If I use an MP3 I have when making a video

[Inchworm]

and give credit in the file itself to the audio but not visually on the video...

Then post it on the internet.

Am I still a pirate? Arrr!

:shrug:

-the mp3 is from my CD I purchased
-I assume the tag will be embedded into the video file

[cbdo2007]

1. are you using it with or without the artist's permission? Also, is the site where you

post it paying royalties for making money off of that piece of music?

[Inchworm]

6. I guess

It is for a non-profit.

Noone is making money. I'm just "selling" unwanted dogs and cats.

Crazy rules.

[cbdo2007]

13. I would get a team of lawyers involved if I were you.....

you cant be too cautious.

No, really you should be fine as probably not more than 100 people are even going to see your video but I definitely wouldn't use a Prince song or a Metallica song or anyone else who is particularly worked up about this issue. Also, if the song is already commonly associated with something else then that may draw attention to it, but if it's just a song by someone that you like then it should be fine.

For clarification though, even non-profits make money and need to pay artists for their works, look at churches. They have to pay royalties nowadays on much of the current music that they use and what not. If a non-profit organization exists and expecially if they have a web site, they are trying to make money.

There are of course ways around this though and like I said above, the chances you're going to get singled out are probably close to none. Good luck!

[paulk]

2. you should give credit on the video, so that anyone watching,

who might hear the music and like it, would know who made it and could, perhaps, go and buy the music.

at the very least -

and if you or the website is making money from the video - yes, you are stealing

even if you aren't making any money, you are still technically stealing the music - stealing the fruits of someone else's labor, as it were...

---------------------


I've had my music used, without permission, on a video where the video maker received a 50k grant to make the video - all I got was my name on the video. It kinda sucked.

[Inchworm]

8. Good point

And seems fair.

Thanks.

:hi:

[begin_within]

3. Get permission in writing from whoever owns the copyright to that audio recording,

as well as permission from the copyright owner of the music piece (i.e., the composer), in both cases permission to use that piece of music and that audio recording, and you will have nothing to worry about. If you use it without permission you will be violating U.S. law.

[eShirl]

7. unless the "fair use" clause applies

providing one is willing to weather the expense of arguing that in court

[Inchworm]

9. Great googly moogly!

I bet they get a lot of mail.

Seems silly to me. It brings up several questions in my head though.

Are jukeboxes outlawed now? hehe I guess I'm out of touch. I didn't follow all that Metallica news.

[Atman]

Jukeboxes pay royalties.

Yup. Most jukeboxes play MP3s now, which are easily auditable, and the jukebox vendor responsible for installing the machine pays royalties on the music played.

[rfranklin]

16. Jukeboxes played music for money and paid royalties to ASCAP...

which then paid the copyright owners of the music.

[Inchworm]

18. Wow - didn't know that jukebox operators did that

That too makes sense.

Live bands have to do this as well?

:shrug:

PS: I'm just learning here.

[rfranklin]

22. Yes...

Title II of the
“Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act,”1 which relates to the performance of
copyrighted music in small businesses, amended the Copyright Act by exempting certain
establishments from copyright infringement for playing radio and television programs.
These establishments still need performance licenses if they host live music performances

http://www.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/crsreports/crsdocuments/RS21107.pdf

[cbdo2007]

24. Yep....even the crappiest band playing in your local bar *should* be

paying royalties on the covers they play. I think...it is up to the bar to keep track and notify ASCAP of the songs played and then to pay the royalties (probably just a few cents per song or something?) to ASCAP who then distributes to the music publisher/artists.

In fact there was a news story a few months back where one of the record companies actually went after some really really small clubs for not paying royalties for the music they were playing and it was kind of a big story where they made the bar owners out to be the victims cause they were the "little guy" and the musicians are all rich. I just searched but couldn't find it.

I've even known someone with a very small gift shop in a small tourist town, they were sent a Cease & Desist from one of the record companies because she was playing a Christmas CD (I don't remember what artist it was, maybe Tony Bennett or something) on the CD playing during the holidays for store ambiance and the CD was there for sale, but they made her stop playing it because she wasn't paying royalties.

[Inchworm]

26. Interesting stuff

Thanks again

[hlthe2b]

37. the tiny gift shop should have been exempted per the Sonny Bono

provisions posted upstream, that exempts small business simply playing rather than presenting as performance.... at least as I read it.

[cbdo2007]

42. That may be true......

but for a small business owner who is barely bringing in enough money to stay in business to begin with, it isn't worth going to court over. She found a local musician instead who was thrilled to have her playing her music.

[begin_within]

46. Well, if you want to have all your bases covered,

get permission in writing from anyone who owns the rights to anything that you are using, or even composed the music (unless the copyright is expired or there never was a copyright, i.e. the composition of Beethoven's music - while a new recording of it has the copyright of the recording of it though not the composition). Also get permission in writing from anyone who appears in your video. In other words, have written permission on record from anyone who has any connection to the audio or video, and then you'll have your bases covered and won't appear in court over it, or if you are, you'll be prepared.

[Romulox]

4. It really depends on what the purpose of your video is...nt

[Inchworm]

10. Making puppy videos to create more interest

It is an idea in progress. I just want to do it right (right by silly rules).

:hi:

[Romulox]

14. You may have a decent Fair Use argument there...

The following is the test courts use. I would imagine the non-profit nature of your work and the effect on the potential market arguments would factor strongly.

I might suggest interspersing the music with pauses or voice-overs to make it less likely somebody could "rip" a good copy of the song from your video.

§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use40

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

[Inchworm]

20. Thanks

It is just 30secs to 1min parts of songs. You can imagine... "who let the dogs out" plays as the dogs rush out of a door...

This is an interesting topic though.

:yourock:

[cbdo2007]

17. Are you making an actual video or a slide show?

Some sites such as www.slide.com will let you create a free slide show and they let you include music with it, though your options of the music available may be limited.

Also, you could create your video and have it play and then also post a free playlist from a site called www.playlist.com where you create a playlist from whatever songs are available in their library. They have A LOT of songs available, so you could just try to find your one song and put it on repeat, then post the video and the playlist on the page together so that they both play simultaneously. It MAY work if you want to give that a try. Then at least you wouldn't be liable, Playlist.com would be. You post the Playlist the same you would post a hosted video, with HTML code.

Just some ideas.

[Inchworm]

21. It is video with slides within

I'll check out those sites.

Thanks.

[jdlh8894]

5. Not a pirate

Illegal Distributor maybe.

[Inchworm]

11. Darn

That doesn't sound as cool.

:(

[Atman]

12. Actually, you have no legal right to use and republish the artist's work

without their permission. Don't listen to any of the rationalizers who say it's okay if you're not making money, or it's okay if this and okay if that. It is never "okay" unless you receive specific permission from the original creator of the work you're using. That's the law, and it is also just the proverbial "right thing to do."

.

[Romulox]

15. You don't know what you're talking about. 17 USC 107--look it up.

Fair Use is also US law! :hi:

[Atman]

29. "Fair Use" is very often interpreted wrongly by people like you...

...who seem to think you know what is legal. When the law states "for educational purposes," for instance, it actually is meant to mean referencing a piece in an educational text or manner, NOT just using the work and saying you're educating people. Also, on of the provisions of "fair use" is that the work is NOT distributed on an open network, such as You Tube.

As for music, it is generally accepted that using a brief snippet of less than five seconds is also "fair use." Google "Disney Fair Use Video" for some very interesting legal opinions, and a very cool video "test case" using snippets of Disney movies to create an entirely new movie.

And don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about until YOU know what YOU are talking about. I hold several hundred copyrights, and I actually know quite a bit about this stuff.

:hi: right back atcha!

.

[Romulox]

43. You're still off base. Fair Use isn't limited to educational situations

nor is there any per se definition based on a set amount of seconds.

"And don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about until YOU know what YOU are talking about."

OK. A determination that a use is "fair" requires a four part test in which no factor predominates. Nor is the fair use doctrine limited to educational or not-for-profit uses. So to say that a use is per se "not fair use" is not possible until a court has weighed all four factors.

"I hold several hundred copyrights, and I actually know quite a bit about this stuff."

Holding copyrights does not make one an expert on copyright law. :hi:

[Atman]

45. I didn't say it was LIMITED to educational use!

It is one of the factors, that is what I said, same as you. And while there is no set number of seconds, it is generally accepted to be about five, especially if the section being used doesn't necessarily have to adhere to a set length (ie, you are reporting on a ten second clip, you can obviously show ten seconds).

The trouble is, different people here talking about different things. You are trying to help people on this thread believe that they can copy anyone else's intellectual property and as long as they think it's fair, it's okay to use. Not the case. "Fair use" was not intended to allow people to make mash-ups and upload their own videos to You Tube, as so many here seem to believe. It's intent was to allow for the uses you and I are both basically agreeing on -- editorial usage, reviews, commentary, etc, NOT for any kid with a PC to do a Google image search and create their own videos.

.

[Romulox]

47. A basic rule of legal construction is that "such as" lists are not exhaustive...

"And while there is no set number of seconds, it is generally accepted to be about five,"

No, it's not. Nor can you cite any case law to that effect.

[Atman]

48. I'm not citing case law. I'm citing reality.

Now you'll hop upon your high horse again and explain to me that "case law" IS "reality," but you'd still be missing the point, and you'd still be a pompous ass riding a high horse. You know as well as I do why the clips in the Disney test video are limited to under five seconds. You know as well as I do why MSNBC limits it's bumper music segments to a few seconds. Maybe you know MORE than I do, but you don't seem to want to demonstrate it, you just keep whipping that horse's ass yelling "GIDDYUP!"

I am not making a legal case. I am not speaking before the SCOTUS or even a local judge. I am relating my years of experience and knowledge of a certain subject which I am duly qualified to discuss. You, OTOH, are being the usual tool you tend to be in every thread in which we have had encounters, regardless of subject matter. You ALWAYS know everything (this is where you chime in that you've never heard of me, as you've done in all the other threads).

Your act grows weary. I'm simply giving some practical advice to people reading the thread, not attempting to prepare them for multi-million dollar Supreme Court challenges, as you seem to be doing.

:eyes:

.

[Romulox]

50. What controlling authority *can* you cite then? Or is all of this just "horse sense"?

That's the way the law works: you must cite controlling authority, if you wish to make assertions as to what the law is.

"I am not making a legal case."

You've made several pronouncements about what "the law" is, which you now admit were completely untutored--and it was as a favor to everyone else?

Hookay. I suggest you fling a couple ad homs, lick you wounds, and slink off. :silly:

[Inchworm]

23. Seems crazy to me, really

even proverbially

The law seems askew. Maybe that's why my daughter got a loud music ticket while cruising town years ago: she needed permission to rock.

I kid ;)

[havocmom]

28. Yep, and as illustration: think of politicians who have used music without consent

Rallies, ads, whatever... pols might argue they aren't making money from the use of copyrighted material, but the owners of the materials used have taken up the fight. They have a right to control HOW their material is used, whether money is being made or not.

Some musicians just didn't want their work associated with John McCain. (and who could blame them?) They have the right to refuse letting his campaign use material which is copyrighted. Artists, publishers, owners have the right to decide what their materials will be related to.

[Statistical]

19. Depending on the use it may (or may not) fall under fair use.

Doesn't mean the record industry won't harass you though.

You DO have fair use rights.

Fair use is a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as for commentary, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching or scholarship. It provides for the legal, non-licensed citation or incorporation of copyrighted material in another author's work under a four-factor balancing test. The term "fair use" originated in the United States. A similar principle, fair dealing, exists in some other common law jurisdictions. Civil law jurisdictions have other limitations and exceptions to copyright.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

However fair use is not black & white. It really is shades of gray.

If your use of another person's copyrighted work without permission does not fall under fair use then it is an illegal violation of copyright act.

[Inchworm]

25. And.. it seems if my purpose falls under Fair Use

Then the video makes it to Youtube or some other site, the fair use may fall out the window.

Confusing.

:crazy:

[Statistical]

27. Yeah it is confusing.

Also even if you were 100% convinced it is fair use the RIAA may see it differently and request cease & desist. At which point it comes down to convictions vs $$$$.

Copyright reform is desperately needed in this country.

Copyrights were intended to provide a short window of guaranteed income to the creator. They were never intended to create lifetime (or in case of corporations multiple lifetimes) worth of guaranteed revenue. They were never intended to stifle creative and free expression.

What passes for Copyright law today is a bastardization of the original intent.

[Atman]

30. It's not really confusing: if it's not yours, don't use it without permission.

If the work displays a "creative commons" license granting permission (usually limited, too) you're generally safe. Otherwise, it's like any other property -- if it's not yours you have no right to use it without asking the owner's consent. Pretty simple.

.

[Statistical]

31. No it isn't that simple. YOU HAVE FAIR USE RIGHTS!

The idea that a Copyright is absolute and applies under all conditions is 100% wrong.

Stop being a supporter of the RIAA and learn what rights under the law you have.

[Atman]

34. I can't stand the RIAA, and you DO NOT automatically have "fair use" rights.

What's with conflating my understanding of copyright law to support of the RIAA? Bullshit, man! Pure bullshit. We're talking about two different things. People seem to think that anything they find on the internet now means "FAIR USE! I can do anything with it if I can download it!" Stop supporting Fox News! Or whatever you're doing (See, I can make bullshit connections to non-existence issues, just as you can!)

BTW, the copyright law is a LAW, and it does apply under every condition which it is written to cover. "Fair Use" has certain limitations, and just because YOU think it is fair doesn't mean the owner of the copyright has to agree with you. I've had plenty of my designs used by people who think it's "fair" because they weren't making money off them -- doesn't mean I accept it, or let it ride. They always get a cease and desist. More importantly, I almost universally grant permission to anyone who simply takes the time to ASK, as long as they're not in it for profit.

Rationalize all you want - stealing is still stealing.

.

[Statistical]

39. Did you even read my post. I never said fair uses covers everything.

You really need to read before you respond.


Here let me give you a quote:
"Depending on the use it may (or may not) fall under fair use."

[Atman]

40. Maybe you need to do the same -- start by reading your own posts!

You can begin by telling me where I ever uttered anything like this, which was the basis of your response to me...

"The idea that a Copyright is absolute and applies under all conditions is 100% wrong."

I simply never made such a blanket statement. However, copyright law ALWAYS applies to copyrighted material. 100% of the time.
So before you get your panties in a bunch, maybe you should step back and consider WHY I responded as I did.

.

[Inchworm]

32. Is there a time limit?

Like, if I only used 40+ year old music?

How about classical stuff?

It is confusing to someone like me without a clue. That's why I posed the question here.

To learn more about it and to try to be as right as I can. Well, it seems that I may also find out the details of rules, so if I do violate or apply my rationalities, I'll at least know that I'm doing it.

I appreciate your points.

:hi:

[Atman]

36. Classical music is generally copyright-free.

However, a particular orchestra's RECORDING of a performance might be copyrighted. That part is confusing, but usually it's pretty easy to find royalty-free classical music.

Also, you might try a stock music agency, like Opus. Lots of them online. I think even iStock sells music now. It's very cheap, you're covered legally, and you'll enjoy good karma for not ripping off the rightful owners.

.

[Spike89]

54. Yes, copyright expires, but 40 years isn't long enough...

over the years, copyright has been extended and extended. There are a number of variables, but in general it currently sits at 70 years from the death of the author/creator or 120 years from creation (or 95 years from publication). So, theoretically, a piece of music written in 1840 by a kid who lived another 100 years would only now be entering the public domain. Of course, the laws were different back then, and that music entered the public domain long ago. Figuring out what is still under copyright protection and what fell through the "cracks" of the various legislative changes keeps IP lawyers busy.

Add in the complications of trademark laws and in some cases, no one really knows for sure when (if ever) certain things will fall into the public domain. A classic case is Mickey Mouse. Steamboat Willy, Mickey's first appearance, came out in 1928 and although it nearly entered the public domain a few times, it currently is protected until 2023. However, it may never have been protected at all due to a technical flaw in the credits. Anyway, even when it enters the public domain, the character of Mickey is an established trademark of the Disney Corp. and they will undoubtedly attempt to protect and restrict use of Mickey.

So, age isn't much help because there just isn't much recorded music that isn't still protected.

[Ozymanithrax]

33. If money is exchanged as a part of the transaction...even to sell pets...yes.

You are a pirate and what you are doing is not different than sneaking into a neighbors house and taking money from his wallet.

[Inchworm]

35. I used "sell" incorrectly

promote?

I get the point though.

:)

[Ozymanithrax]

38. You should contact the onwer of the material or the owner's agent

and ask it if can be used. Many artists are amenible to allowing material to be used for the public good.

[Romulox]

44. This is categorically wrong. The SCOTUS has *specifically* said that commerical use does not

preclude a finding of Fair Use. If you think of the prototypical example, an excerpt used by a book reviewer, you'll see why this is...

[Atman]

49. TOTALLY DIFFERENT THINGS!

A book reviewer reviewing a book tends to require segments of the book in order to make his case. A freelancer hoping for a million hits on You Tube has no such requirement to steal my copyrighted material just to make the case that he can make a cool video. A first-year law student could successfully argue that case.

.

[Spike89]

41. The best way to think of Fair Use...

is as a defense for violating copyright law. In other words, understand that if you use copyrighted material without permission, you may get sued. It will be up to you to prove fair use, and it isn't as simple as some seem to think. Fair use does not come into play simply because you aren't making a profit. The use you described is certainly not fair use. Even teachers using copyrighted material in the classroom have a number of restrictions on how and how much of the content they use and fair use gets very weak when the materials are distributed outside the classroom.

The news and criticism bits of Fair use are specifically for using the content to illustrate or review the content itself. You can use a small piece of the work as part of a critique of it, or a news piece, say a bit on the history of a band. News providers are NOT exempt from copyright.

Ask the artist for permission, or to make things easier on you, go to creative commons and find some music that doesn't have copyright restrictions.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

51. "the mp3 is from my CD I purchased" ... highly doubtful.

Audio Compact Disks use Red Book audio ecoding, a type of pulse-code modulation analagous to Waveform Audio File Format (WAV).
Are you sure you didn't REPRODUCE that copywrited material using a different encoding? :eyes:

(Hint #1: There is another name for REPRODUCTION without CONSENT.)
(Hint #2: "credit" != "consent")

[Spike89]

52. It is legal to make copies!

Seriously, that is a right. You can make archival copies. You can make copies to another format. There is some confusion about copy-protected discs...making a copy is perfectly legal, but getting around the copy-protection is not, so in a sense, making a copy is legal, but impossible without breaking another law.

[Romulox]

53. Backing up your own CDs is perfectly legal. You amateur Clarence Darrows are too much. nt

[Spike89]

55. Unless, it is copy protected

You won't be liable under copyright laws, but you'll be in violation of the digital millennium laws that prohibit bypassing DRM technologies. That law sucks, but it is the law.

[Romulox]

56. Right. But that's the DMCA. Not copyright. nt