Music Legality for Slideshow Video

Dave Blackhurst · February 7th, 2011, 08:10 PM

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury -

#1 The client purchased a license to the media in question, on a CD, as MP3, or whatever, with the accompanying right to play it for personal use and enjoyment.
#2 The client wanted to be able to listen to that music while enjoying a show of his favorite images, something easily accomplished with current technology (Carterphone).
#3 The client could have made the music accompanied slideshow himself on his personal computer, but didn't feel like taking the time to do it...
#4 The client hired the defendant vendor to do it for him, buying a service for a nominal fee, and providing the vendor with the necessary files.
#5 No transfer of license took place, the only thing happening was now the client could enjoy their music while watching their own visual images in the comfort of their own home, or as they so desired.
#6 The vendor only facilitated such useful enjoyment by the client, not any transfer to any mythical "third party"(the license owner cannot ALSO be a "third party"), nor did the vendor retain a copy of the media in question upon completion of the job - the media, along with the accompanying license to play it, was retained by the client.
#7 Once the media was transferred, it would not be possible or feasible to play the music in the original format alongside the transferred work - client could only play one at a time.

The Plaintiff IP holder contends they have suffered irreparable harm, but thus far has failed to prove any monetary damages or loss from the client co-defendants legal and ethical ability to media shift the use of the music the Plaintiff admits they have a valid license to play via whatever system allowing audio playback they own. Plaintiff has also failed to prove that co-defendant vendor had any intention to violate any copyright or do anything other than allow co-defendant client to enjoy the media they ALREADY had the rights to use and play.

Oh nevermind, it wouldn't likely pass Summary Judgement... even in the US.

Admittedly this is a very specific set of "facts", but it's actually the most common and likely scenario faced by someone offering video services for and to the private client. If the client puts in on the Internet, publicly available, all bets are off, but as long as the vendor had nothing to do with that posting, the choice to "share" lies solely with the client, and as long as the vendor does not claim or retain "copyright", instead specifying the client owns the work product...

That's a long stretch even for a creative attorney, and might be why no one seems to be able to come up with any case law specific to this scenario...

While I'm sure the OP might wish they hadn't asked (as is typical with "copyright" questions), I'm sure they now have "food for thought", whatever they choose to do going forward.

Chris Hurd · February 7th, 2011, 11:34 PM

And on that note, we're done. Thanks Dave,

February 7th, 2011, 11:34 PM	#32
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,366 Images: 513	And on that note, we're done. Thanks Dave, __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

February 7th, 2011, 08:10 PM	#31
Dave Blackhurst Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Apple Valley CA Posts: 4,874	Ladies and gentlemen of the jury - #1 The client purchased a license to the media in question, on a CD, as MP3, or whatever, with the accompanying right to play it for personal use and enjoyment. #2 The client wanted to be able to listen to that music while enjoying a show of his favorite images, something easily accomplished with current technology (Carterphone). #3 The client could have made the music accompanied slideshow himself on his personal computer, but didn't feel like taking the time to do it... #4 The client hired the defendant vendor to do it for him, buying a service for a nominal fee, and providing the vendor with the necessary files. #5 No transfer of license took place, the only thing happening was now the client could enjoy their music while watching their own visual images in the comfort of their own home, or as they so desired. #6 The vendor only facilitated such useful enjoyment by the client, not any transfer to any mythical "third party"(the license owner cannot ALSO be a "third party"), nor did the vendor retain a copy of the media in question upon completion of the job - the media, along with the accompanying license to play it, was retained by the client. #7 Once the media was transferred, it would not be possible or feasible to play the music in the original format alongside the transferred work - client could only play one at a time. The Plaintiff IP holder contends they have suffered irreparable harm, but thus far has failed to prove any monetary damages or loss from the client co-defendants legal and ethical ability to media shift the use of the music the Plaintiff admits they have a valid license to play via whatever system allowing audio playback they own. Plaintiff has also failed to prove that co-defendant vendor had any intention to violate any copyright or do anything other than allow co-defendant client to enjoy the media they ALREADY had the rights to use and play. Oh nevermind, it wouldn't likely pass Summary Judgement... even in the US. Admittedly this is a very specific set of "facts", but it's actually the most common and likely scenario faced by someone offering video services for and to the private client. If the client puts in on the Internet, publicly available, all bets are off, but as long as the vendor had nothing to do with that posting, the choice to "share" lies solely with the client, and as long as the vendor does not claim or retain "copyright", instead specifying the client owns the work product... That's a long stretch even for a creative attorney, and might be why no one seems to be able to come up with any case law specific to this scenario... While I'm sure the OP might wish they hadn't asked (as is typical with "copyright" questions), I'm sure they now have "food for thought", whatever they choose to do going forward.