Re: [videoblogging] Re: Legality of adding music?
i really really appreciate this post. these resources are important to know. and just to back it up with some facts... at my community TV station, no one has ever been sued for copyright infringement... eventhough there are hundreds of uses of copyrighted material aired each day. Producers use music, TV clips, movie clips. Again, i feel its becasue no one is earning a penny that no attention is paid. also, a producer isnt just playing a song on a black screen.....he'll put the music with images he's selected. One guy does a famous show called "Concrete TV" that he's done for 10 years now. It's 100% copyrighted material. What he does is edit togther tiny clips from movies and TV. It's all car chases, gun fights, dancing, laughter, sex scenes, explosions...quickly cut together. no scene is more than 5 seconds long. imagine if he had to get permission for each clip he used. Long live FairUse. Long live more people using Creative Commons so we dont have to have these dumb arguments. On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 06:10:08 -0000, vivarey <rick@...> wrote: > > > --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Adrian Miles wrote: > > not in this country in the current climate. We have had uni students > > prosecuted... > > Hi Adrian and others- > > I agree the current climate is one of caution. But, I think what we're > talking about here (adding music onto non-commercial video) is a lot > different than students downloading music -- if those are indeed the > lawsuits you are referencing. > > Because videoblogging is so new, I don't think a precedent is set. > What would be most analogous thing, then, to videoblogging? Home video > production? Public access TV? I wonder, have there been any documented > cases of litigation in those areas when music clips were added sans > permission? > > I've been doing some reading on Copyright & Fair Use, and I think it > really depends on how you interpret the policy. Fair Use allows for > "transformative" use of copyrighted material. What does this mean? > According to Stanford University Libraries (link at bottom): > > "So what is a "transformative" use? If this definition seems ambiguous > or vague, be aware that millions of dollars in legal fees have been > spent attempting to define what qualifies as a fair use. There are no > hard-and-fast rules, only general rules and varying court decisions. > That's because the judges and lawmakers who created the fair use > exception did not want to limit the definition of fair use. They > wanted it--like free speech--to have an expansive meaning that could > be open to interpretation. > > In a 1994 case, the Supreme Court emphasized [transformative use as > the] primary indicator of fair use. At issue is whether the material > has been used to help create something new, or merely copied verbatim > into another work. When taking portions of copyrighted work, ask > yourself the following questions: > > * Has the material you have taken from the original work been > transformed by adding new expression or meaning? > * Was value added to the original by creating new information, new > aesthetics, new insights and understandings?" > > They later give an example of transformative use: > > "Roger borrows several quotes from the speech given by the CEO of a > logging company. Roger prints these quotes under photos of old-growth > redwoods in his environmental newsletter. By juxtaposing the quotes > with the photos of endangered trees, Roger has transformed the remarks > from their original purpose and used them to create a new insight. The > copying would probably be permitted as a fair use." > > Here is what I interpret from that explanation. The act of playing a > music clip on top of a visual image (e.g. on video) would probably > qualify as fair use, because the visual image would surely add new > expression and/or meaning to the original music. > > One last piece of information -- The Copyright Crash Course (link at > bottom), which is published by the University of Texas under a > Creative Commons License, discusses something known as the Good Faith > Fair Use Defense. They say: > > "There is one special provision of the law that allows a court to > refuse to award any damages at all if it so chooses, even if the > copying at issue was not a fair use. It is called the good faith fair > use defense [17 USC 504(c)(2)]. It only applies if the person who > copied material reasonably believed that what he or she did was a fair > use - as would likely be the case if you followed this Policy! If you > qualify for this defense, it makes you a very poor prospect for a > lawsuit. On the other hand, if you disregard sound advice about fair > use, a court would be free to award the highest level of damages > available. This makes someone who ignores policies a handsome target > for a lawsuit." > > I'd like to hear everyone's comments on this, because I think it's an > important topic for videobloggers. > > Copyright Crash Course: > http://www.utsystem.edu/ogc/intellectualproperty/cprtindx.htm > > Stanford U Copyright & Fair Use: > http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use > _Overview/chapter9/index.html > > ***Please note, this message has just been my personal interpretation > of Fair Use. Don't use it as your sole defense for using copyrighted > materials! Instead, use it as a spring board for your own research. > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > >