I've been watching other peoples demo reels on the web and see a lot of copyright music being used. Is this as big a faux pas as I assumed it was?

u can use licensed muic if u apply for a license... which really isnt al that expensive..

<<<-- Originally posted by Dylan Couper : I've been watching other peoples demo reels on the web and see a lot of copyright music being used. Is this as big a faux pas as I assumed it was? -->>>

It certainly leaves you open to a lawsuit or two.

This isn't really what I'm asking. Let me rephrase the question...

If I got someone's demo reel on my desk, and it is cut to say... U2 or The Rolling Stones, I would be much more likely to throw it in the "pass" pile since they are clearly using "stolen" music.
Am I odd in descriminating this way? To me it seems pretty unprofessional to steal someone elses music for your demo reel, but I'm seeing it done more frequently recently. So, is it just me, or are people become blase about doing this?

I would never hire anyone with questionable ethics. If I hired them, what would they steal from me? Would they steal clients, equipment, supplies, from other employees? Why take the risk? I used to hire between 3 and 5 college grads every year. I would get usually between 300 and 500 applications for those few jobs. If I heard or saw material that was obviously copyrighted, the reel went right in the trash.

Oh for Pete's sake....

I have seen dozens of demo reels, and all of them use "unlicensed" music in them. Directors reels, DP reels, Editor reels, production house reels, Post house reels, Graphics reels. In the past this has not been an issue. It never was. The RIAA could care less. It was NEVER AN ISSUE.

Only recently with the advent of Napster and music swapping and music downloads has this cropped up as an issue...but only with a few people. I still think that that RIAA would care less. Unless the music is used in a trade show or other public viewing, I doubt the'd care.

And where does this "if they use 'stolen' music in their demos, what will they steal from me?" statement come from? People who use these music in their demos aren't theives. More often that not it is music from a CD they purchased that was already in their collection, or something they heard on the radio and went and bought (and probably still is today...except they downloaded it and PAID for it) that they thought would work well in their reel. Just because they use popular music in their reel, doesn't mean they feel that the stapler that the company provided is now theirs. Get real.

Before music became downloadable...reels contained popular music. Today it is just easier to acquire the music (and yes, "steal it"). Not to hire someone because of the licensing issue of the music in their reel is, in my opinion, petty and stupid. If the material is good, if it is what you are looking for, hire the person.

The RIAA and it's nitpickiness with music is spoiling your minds. Before music downloads were and issue, the use of this music in reels, WHICH IS WIDELY KNOWN, EVEN BY THE RIAA, was not, and IS NOT, something that they care about. It is still done today, and not one case has gone to court. The percentage of people using music for reels is miniscule.

I practiced ethics in my hiring decisions long before there was a Napster or downloading. It has got nothing to do with the RIAA. Its an old idea based on don't steal and don't use things that don't belong to you without asking. I've caught employees stealing from me. I caught them stealing cash, stealing hours, stealing from other employees, stealing clients and stealing equipment. It's no fun having to fire people and it's especially not fun firing thieves.

If you think ethics, past work performance etc. aren't relevant then your wrong. almost every major employer does background checks. Why? Because internal theft costs companies billions of dollars every year. As a smaller employer (20 employees when I sold my interest) background checks where prohibitively expensive. Instead I relied on personal interviews. But how could I possibly interview 500 applicants. Instead I looked for tell-tale hints in their reels and resumes. If there was a hint of questionable ethics, then I didn't waste my time.

I do believe that you should fire someone if they steal from you, or have bad performance. I don't have an issue with that.

I have an issue with you stating that if someone uses unlicensed music in their reel will steal from your company. That because they used that music that they are already thieves.

The practice of using said music in demo reels has only recently come under question as unethical. Previously this was done all the time and no one cared, not the artists, not the labels, not the RIAA. It was a non-issue.

Why is it suddenly an issue now? And why do you assume that because I us a U2 song in my reel without a license that I will stuff cash from the register into my pockets?

Shane, I think you have missed Jeff's point completely. The idea that a casual or lazy use of a technically illegal product might beget future indiscretions and for that, he is using a simple method to short list the candidates. A business technique. His position is his alone on the subject of media to the masses and the availability worldwide of such on the net.

Here in Canada, I pay a royalty for every piece of blank media that I buy. A by-product of the downloading generation and made possible by our government in an attempt to appease the creative community (musicians) by handing back a small skim from every sale of any recordable media format.

So to sum up, I actually see your point and Jeff's. I would love to see a reasonable licensing body that would allow a cost competetive method to sync. popular music works to limited production creative product. In my view, the creative community is hampered by this process rather than inspired.

Why is it suddenly an issue now? I've practiced these hiring practices since the 1980's. As I stated, long before Napster or downloading was even thought of.

I have an issue with you stating that if someone uses unlicensed music in their reel will steal from your company. That because they used that music that they are already thieves. Don't put words in my mouth. I said I don't hire people who make bad ethical decisions. A person's past performance (unethically using unlicensed music) is an indication of future behavior. An indication of poor ethics and I just don't give you a chance to steal from me.

The practice of using said music in demo reels has only recently come under question as unethical. Previously this was done all the time and no one cared, not the artists, not the labels, not the RIAA. It was a non-issue. Perhaps it was not an issue in southern Ca or LA. But in the midwest, granted a more conservative region, unlicensed music use has been an issue for years. There wasn't until recently, any threat of enforcement or punishment. But use of unlicensed music has been considered unethical (wrong) for as long as I can remember.

Jeff, can I assume that you will toss anyone's reel into the trash if they use any music you've heard of before? How would you know that the music they use hasn't been licensed? Would they come with a disclaimer at the beginning of the tape saying: "by the way, this music has been licensed"?

By extension, do you want to know if all of the software that the creator used to make the reel was also licensed?

Do you want to know if the creator had specifically sought permission from their employer to show work they've done for that employer in their own private portfolio?

(By the way, I know people who have been in a hiring capacity (animation and games work) and they just turn off the sound because they want to concentrate on the visuals, not on the overall presentation.

Of course, this would be problematic if the artist was showing off how well their visuals worked with music as in a music video. )

Most of my introductory positions were for assistant editor, I was most interested in the editing skills displayed. Since we did a fair number of music videos, I payed close attention to the use of music and editing techniques. Reels usually don't contain a full length song, but generally clips of maybe 20 to 30 seconds. It is generally safe to assume that a college senior did not pay for the licensing rights of 8 to 10 popular songs.

During the '80's and '90's software piracy was not as big an issue as it is today. It was pretty tough to download a 100MB file on 28.8kbps modem. In regards to work shown from recognizable organizations, yes, I did ask if they were violating any DND agreements. Several of our key clients in Cincinnati were very large multinational companies and all my employees had to sign NDA's. So yes, corporate security was very important to us. We taped products month, even years before they were on the market. One slip could cost us a 7 figure client.

Jeff you need to chill out and smoke a fatty. You sound really uptight.

Corey

"Arguing on the internet is like winning the special olympics, you're still retarded."

<<<-- Originally posted by Corey MacGregor : Jeff you need to chill out and smoke a fatty. You sound really uptight.

Corey

-->>>

Is that your professional opinion, doctor?

"Is that your professional opinion, doctor?"


Yes it certainly is!

Corey

Corey, I didn't know having ethical standards was being "uptight."

It's just a song or two on a demo reel, what's the big deal?

Every reviewer is going to have their own approach.
Many couldn't care less about the music, but there's also no question that many will see (hear?) unlicensed music as a red flag.

As an artist looking for work, do you want your reel to have ANY reason for exclusion?
It takes such little effort and expense to purchase some royalty free music, wouldn't it be worth it, just to elimiate music license as a concern?

I do have a question to those that filter out a reel with unlicensed music....
How do you know that something is unlicensed?
Is it simply recognizing a popular song and not finding a license credit?

My concern is that many royalty free libraries license the music to be used in anthing created by the purchaser, without credit. That's the peace of mind you get from buying the library. So if you see/hear a reel that has really really cool music, that you can't quite place, (or perhaps you've heard before ... somewhere) does the reel get canned if there was no music credit?

Just curious.
Thanks.

<<<-- Originally posted by Corey MacGregor : It's just a song or two on a demo reel, what's the big deal? -->>>

Who you are as a person is defined by the choices you make in life. It's the little things that add up.
Whats the big deal about driving 65 in a school zone?
Or having an extra beer or two before driving home?
Or buying answers to a test so you don't have to study as hard?

None of them are really a big deal, but it says a little something extra about you.

I won't go as far as to say that I'd suspect people that pirate music for their demo reel to be potential thieves, but I would look upon it like they took the shortcut to getting it put together. I'd rather hire someone that did things the right way, than take shortcuts. There are some exceptions I'd make though.

I'm not sure why this hasn't been brought up, maybe it has but....

If you purchase a cd (or ten) and you use that music in a demo real or for a home video or for any other video that you don't sell and therefore do not derive any profit, is this still an issue?

According to the RIAA and music producers...yes.

Dumb dumb dumb...

Well that's fine what the RIAA and Music Producers think - what I'm asking is what does the law think. After all people have said that they would not employ someone who had stolen property. That is not just a matter of opinion, that is an accusation of a crime, and I'm not entirely sure if that is accurate. I have in my earlier days, made my living by producing, writing, arranging and performing music. I would never advocate stealing it. However there is something known as the fair use doctrine. Now I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on the internet, but it seems to me that if the music was purchased legally, this may not *be* a violation.

If you used the music in an indie film which you released, yes, you've broken the law. If you are a commercial videographer and you use copy-written music and insert it into a wedding video (not simply recording a tune the DJ played) and you charge for that video, you've broken the law. But what if you use it in a wedding video that you took of your sister and no money changed hands and no profit was ever derived from it, or you used it in a student project or a demo reel? I don't think that is a legal violation, although I certainly could be wrong.

Matt

Here is a link (http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=32403) to most of the issues regarding Fair Use Doctrine. Fair Use covers things like parody and other limited uses. Don't confuse Fair Use with the Home Recording Act. The very fact that you synced the music to specific visuals scenes and choose specific parts of the song make it much less likely to be considered Fair Use.

If you purchase a CD (or ten) and you use that music in a demo real or for a home video or for any other video that you don't sell and therefore do not derive any profit, is this still an issue? Making profit from it is irrelevant in the eyes of the law.

I think many people here are missing the point. As Dylan and I are trying to point out the issue is more a matter of ethics or poor judgment. There really is no need to use a song by the Beatles in your demo reel. I think no less of prospective employees because they used free or buyout music. As an employer I judge people on many factors. I judge the way you look, speak, walk, talk, almost every aspect during an interview. How do you get to an interview? Submit the very best reel you're capable of producing. I really could care less about your music. But I do care about how you will treat my clients and your coworkers. And believe me, I expect high ethical and moral conduct. I've fired people for lying to my clients and even perspective clients. Why? Lying is unethical.

Is it unethical to use others work as a derivative of your own? This is a topic I've explored before. In other words taking someone else's art (photo, painting, illustration etc.) and altering it to a significant degree, so as to be an original work. This is a frequent copyright issue and within specific guidelines is legal. But as an employer, I'm less impressed that you can't produce original work and need to rely on another artist's work as a basis for your own.

The issue is more confusing in the context of this thread, mixing copyrighted music with original visuals. In the biggest majority of cases the reel is weak anyway. The music carries the visuals. If I was auditioning for a band I'd hire them. Unfortunately, I'm hiring for an editor or cameraman that can do original work. Do you see the common thread? I'm looking to hire people that are capable of original work. Why not use someone else's visuals too?

The question of ethics is a serious issue taken far too lightly in todays society. Do you walk into your neighbors garage and use his mower without asking? Do you take his keys and drive his car without asking? I'm sure you don't. When you buy a CD you purchase the right to listen to it and very little else. In almost all cases you do not have the right to copy all or part of a song and sync visuals to the beat, rhythm etc. You have the right to listen to it, and very little else.

In case you think I'm way out in right field (can't be left field, I've never voted for a Republican in my entire life) apply for a job with a Fortune 500 corporation and wait for them to interview your friends, neighbors, relatives, teachers etc. I have friends in HR positions that make my standards look like mediocrity.

Is this really a problem? I teach at the college level. This semester we started using software that detects plagiarism. I would say the average freshman class had about 40% of the first student papers showing significant plagiarism. People can't read an article and make an original statement of opinion on the topic. So, lets just use someone else's words. I'm sorry that's unethical.

Lets' apply for a job and use music that I didn't produce, but I paid $.99 and downloaded (I hope you used the iTunes Music Store). I'm too lazy to investigate if I have the legal right, or ethical right to use it for any purpose other than listening. I cut some visuals to it that I think look cool and might get me a job. There really is very little for me to be impressed about. The questionable ethics just compounds the case. Originality wins the day and gets the job.

I mentioned the fair use doctrine because you brought up that someone might come to you with 10 or 20 seconds of a song, or multiple songs, and that could be construed as fair use.

I could certainly understand your point if you were hiring a composer or arranger, I don't really see your point when hiring a video editor and from the contacts I have in the media, I don't think they would either, but I'll ask them.

I have owned my own business for 12 years, and have done much of the screening that you describe, including for Fortune 500 companies. The standards are always different. Some are concerned with the ethical while others are concerned with the legal, some both. But if a young kid out of school came to me with a video that he edited to a song he knew and the only use of that video was for me to asses his editing skills, I would not think his actions were either illegal or unethical.

I know it would be nice if the world were black and white, but sometimes you have to see the grey.

Are there sites that have free music? "Feel" is more important than who wrote it. Just something to put a montage over?

Yeah, and you can buy royalty free cds, but much of that stuff is garbage. Why not give some local talent a try? Any idea how many composition majors there are out there, not to mention those who specialized in film scoring? Go to any college where you live and if they have a music department, they have cats that would love to write for you just for the experience. Need a rock tune? Check out some local bands. Shoot a video for them in trade for the music.

If you google film scoring, you'll find TONS of folks on the web that want to compose to picture. Hell, if I have the time, I'll do it for you - it's fun!!

IMO, Jeff is right about one thing, it is always better to exercise your own creativity and collaborating with others who possess other skills builds your network of resources. And trust me, anytime you are self employed, whether in a traditional business or in the creative arts, your success is always linked to the resources you have at your disposal.

My only argument with what Jeff is saying, is that I think his approach is going to far for something that is relatively inconsequential.

Matt

PS. I just noticed you're in Texas - Great music programs in that state!

My only other contribution is that it is harder and harder to distinguish what was legally acquired and not. In the realm of 3D animation it was the vogue to use lots of electronic music (the last time I looked at reels). Unless you are a DJ there is no way to tell if something had been previously published or not (and indeed lots of electronic music uses dubbed samples - opening up another can of worms). Certain subgenres have a sameness about them that could make one song sound like something you heard in a club the other night.

True story time. I was watching demo reels in my office one time and an editor walked in and said the music sounded like it was from a porno flick. To which I responded, "how do you know?" A very red faced editor then promptly left my office. I really didn't care what the background music sounded like.

Why can't this be Fair Use? Most demo reels consist of more than one song. I've never seen a demo reel with 7 buyout song and one top 40 hit. They are always 6 to 8 cuts of obvious non-buyout songs. The work is taken as a whole, not 6 to 8 individual reels. You make a mistake once, shame on me. Make a mistake twice, shame on you. But make a mistake three times and . . . To me this is just a blatant unethical use of copyrighted music. But wait, could there be another excuse? Sure, maybe you slept through the 8 am Media and Ethics course. Your ethics professor didn't know or didn't care. Maybe you can ask for your money back.

Time for another true story. Remember me telling about having to fire employees for having lied? After repeated consultations about lying, I fired a salesman for constantly lying to clients about various aspects of their productions. Several months later he got a job teaching ethics at a Catholic High School in Cincinnati. I don't have any wonder why many people have a difficult time understanding ethics.

Well, durn. If I can't find free stuff around, then I'll just record it myself. I play guitar, I own a drum machine, I have a shotgun mic. . .guitar lowered one octave = bass, and there you go!

I'd be way more impressed by someone who actually took the time and trouble to made their own music, regardless of quality.

Get a copy of Acid and roll your own music. It's easy, fun and inexpensive.

Wow, what a thread.

It seems sort of silly to be going back and forth over the music, when there's another more blatant and insidious theft occuring...

... that of the demo reel itself!!!!

Technically, even though you've worked on some tv shows and films, you actually don't have the right to redistribute clips or segments from the show or film without the permission of the copyright holder. Even if you did a little commercial for a local Mom and Pop pizza place, you need to get their OK before you can use clips from THEIR commercial.

Sure you worked on in, but you DON'T own it, and you DON'T have the right to use the clips without getting approval and paying for licensing.

I don't recall ever seeing credits at the end of a demo reel, stating who the clips came courtesy of and that they were "Used By Permission" ???? Hmmmm....

So ... truly the only LEGAL and VALID demo reel consists of images and music that are 100% your creation and cannot be claimed as the property of anyone else.

Why would you hire ANYONE who stole clips from someone else and put them on the demo reel... and even WORSE, may have also included an Effects Reveal for cryin' out loud! That might have been trade secret stuff!!!! What a criminal!!!

Well, I guess 90% of Hollywood needs to start reworking their reels...

Please.

Rob...now you are just being ridiculous.

These companies that we work for and take footage from for our reels give us permission. Many times they supply us with high quality dubs just for that purpose. Many DPs have in their contract that they receive digibeta copies of each show along with their salary. I have always been provided a copy of the show for my reel, most times at the companies expense for stock and dub time. I have worked for The Disney Channel, A&E, The History Channel, Fox Family, The Discovery Channel and The SciFi Network and not one of them had issue with footage used in reels.

Permission for use of the footage from these shows has never been a problem. Permission has always been given...ALWAYS. Hollywood knows what it takes to get the next job. They rely on reels of our work to see how good we are at what we do, so of course they give permission, and high quality copies (they don't like to see crappy footage), for us to do just that.

I could be wrong, but I thought Rob was being facetious...

As a follow up, I spoke with several people in the media, including two entertainment lawyers about this and, after they laughed, all said that it wasn't wrong and (from the lawyers) that depending on exactly how it was used, it probably wasn't illegal either.

But, hey some folks ethics are more restrictive than what even the law will allow. Me, I'm just hoping the law doesn't catch up with me. Now, where did I put Hoffa's body again?.....

You're right. I was being ridiculous on purpose.

Of course we CAN and DO use clips from our past projects in our reels. No one has ever brought that into question... for good reason.

I was just exaggerating for the sake of an already strained argument. Just because someone chooses to use a track from U2 or whoever in their demo reel doesn't automatically bring into question their ethics or make them a criminal.

Music is used to enhance and spice up the reel, that's all. And the selection of music is usually well thought out to make the reel stand out as much as possible.

But if someone were to not hire me just because I used a copyrighted music track, and not based on MY ACTUAL TALENT... then 'F' em. I probably wouldn't want to work there anyway.

Tell you what, I'm still going to use the same music in my reel that I always have. I don't care what anyone says. It's gotten me work before, and it will again.

Shane, I agree with you totally.

(( By the way, though, just being given a copy of a show doesn't constitute a LEGAL right to use it. George Lucas himself could hand me a 1st generation copy of Star Wars and I still couldn't LEGALLY use it without signing a licensing agreement that spelled out how and when I could use it. Plus, I'd still most likely have to put it in the credits as well. ---- but that's hairsplitting...)))

:)

I still agree with you, though.

--R

Sorry that I jumped down your throat. Normally I would have taken that as sarcasm, but with viewing other posts from people who sounded just like you did only they were serious, I assumed you serious as well.

I just cannot believe how snarky people are being about this.

Hey, I gots me a question, since we've turned toward the topic of the footage itself. Let's say you were a B camera, not the main camera, on something like a three camera shoot, for a concert or a furniture commercial. I guess ethically and legally you should only show the B roll clips. . .the ones used in the final product? Or could you put the whole spot on there with some short disclaimer beforehand that you were only the B-roll? Seems like a weird situation to me. Also, let's say you have a situation where you shot this or that, and in the final product, they chose not to use certain shots that you thought were your best. Would you (if you could) use those shots on your reel, or only use stuff from the final product? I feel that you're trying to show those future employers what you're capable of, not necessarily what someone else chose to use for broadcast (or whatever).

If you have the B-Cam footage, and you have stuff on there that you like but that wasn't used...and you feel that it showcases some of your best work, by all means, use it. Just because one of us stupid editors felt that going to the A-cam at that point was a good call doesn't mean that your footage is bad.

If you have it, and like it, use it.

I've been in a simaliar situation only with orchestration. Someone else wrote a number of "songs" (pop tune type stuff and some short orchestral themes) and they wanted them fleshed out for full orchestra, background tracks etc. I would never claim to have composed any of that, that actually does cross my ethical barrier, but I would certainly include them on a cd and be honest about what my role was.

Look, a demo reel, or demo tape (CD) is simply an audio/visual resume. Be as honest with your work as you would be about where you were educated. It's also in your best interest. You want people to hire you because they like your work, which makes delivering a product they will like that much easier. Sell them on someone else's' work and try to deliver - it usually can't be done.

As one of my friends at a national music channel said "why the hell would I want to see how they edit (video) to some crap song they wrote, which probably sucks. That doesn't help me evaluate them." I tend to agree, although different folks will see the issue differently.

Matt

While I do believe that you can use music from whatever source you want, I also believe that a demo reel is supposed to demonstrate your (and ONLY your) abilities and capabilities in your profession. After all, the reviewer should be looking at YOU, not at the other people that contributed to your reel.

To that extent, I don't think you should include demonstration content that could be mistaken as being yours. So if your profession is as a cameraman, I believe that all the demonstration content (by that I mean any content that the reviewer will be considering when deciding to hire you or not) should come from you.

If you need to include shots or other surrounding material that isn't yours for contextual purposes, you should probably label those shots as being from another person.

You run a risk there, however, of inadvertently advertising the other person's abilities instead of your own, so you should be cautious when including anything like that.

There are some times when you can't get around it, though. Like in VFX, I may not have done the 3D integration on a shot, but I did the wire and rig removal. So I only would list the extent to which I participated in a particular piece.

As far as including shots that didn't make it into the final piece (i.e.: ended up on the cutting room floor) -- there's no problem with that at all. If it shows off your work, use it. In fact, you can create an entire reel of stuff that's never been sold or seen by the public in any way - a completely contrived reel. That's perfectly fine, because a reel should showcase what you CAN DO, not what you have done. It's not a resume.

Just my .02 cents.

Shane and Rob,

You both have excellent posts on this thread and I agree with 99.9% of them.

Using copyrighted music to enhance a demo reel is in no way a test of a person's character or their ethics. This whole concept of judging someone's morals is pretty extreme and just a little paranoid, especially since using the music in this capacity does not involve malice.

Now...if this person was stating or implying that the musical work was his or her's, and it wasn't, then I would tend to agree with the thievery conspiracy theory.

I've used copyrighted music in my reels in the past, I guess that makes me a thief and a liar with no morals or ethics. Simply put, someone who is not to be trusted. I wonder how I passed the many background checks that I have had to endure over the years? Just lucky, I guess.

Dylan, with all due respect, you do a wonderful job on this forum, but, the parallels that you drew as comparisons were way off base.

You wrote:
____________________________________________________
<<<Who you are as a person is defined by the choices you make in life. It's the little things that add up.
Whats the big deal about driving 65 in a school zone?
Or having an extra beer or two before driving home?
Or buying answers to a test so you don't have to study as hard?

None of them are really a big deal, but it says a little something extra about you.>>>
____________________________________________________

65 in a school zone------people (children) die.

Extra beer or two------people (usually innocent) die.

Buying answers to a test----cheating, and if that person was a medical student or studying something else that involves people's safety, then------people die.

You're right about your examples, they really are not a big deal...they are HUGE deals and if someone subscribes to any of your examples, it doesn't say a little something about them, it speaks VOLUMES!

I don't think that I would put some poor shmoe that used "You Light Up My Life" in their demo reel in the same category as someone who has total disregard for other people's safety.

So everyone, step back, take a deep breath and chill. There are far more important and serious things in life than using copyrighted music in a personal reel!

Pardon my rant, but I take exception to someone directly or indirectly slamming MY character and ethics in such an arbitrary manner.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go to confession and then turn myself in to the proper Authorities!

RB

One of the rights accorded to the owner of copyright is the right to reproduce or to authorize others to reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords. This right is subject to certain limitations found in sections 107 through 118 of the copyright act (title 17, U.S. Code). One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of “fair use.” Although fair use was not mentioned in the previous copyright law, the doctrine has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years. This doctrine has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law.


Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered “fair,” such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:




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




the nature of the copyrighted work;




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


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



The distinction between “fair use” and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.


The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author’s observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.”


Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself; it does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in the work.


The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material. The Copyright Office cannot give this permission.


When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted material should be avoided unless the doctrine of “fair use” would clearly apply to the situation. The Copyright Office can neither determine if a certain use may be considered “fair” nor advise on possible copyright violations. If there is any doubt, it is advisable to consult an attorney.

The biggest question i have to ask prospective crew is " So what did YOU do?".

In the 80's I was in charge of a number of motion picture model shops (that was BC.....before computers) and would have to hire modelmakers.

Since models on feature films are usually quite large and complex, 10, 20, or more modelmakers and technicians would work on the model.

During interviews I would look at portfolios with numerous pictures of someones past projects.

After 10 or 20 interviews you would see the same finished model (usually from the most recently released film) with just a different person standing in front of it with their arms crossed and a self approving smile on there face.

One person might have done the painting, one person might have done the
foam carving, or lights, or mechanics. What did they do?

I guess in those cases I wanted to see a finished product but I had to let the prospective employee tell me what they did. Of course it was easier to know if they were telling the truth because I knew most of the model makers in town at that time, so I knew who did what.

So........another question. Was it unethical to put a photo of the completed model in their portfolio if they didn't do all the work? Also was it legal to take a photo of the model, since most motion pictures have very stringent rules against photographing sets or portions of the production. I have alot of photos from my smaller budget films but have virtually no photos of the work I did onstudio features. In fact you could be fired if you even had a camera in the shop. Only the production still photographer was allowed to take photos. Good luck trying to get copies.

Of course..... how do you show people what you have done if you can't take photos or video.

I have DP'd a number of independent films lately where I am still waiting for my "reel, copy' credit". I can put them on my resume but if I have to wait for the productions permission to use it on my reel, I'll never be able to show anything.

Lot's of questions...... different answers foreveryone.

OH MY GOD!!!

David you had my dream job!! Well not really, my job would have been making the models. When I was a little kid (way before computers) that's all I wanted to do - build models and layouts. Of course in the end I chose to get an education in something worthwhile, something that would allow me to live above the poverty level.

I became a music performance major...

Ah, youth...

Have computers completely replaced what you do, or are there still a few holdouts left? I went to see Sky Captain and was impressed by what they did, but it simply didn't have the magic for me that it would have had there been models. Maybe nobody else pays attention to that stuff...

I can still remember going to see Star Wars and being in awe of that first scene when the battlecruiser comes from overhead...

Matt

Ok, more to the point of the thread. I think much of it comes down to professionalism. These rules/laws have always been somewhat selectively enforced - before digital media even more so. Much gets overlooked when done by professionals, for honest professional reasons and in a professional manner. Of course what do you when your trying to be a professional?

Taking the music video editing example (I think that's what started this thread). You could do a couple different things. You could cut a reel, show it to everyone you know and post it on your personal website and a bunch of file sharing networks to show off. This would be unprofessional and if it doesn't get you in trouble, will certainly put you in an unfavorable light among those you are probably hoping to impress.

Or, you could cut the video, keep it on a dvd and only show it to prospective employers during your interview (or send it in if that's a requirement, with a letter explaining why you chose what you chose and a disclaimer at points in the video or cut outs in the audio). This, to my mind and to the minds of the folks I spoke with, would be professional and would not get you looked down upon. Except perhaps by an ethics professor....

Matt

Yea, I was a modelmaker first then a shop supervisor. Computers have affected the industry. You never see "true" matte painters anymore. "What??? Paint in reverse on glass????" The last truly great film I worked on was James and the Giant Peach. I built armatures for the stop-motion charactors. Great film. Models, real stop-motion, real motion control, real film...... ahhhh the good old days.

About the ethics debate.....

IMHO......

Ethics are personal, morals are societal. Unfortunatly society's morals have taken a nosedive in the past 20 years. We're more tolerant of those who err on the side of moral relapse. Everyone is a victim. Nothing is anyone's fault. Kid's in schools are taught "there is no right or wrong, as long as you feel good about your decision".

Schools aren't allowed to disipline. Parents are afraid to disipline. They try to be friends with the kids as opposed to role models and disiplinarians.

I have a 6 y/o boy who, as I was looking out the side window of the truck while driving, grabs my face, pulls it so I am looking forward and states,"Dad,you're supposed to focus on the road when I'm in the car".

Talk about ethics...................

I saw that movie. James and the Giant Peach was my favorite book as a child - memories of my mom.

I also agree that ethics and morals have declined. But the pendulum can swing the other way as well. Reasonable balance is all I'm advocating. Morals or ethics applied with out critical thinking behind them are almost as useless as not having any ethics at all. What can I say, I was taught by Jesuits...

I also agree that ethics and morals have declined. But the pendulum can swing the other way as well. Reasonable balance is all I'm advocating. Morals or ethics applied with out critical thinking behind them are almost as useless as not having any ethics at all.
I agree. When I first moved to Montana it was legal to drink (driver have an open container in the front seat) and drive. It was illegal to be drunk (over the legal limit) and drive. The Montana law was ethically wrong by my standards. I guess some people only have an issue only if a death is involved, I view things differently.

Using copyrighted music to enhance a demo reel is in no way a test of a person's character or their ethics.I am afraid it is. Just as a driver drinking while he drives may have been legal, it was ethically wrong.

Fair enough Jeff, I respect your principals and your strength of character. Why don't we just agree to disagree about this issue for now and be pals. Hell, if you're ever up in the NYC area, I'll buy you a drink and promise not to drive either drunk OR with an open container. (That's an easy promise to keep!)

Best,

Matt

Or to show him your reel.