But unless you have a facsimile of the original manuscript (which modern performers find nearly impossible to read), I would wager a nice dinner in Manhattan that they were using a copyright-protected modern EDITION of the music.

In my case, we used an old edition of Bach music that became public domain some time ago, from the IMSLP (Petrucci Music Library, the online library of public domain music). I made sure we were clear, not that anyone would have ever come after us for infringement.

(I'll take that dinner at the "21 Club", if that works for you...)

And as far as crazy copyright law is concerned, how about the recent case of the tattoo artist whose lawsuit is keeping The Hangover II from being released?Just to clarify a bit:

Judge Denies Tattoo Artist's Request to Halt Release of 'Hangover Part II' - Hollywood Reporter (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/judge-denies-tattoo-artists-request-191540)

The movie release goes ahead as planned, but so does the trial, and it seems that the tattoo artist has good chances of becoming obscenely rich from this.

(I'll take that dinner at the "21 Club", if that works for you...)

We used to look down our noses at the old "Kalmus" editions, but they were inexpensive because they were facsimiles of public-domain 19th century editions, and copyright-free.

I've never been to NYC. Is this 21 Club place expensive? :-)
Is there a 10.5 club?

The movie release goes ahead as planned, but so does the trial, and it seems that the tattoo artist has good chances of becoming obscenely rich from this.

I would imagine the producers will play the 'parody' card, and this would eventually settle out of court...

I noticed that "Fair Use" has been mentioned in this discussion. Remember, Fair Use is a defense, not a right or law. You argue in court that what you are accused of is not a copyright violation, but should be considered Fair Use. That also means that you now have legal costs and most likely, a lot more than any if us would enjoy spending. This is also something that would be REALLY stupid to try to defend yourself against.

So for me, I avoid anything that may have any even a chance of causing a legal action, and I have turned down lots of jobs where people seem to have no concern for copyright laws. It just isn't worth the risk to me.

And it really doesn't matter what YOU or I think is "right" or "wrong", it comes down to what the courts says.

(RANT WARNING)
This entire discussion about getting rights for a youtube video is a bit ridiculous. Not only has youtube damaged the idea and value of a quality production, it is now destroying the idea of content. Youtube is overflowing with mindless and useless dribble. It reminds me of how of cows in a field will stop chewing to watch anything as it moves past them. Three million people will watch a poorly shot video of a dog making funny noises, and I would bet most of them are watching it while they should be working.

And yet some people are surprised that an artist like Carly Simon isn't just overjoyed to have her beautiful music attached to a cellphone youtube video. Why shouldn't someone who creates something great and beautiful have control in how it is used? You could always create something better, right?

My wife is a musician and makes a living performing her original music and selling CDs of it. I'm quite proud of her because she is one of few musicians I know that actually earns a living in the indie music biz and puts money in the bank besides. We have to constantly be watching the web for illegal copies of her music and then issuing DMCA Takedown Notices to the ISPs. She is not famous or rich, but use her music in your video and you will hear from us when we find it.

Not only has youtube damaged the idea and value of a quality production, it is now destroying the idea of content. Youtube is overflowing with mindless and useless dribble.

And moronic drivel, too. Everything that Mr. Spahr said, absolutely. And good for his wife for protecting her intellectual property.

I'd like to know how there is so much content up on YouTube that is obviously copyright-protected music. I can find content there in the form of sound tracks for home-made "music videos" (used in the broadest possible sense of the term) that I would have to pay for if it were an MP3 on iTunes, et.al. Even to the point where there appears to be lower-third pop-up ads for buying this recording legitimately. Is YouTube paying royalties per view? If so, then the IP owners should be getting paid and YouTube is making them money, why would anyone ask to have something taken down? OTOH, if YT is not paying license/royalties, then why is there so much obviously protected music up there (for years and years)? Do the IP owners not care?

And, certainly the original question/attitude/motivation had no serious merit.

if YT is not paying license/royalties, then why is there so much obviously protected music up there (for years and years)? Do the IP owners not care?

I guess not, what lawsuit money is to be made from a 15 yr old who's put together a compilation of his favorite movie clips to his favorite Eminem track? YouTube is full of rubbish like this, innocent mindless dross and far far worse. I suppose by that rationale I should take it as a compliment that my video has been singled out, though I'm being targeted because my content ISN'T crap - so therefore I must be making money from it. Nope, not everyone in this world is motivated by cash, some of us do things for the love of doing it.

I would have thought it more of an issue that I've used footage from the royal wedding, and somebody must own that. Some would argue that it's the cameraman, I once heard that you own whatever you shoot, but it's probably Sky News.

My video is of no commercial interest to anybody, least of all myself. And this thread should not have generated all the furor that it has considering that the wealthy and powerful get away with far bigger illegalities all the time though that is accepted as they are seemingly untouchable.

I've been ripped off, unpaid, and had my work exploited and I've never done it in a harmful way to anyone else because it's against my morals, nothing to do with law. I don't need a book to tell me what is right and wrong, legal, religious or otherwise. I have burned my lips on McDonald's coffee and slipped on wet floors yet never felt the need to file a lawsuit because if you're rational about it - it's all part of real life, not this Orwellian nonsense which is going way too far and which is a detriment to human progress.

...I would have thought it more of an issue that I've used footage from the royal wedding, and somebody must own that. Some would argue that it's the cameraman, I once heard that you own whatever you shoot, but it's probably Sky News. Depends on whether you are an independent artist, a contractor, or an employee. Any person who creates a copyrightable work own the copyright on it by default, EXCEPT when he is working as a bona fide employee acting within the scope of his employment. In that case, the employer is the author of the work and owns the copyright. In terms of the Royal wedding, who owns the copyright probably depends on what exact footage you used. I'm guessing much of it comes from press pool coverage with cameras set up by the Palace's communications office. If that's the case, most likely copyright is owned by the Crown.
My video is of no commercial interest to anybody, least of all myself. And this thread should not have generated all the furor that it has considering that the wealthy and powerful get away with far bigger illegalities all the time though that is accepted as they are seemingly untouchable.
... Commercial interest for your video is irrelevant. Copyright doesn't merely cover commercial usage of a work of intellectual property ... it covers ALL uses, both commercial and non-commerical. The fundamental notion is that the author of a creative work has the fundamental right to control when, where, for what purpose, and to whom it is published in public. It is just as illegal to burn copies of a music CD and give them away as Christmas presents as it is to burn bootleg copies and sell them at the corner convenience store. You have that right of control with your property, with the fruits of your creativity, and the owners of the song you used have the same rights with the fruits of their's, rights that you should be morally bound to respect. Your use of a song without permission disrespects the rights of those who created that song.

My video is of no commercial interest to anybody, least of all myself. And this thread should not have generated all the furor that it has considering that the wealthy and powerful get away with far bigger illegalities all the time though that is accepted as they are seemingly untouchable.

I've been ripped off, unpaid, and had my work exploited and I've never done it in a harmful way to anyone else because it's against my morals, nothing to do with law. I don't need a book to tell me what is right and wrong, legal, religious or otherwise. I have burned my lips on McDonald's coffee and slipped on wet floors yet never felt the need to file a lawsuit because if you're rational about it - it's all part of real life, not this Orwellian nonsense which is going way too far and which is a detriment to human progress.

Your response sounds like simply "sour grapes" (The Fox and the Grapes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fox_and_the_Grapes)).
I think you are missing the whole point of Intellectual Property and Copyright/Patent, etc. Nobody would have risked the resources it took to invent the technology you are using to read this (computers, communication, integrated circuits, and the underlying technology) if patents and copyrights didn't exist which allow inventors, writers, artists, etc. to exploit their creations for profit.

It's not just copyright that we have to be concerned with. There are also defamation lawsuits.

Yesterday, I spoke with a guy from a well-established cable network that had created a documentary. Somebody mailed a VHS tape of the doc to a woman who was not well portrayed in the story. That was three months before it aired. The morning that the piece was set to air in prime time, the woman and her lawyer called the network...

They ended up patching her and her lawyer into the edit suite. As they were airing 15-minute segments, the editing was going on at the same time to pull the bits that she found unacceptable.

The thing is, she didn't have this "right." But she had the right to sue. And the network had interest in avoiding the lawsuit even if they were within their rights.

Fair use is similar. You might have fair use rights. (Yes, there are rights.) But you may still be sued and required to defend those rights. Unless you are really solid on your position and have a legal fund to defend that position, it's best to avoid other people's content, unless you have a license or release form signed and dated.

Various quoted bits from Cameron Poole: "I hope this doesn't sound bad but I have never subscribed to 'the law'......You have to bend the rules a little bit to get on in this life........ I'm a decent bloke and most of it comes naturally to me, you know - not stealing,.........If I was greedy, I would have lots of money and I would subscribe to this ridiculously strict copyright nonsense......I don't expect everybody to agree with me but to fill three pages I must have a valid point. " end quotes




No sir just because this thread you started has generated so many pages of comment DOES NOT mean you "have a valid point". Far from it. You are so wide of the mark that a lot of your beliefs would be laughable were they not so depressing.

You seem rather confused about this whole issue and would do well to give yourself some basic education on the subject of copyright, and the reason why its important. And particularly so if commenting in a site like this where people actually earn their living from their creative ability and, quite rightly, get paid for it, and have an absolute right (moral and legal) to have that creativity protected.

You proclaim you're happy "to bend the rules....to get on in this life" and then try to tell us that really you're "a decent bloke" and being a decent bloke involves "not stealing".

Using copyright material without permission IS stealing. Its that simple, whether loads of folks 'get away with it on YouTube' is irrelevant, you got caught, and ignorance is not innocence in the eyes of the law.

My stills work is ripped off regularly - eg I'm currently chasing a case of 84 unauthorized uses of my images in a single commercial website, and another instance where 400 uses of my images occurred in another commercial website which I used the DMCA to deal with. I'd be less angry if the users were actually as ignorant as you, but they're not, because both (mis)users of my images are in businesses where they actually generate copyrighted material themselves and have clearly and in big letters proclaimed that their own work is copyright and protected.

There's a whole lot of things I could describe their actions as, and yours too, but I'll settle for 'unacceptable' as sufficient.

At this point we're pretty much done with this discussion. Thanks to everyone who participated.