot say so or they would out of the biz!!

Some on the other hand have said so, some have put their own music on P2P networks themselfs or have free downloads from their own websites ect..

Another thing is although you are doing the work, it belongs to the client. It's their CD and their wedding, so if a group/artist says free for not for profit use, really it still is not for profit even though you are being paid to do the work. You are not selling the song, you are only selling the ability to add it to the clients disk for the client. That would be ok in that case, but if you were suppling the song/music at an extra fee to anyone who wanted it, then you would be useing it for profit and that would not be ok.

There is a work in progress a friend is working on, a pretty big deal, and any part of that music and video DVD will be free to reproduce anyway people want. It will say so in many places. It will be copyrighted, but free to copy!!
The intent is to be like AOL disk, free to everyone and everyhome should have 3 copies under coffee cups just like AOL disks!!

Supposedly should be out sometime next year, and hopefully be a real pain in the a$$ to RIAA too, though that's not the actuall intent we all can hope so anyway!!!

[housepig]

People need to read the laws, not just talk about them or listen to the opions of other people who have never read them either.

how about the opinions of people who talk about parts of the law they read about once, and contracts and waivers that they've seen, but don't actually give any kind of citation or supporting evidence for? should we listen to them?

[jaxxboss]

The couple owns the music cd, so instead of adding the music to a dvd just add the movie to the music cd then all is hunky dorey. Now, dont go asking me HOW to add the movie to the CD, that's another story.

[overloaded_ide]

overloaded_ide wrote:

People need to read the laws, not just talk about them or listen to the opions of other people who have never read them either.


how about the opinions of people who talk about parts of the law they read about once, and contracts and waivers that they've seen, but don't actually give any kind of citation or supporting evidence for? should we listen to them?

Uh,
They should go read the laws and find the part that was talked about maybe and see if anything else interesting turns up also

It took me many hours to wade through all the garbage, done it several times myself already. I did have many items bookmarked but lost them all since then. I'll probably do it again soon since I keep runing into these type copyright posts at times. Then I can just cut and paist for direct quotes and stick a link on too. Not really wanting to do that right now, but it's there if a person want to look for it themselfs!
I'm not a lawer, don't claim to be, don't want to be! But I do ALOT of research for my own stuff, and I do it myself, I don't pay someone else to do it for me!

Kinda like when I was helping set up a non-profit corp, I mention to a political figure I was thnking of setting up my own also soon. Oh it's so complicated they claimed and they just could not fathom how an individaul could be non-profit and all kinds of ignorant bull! Supposedly they have formed a couple For profit corps themselfs. Obviously they did not form their own, they paid someone else to do it for them since they didn't know the first thing about it! And they claimed it takes so long and other crapola. Takes 24hrs (in that state) plus the time the forms travel in the postal system to get there.
Comming from a governmant officail. Well duh, you fill out the forms as the incorportater, pay a fee, and due all the other paper work involved in operating a corporation. In some states (several) one person can hold all the officer positions. THAT'S how an individaul becomes a non-profit Corp!
Then file the proper forms with the federal IRS also. That's no big deal either!

And a for profit corp is the same thing basically to form one, just different forms. And what state you form in has alot of beneifits and it does not have to be your home state nor do you even need to be in that state at all. You use a registerd agent in that state. Registered agent fees run anywhere from $75 up to over several hundred per year and lots of levels of service you can get like they set up your bank accounts, forward mail, phone systems ect... They act as your physical pressence in the state so you never have to even go there.

It's all a matter of doing homework and tons of reading and hopeing to understand half of it and looking up the other half to figure it out also.
Most people don't take the time to do any of that, then others of us try to do it all ourselfs. But then others will try to talk like they know things but it's based on what someone else said or they read someone elses interpetations somewhere and never actually looked anything up themselfs.

That's why I said read the laws. Also things can change and people make mistakes. What I said is written in the copyright laws is correct, it is there but will probably take along time to find. You'd be surprised how much is related to just vessel hauls and how often they are mentioned. I geuss that must have been the main focas of US copyright laws when first written, protecting boat/ship designs

Right now the only government sites I'm actually interested in studying are varirous states for incorportating to see where my best options lay.
It's narrowed down to Nevada or Wyoming right now, I illiminated about 38 states or more so far but a few to go yet. That's not fast either, sometimes something pops right out and says NOT HERE but most the time you gotta dig deep to find why not. Delaware its stock related, Ar. they are jumping the franchise fee next year to several hundred a year. Some states have no corperate tax and some have no personal income tax ect... but then some have personal property taxes that are bad. I can incorporate anytime anywhere, but I consider it to be a long term investment and looking for the best place!!

[Tranceaddict]

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.

no, its not work... its a waste of time.... unless you can find 10,000 sheep that will line the pockets of your friendly politician, they are NOT INTERESTED IN TALKING TO YOU..... its a fact of life....

[aero]

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.

no, its not work... its a waste of time.... unless you can find 10,000 sheep that will line the pockets of your friendly politician, they are NOT INTERESTED IN TALKING TO YOU..... its a fact of life....

what has got to do with this discussion? The guy asked if it is a violation to do this service without royalities. It is. It is -- and was -- long before there was an MPAA, a RIAA, for goodness sakes.
you have decided to post no facts, and just invective about the RIAA, when the RIAa has nothing to do with the laws in question.

[Capmaster]

what has got to do with this discussion?

Seemed like an appropriate post to me

[Tranceaddict]

what has got to do with this discussion?

Seemed like an appropriate post to me

i agree... my post had everything to do with this discussion... you just don't get it... sorry about that...

[carolann]

What about copying a song off the radiowaves? That is definitely OK as long as it's for personal use.

[tmw]

Do you think the band (or DJ) paid royalties for all the songs they performed?

If your DVD including these songs as part of the audio, are you also required to pay royalties?

It seems like you can justify this to yourself (e.g. the couple has the music, limited personal use distribution) which should drive your actions.

I personally do things I think are fair, rather than something which may be legal. When I see I was undercharged, I inform the clerk (so I can pay more) because it's the right thing to do, even though I may be legal in leaving with my stuff while undercharged (it was their mistake, not mine, so I am not liable).

Trust your judgement, and when you get to be a million dollar business, let your lawyer worry about the legal liability...

[Capmaster]

What about copying a song off the radiowaves? That is definitely OK as long as it's for personal use.

Good question. I would guess it's OK for personal use, but again, any rebroadcast or playing it for an audience would be a no-no (yeah, like an audience would want to hear a song you recorded off the radio )

[Tranceaddict]

exactly, and this couple is using this for personal use.. so i say , go for it!

[daamon]

All,

I've been following this thread closely even though I haven't contributed much after starting it - I wanted people to post without my questioning their comments (apart from the pointless ones!) and just let it take it's natural course.

I have to say, it's been interesting reading and it's certainly enlightened me as to the minefield of copyright law - thank you to thos who've made wortwhile contributions (including the odd bit of humour!).

The thing that spurned me to post now was:

I personally do things I think are fair, rather than something which may be legal.

...which, to me, is a good point - I'm the same. I recently 'fessed up to being given $110 too much change - the poor guy was just a trainee as well.

With all that's been said - about fair use, the artists not interested in "the small guys" using their material, the fact that it's not going to be publicly broadcast or widely distributed and the fact that I'll just be earning a crust and I'm not some millionaire mogul ripping the artists off (i.e. being fair) - then I reckon, if I do get into the wedding video game, I'll "go for it".

So, thanks again for all thos who've contributed and I look forward to further additions.

Cheers.

[adam]

To clear up a few things...

Brent212, No, copying a cd you own to make one for your car, or ripping your cds to mp3s is NOT legal in the United States. Ipod is intended to be used with mp3s that you have purchased, and the license expressly gives you certain shifting rights, ie: format shifting, and it also allows you to make certain copies. The copyright holder of your individual cds never gave you these rights.

Vitualis, actually in the US the exact same thing goes for DVDs. Copying a DVD is not considered a Fair Use right. I can say this definitively because no US court has ever addressed the issue, and Fair Use is completely case driven.

To address someone else's concern regarding the legality of this site, it is an international forum. Just because backing up a DVD is technically illegal in the United States that doesn't mean we can't discuss the issue generally.

Regarding the happy birthday song. If you read the links I posted you will see that royalties do not have to be paid except for commercial use. Now you can of course still violate the copyright without it being a commercial transaction, but singing happy birthday at a party, even with the camera rolling, does not violate any provision of Title 17.


bhouseman2004: None of the examples you mentioned come anywhere close to violating copyright. Those aren't even incidental infringments. If you are playing music for yourself or watching a movie for yourself, and you happen to be in public, it doesn't matter who sees it because you are not using it for commercial purposes and you are not displaying it to the public. Just because someone happens to see or hear copyrighted works that does not violate copyright law.

carolann: You are misinterpreting the law regarding Fair Use protected time shifting. Just because it is broadcasted on air that does not mean you can use it for any personal purpose you want. As opposed to physical mediums like CDs, DVDs, etc... you can time shift broadcasted material. This means that whatever you had the right to watch at one time, you can record it and excersize that right at a later time. So you can tape it to VHS and watch it the next day, and after that you are legally supposed to erase it. Just because its been broadcasted on air that doesn't mean that its copyright protection has been removed.

Most of the people in this thread who are complaining about the illogic of copyright law are complaining about acts which are entirely legal, while simultaneously defending as legal, certain acts which are in fact illegal under US law (ie: backing up cds, dvds etc..)

[aero]

what has got to do with this discussion?

Seemed like an appropriate post to me

You are mistaken. these particular laws are not DCMA, or inspired by the MPAA or RIAA.

As someone pointed out above the citations being made are totally in error. People are taking extreme examples and saying "why can't I do this" when they can. Some examples are extremes when taken to their conculsion mean no protection for full dvd films. As I said byt the logic of allowing this, one could simply have any event, call it personal and thenm amke copies of anything shown?

Here is a hypothetical:
Let's say I watched the Lord of the Rings on DVD with some friends at a lord of the rings fan club reunion. Should a professional company, amking money, be able to place the full film on DVD along with some pictures of our meeting and distribute it to anyone as it was part of an event we held?