In the five years I have been using YouTube, only once have I had a copyright issue and that was for a video I made for a local restaurant - which is fair enough, although I have many videos online that were simply for my own use and have never had an issue, some of them using many bits of unlicensed music.

Recently, I went to a party to watch the royal wedding. It was not a shoot, but I took some footage on my BlackBerry and ended up using it A: As Final Cut Practice and B: As a video to share with friends on Facebook, particularly a friend who was very ill at the time and was unable to attend.

I used a Carly Simon song and because of this, the sound (all of it) has been disabled.

I have looked into it, I'm not selling my video or trying to make money. BUT - 'Whether or not you benefit financially from using the content doesn't matter. Unless you have permission from the owner, it's not yours to use.'

How much hassle is it going to be and how many hoops do I need to jump through to get permission from the owner? I see many MANY amateur videos on YouTube that use unlicensed music, made by teenagers and made by idiots some of them, surely they didn't have to go through all that red tape???

Is this a recent crackdown or something? Perhaps I should take it as a compliment if amateur looking vids are allowed to get away with it. If I was the artist, I would take it as a compliment that a non profit video was being used to enhance a memory.

How is it detected anyway, and is there a way around this?

I always use royalty free music when I am doing a video for a client, though I have used unlicensed music for wedding videos, but you can get away with it for somebody's wedding dvd, even Facebook doesn't have an issue with it.

I also used a bit of HD footage of Prince William and Kate Middleton which I ripped from YouTube, they don't seem to have an issue with that, why not ban the whole thing?

The long and the short of it is that in MOST jurisdictions, what you did contravenes the law and/or the copyrights of the copyright holder.

Full stop.

You know this.

The FRUSTRATING part is that some get away with it on YouTube seemingly without rhyme or reason.

Much like motorists speeding.

"Getting away with it" is NOT the same thing as it being legal.

Sucks... I know. Unless you are the owner of the copyright and you don't WANT people using your music for ridiculous video clips using World of Warcraft...

I've been through this many times but have always done the research BEFORE choosing a song. That way I've never gotten bit and had to change out music.

It's a pretty simple process once you know where to start. The part that sucks is your answer may come within hours or it may come months later.

First you need to find the publisher of the song you are wanting to use. They are the entity that will give you the final answer.

I believe Carly is an ASCAP artist but each individual song my have different representation (BMI, SESAC, etc.) ASCAP's website will have a place to look up individual songs for electronic delivery. It will have the publisher's name and contact info as well as forms to submit for getting permission.

Main site ASCAP Internet Music License Agreements (http://www.ascap.com/weblicense/)

Search for publisher's info ASCAP ACE - Search (http://www.ascap.com/ace/search.cfm?requesttimeout=300)

Hope this helps!
BTW, out of dozens of requests, I've only been able to use 2 songs and did have to pay a fee for each. The others were either outrageously expensive or the publisher simply said no.
I mostly use production or royalty free music for this reason. When I need something different, I have a lot of musician friends who gladly lend or license music to me very cheaply! OR I write it myself!

That last phrase should tell you my stance on the underlying subject...
PAY FOR THE MUSIC YOU USE!! Musicians need to eat too!

...

I have looked into it, I'm not selling my video or trying to make money. BUT - 'Whether or not you benefit financially from using the content doesn't matter. Unless you have permission from the owner, it's not yours to use.'

How much hassle is it going to be and how many hoops do I need to jump through to get permission from the owner? I see many MANY amateur videos on YouTube that use unlicensed music, made by teenagers and made by idiots some of them, surely they didn't have to go through all that red tape???

...How is it detected anyway, and is there a way around this?

I always use royalty free music when I am doing a video for a client, though I have used unlicensed music for wedding videos, but you can get away with it for somebody's wedding dvd, even Facebook doesn't have an issue with it.

I...

So your personal sense of ethics tells you it's perfectly acceptable to break the law, just as long as you don't get caught? Hmmmmmm

Ethics and morality are not always on the same team as the law.

Remember that many defense lawyers are paid very highly to get some very very nasty people of the hook, where's the morality in that?

I do agree that an artist should be paid a fee for music used in a video that generates a fee for the editor, and even when I use low quality royalty free music from RF websites which cost nothing to use, I credit the author.

I used to compose music/songs myself ten years ago and gained a popular local following (My Yamaha keyboard was too huge to bring to Bangkok and remains in my mothers loft in England) but if somebody wanted to use it for their kids birthday party and put it on YouTube to show their family back home then I wouldn't have an issue with it at all - especially if I was a multi millionaire!!

Horrible the way of the world sometimes, especially when your prime motive is to entertain people and making a buck is the last thing on your mind.

Incedentally, any recommendations for good free royalty free music?

I have a load of stuff from a website called Big Bang & Fuzz which we used when I was working for a ocal TV Station but I don't think I can even use that now because the station paid a monthly fee.

I produced some videos for use by my client on YouTube, all productions are my copyright. I also published these as samples as my work on YouTube. A week later I received notification (from YouTube) that I was in breach of copyright and my video was removed. I didn't follow up on the complaint, keeping good relations with your client is important too.

Basically, if you want to use someone else's work then you must respect their copyright. I don't think you would be too happy if you saw your work on some other persons YouTube channel, even if they claim it is for their own use. You are giving a public performance of their work.

"Horrible the way of the world sometimes, especially when your prime motive is to entertain people and making a buck is the last thing on your mind."

Entertain by all means, but also respect the author

What if you're shooting at a party, let's say a big public wedding party - and the DJ is playing 'Imagine' by John Lennon. We all know that one thing that technology can NOT do is separate background music from the footage audio, all we can do is make sure we keep the camera running for the duration of the track to get a smooth professional edit and cut in the reactions of the wistful onlookers and the dancing couples later with fill in shots.

How many of us here would honestly go to all the hassle of getting permission, which could potentially cost hundreds of dollars??? Even if it was free, Yoko Ono would have probably have bigger fish to fry than granting permission for it to go on YouTube so that the bride's aunty and uncle can enjoy the moment from their home back in New Zealand.

Facebook would accept it, YouTube would remove the sound - Vimeo? I honestly don't know. But either way I'd be breaking the law for presenting somebody else's work in public.

Where exactly does that leave the DJ?

We all know that one thing that technology can NOT do is separate background music from the footage audio...That's an entirely different thing though.

You're talking about background music, happening at the moment and which you had
no part in choosing, and most likely well beyond your ability to control. That's not at all
the same thing as intentionally embedding (synchronizing) a piece of music of your own
choosing later on during editing, which certainly is within your ability to control.

So no, that's not the same thing at all.

(Steve H., please correct me if I misstate this)

The DJ should have a performance license to use the music they are playing. Many DJs subscribe to a music service that includes the license as part of the subscription fee.

Someone shooting video at the event where the DJ is performing would be safe and legal to view their recording at home for their own use.

If you are recording the event as a service and producing a product for a customer then you are responsible for getting the proper license (two licenses actually) to use the music or replace it in post with something you are legally able to use. Its not the DJs responsibility to defend unfair use at that point it is the videographers'.

Posting the video of the event on YouTube or playing it in a public space is a step too far and not allowed under Fair Use as applied in the US.

Whether or not these laws are broken doesn't dilute the fact they exist or what they mean. It only means the limits that are set by them are being exceeded without permission.

A snipit from the ASCAP website. Full text here - ASCAP Licensing: Frequently Asked Questions (http://www.ascap.com/licensing/licensingfaq.html)

12. Aren't musicians, entertainers and DJ's responsible for obtaining permission for music they perform?

Some people mistakenly assume that musicians and entertainers must obtain licenses to perform copyrighted music or that businesses where music is performed can shift their responsibility to musicians or entertainers. The law says all who participate in, or are responsible for, performances of music are legally responsible. Since it is the business owner who obtains the ultimate benefit from the performance, it is the business owner who obtains the license. Music license fees are one of the many costs of doing business.

Posting the video of the event on YouTube or playing it in a public space is a step too far and not allowed under Fair Use as applied in the US. And that's the single most important thing to understand here.

So, to summarise the above:

When a videographer is hired to shoot a wedding, he MUST obtain proper licensing for EVERY copyrighted work of art that ends up in the final product (song, video excerpt, anything). The fact that the DJ has proper licensing for his own public performance of copyrighted songs does NOT help videographer.

If an amateur shoots video at the same wedding, for his own in-home use, he does NOT need the license, as long as it is his own home use (i.e. sharing with friends).

However, none of the common web sites out there that allow video sharing are considered home use. Instead, They are considered as public performance, for which a license is required, even for home-made videos.

YouTube apparently employs some software that performs intelligent music recognition (same as 'Shazam!' app does on the iPhone), in order to discover unlicensed audio. It seems that Facebook or Vimeo don't do this yet.

As a musician, I can completely understand the reasoning behind this. When someone uses my music in their video, I would very much like to reserve the right to refuse the license, if I find the video offensive, inappropriate or in any other way damaging to my music. There is simply no way for the author of the work to know what does your video contain, so that (s)he can simply grant license sight unseen. Of course, in my case, as long as I am comfortable with the video, you can use my music without compensation (assuming you aren't making money off that video, and my music is helping you do it).

The DJ or the venue must obtain a performance license from ASCAP in order to legally play the songs in public and even a private, closed, affair such as a wedding reception is still a public performance under the law. But that license does not extend to any third party nor to any other use beyond playing the music for the party, such as on the soundtrack of a video of the reception. ASCAP performance licenses and sync/master use licenses are two entirely different critters, which is what I think you're saying here

It's interesting that the courts seem to be relaxing a bit on "incidental use" where snippets of music occuring in the background are not considered infringing even if they're not licensed. At the same time, broadcasters seem to be gettign more and more paranoid about it ... was watching an epsiode of "Kitchen Nightmares" last night and noticed that posters and pictures on the wall of the restaurant they were in were all blurred beyond recognition, presumably due to lack of copyright clearances on the images. By parallel, that would be the same situation with recognizable music being played by the DJ while a video makers is filming interviews or couples dancing. If that's an example, the videographer would need to license everything in order to include it at all
.

What if you're shooting at a party, let's say a big public wedding party - and the DJ is playing 'Imagine' by John Lennon. We all know that one thing that technology can NOT do is separate background music from the footage audio...

If you're making a wedding video for the couple, no problem. If you're making a documentary about weddings to be shown on the Lifetime Channel, license the material, use different footage, or do ADR. There was a case a few years ago regarding a documentary where The Simpsons happened to be playing in the background on TV and the filmmaker lost.

If you're making a wedding video for the couple, no problem. If you're making a documentary about weddings to be shown on the Lifetime Channel, license the material, use different footage, or do ADR. There was a case a few years ago regarding a documentary where The Simpsons happened to be playing in the background on TV and the filmmaker lost.

I have a big problem with that. Its a shame when things are allowed to go so far.

In terms of inserting copyrighted music into a film or documentary; yes of course the normal rights must be addressed and paid.

But if you are making documentary then you are recording reality as it unfolds. The fact is people watch tv, they listen to music, and advertising (in the form of posters) are put up in public places. If that is recoded incidentally, without any planning; well then that is just a reflection of reality. Are we really to believe that background music and images are somehow 'exempt' from reality, exempt from the real world? They're not; the media is a part of of the modern fabric of society.

Its a shame too, because the creators of the Simpsons usually offer such scathing views on the media and lawyers - I wonder what would Matt Groening actually have thought about it....?

Best to remember that "Happy Birthday" is in copyright as well.

Pity about all that blurring of posters, T shirts etc., it's getting distracting.

"Human progress" is a very subjective term. :(

Very good thread, thanks. Was thinking that even if some unlicensed pop music is included in a video because it's "just for the couple and family" and delivered on DVD, you really never know what they'll do with it later. That "private" video could easily end up on YouTube or elsewhere. I think we should always assume that any video we create for a client could eventually end up online.

I hope this doesn't sound bad but I have never subscribed to 'the law', I have never voted and I have never had much faith in the powers that be. That said: I have never been in trouble with the law, I have never been arrested and I have never committed a crime other than the time I was chased by French police for running out of a supermarket with a toy hovercraft which I wanted to show my parents, but I was nine and didn't know what I was doing so it doesn't really count.

Here in Thailand, anything goes - it's in your face corrupt. Be that a good or bad thing, well it's beside the point, it's nature, it's natural. You have to bend the rules a little bit to get on in this life, and it is my personal opinion just to treat others the way you'd want to be treated yourself, have integrity and decency - and we shouldn't need a religious book or 'laws' created by self interested powers to dictate to us what is right or wrong.

The reason I have never been in trouble with the police (UK or Thai) is not because I follow any guidebook, it's because I'm a decent bloke and most of it comes naturally to me, you know - not stealing, harming or killing.

If I was greedy, I would have lots of money and I would subscribe to this ridiculously strict copyright nonsense. I would also be happy to pay whatever it costs to use 'The Logical Song' by Supertramp on a promotional video for whatever, but I'm not in this for the money - money is just a means to survive, I have no time for greed.

Finally, you know what really gets me? It's the richest artists that are the most expensive. Silly thing to say really, I realized that as I was typing it. It's the way of the world (which we have created for ourselves) and it will always irk me.

"It's the richest artists that are the most expensive"

I think that's called "supply and demand", more or less.

Also the poorer artists rely on being paid in order to survive. Many only have one commercially successful work, which allows them to continue working at their art.

It's the way of the world (which we have created for ourselves) and it will always irk me.

I'm with you Cameron - good old fashioned common sense seems to be a thing of the past I'm afraid.

Lets just take that Simpsons thing as an example - somebody shot a documentary and that tv show happened to be one of the many things that was taking place as reality happened. Lets just assume that it was a TV station showing it and that they had legally paid for the rights to air it. That ought to be the end of it. Same with if a radio station played some music legally and had paid the rights to do so: where is the problem? What is 'illegal' about capturing that moment in time and everything that took place during it?

But somehow these execs (and their lawyers) believe they are above that, and more important than everything else.

If everyone had the same view then that documentary would have to start paying the people who made the shirt the guy was wearing, his jeans, the mug he drank coffee out of, the particular brand of coffee he was drinking, the manufacturer of the glasses he used to read with, the biro he wrote with, the pad he wrote on, the architect of the building they were in, the company who made the tiles on the floor, the brand of paint on the wall. The tailor who made the curtains around the window behind him, all the brands of cars on the highway in the distance, the company who made that window, the chair he sat on, the desk they were at.

They would even have to pay the manufacturer of the TV that the damn Simpons was showing on in the background!

But no. Most people would say; I made these thing to sell them, and once they are sold they are out there in the world, come what may. Most people wouldn't expect to get paid twice, just because someone chose to wear them and got caught on a camera.

But that's what is essentially happening here. That Simpsons episode was bought and paid for by the TV station, it was out there in the world, and someone chose to watch it when they were caught on camera. And now they want to be paid for it twice.

Common sense should have prevailed in this case. The people in charge should have said, look if this guy filmed an entire episode of the Simpsons in full frame and put his own ads on it, then yeah, prosecute him. But if it was just an irrelevant clip in the background while the main event took place in the foreground then why bother trying to change reality?

...But if you are making documentary then you are recording reality as it unfolds. The fact is people watch tv, they listen to music, and advertising (in the form of posters) are put up in public places. If that is recoded incidentally, without any planning; well then that is just a reflection of reality. Are we really to believe that background music and images are somehow 'exempt' from reality, exempt from the real world? They're not; the media is a part of of the modern fabric of society.
....?

It's not that one expects images etc not to be a feature of the real world. But the documentary is a piece of intellectual property, a story created by the program producer, that is a copyrightable work in its own right. The only fundamental difference between a documentary story and a piece of fiction is the doco is presumably based on or illustrates fact. When it includes images or music that are copyright in their own right, permission from those copyright owners must be obtained for the use of their intellectual property. Why do you think fact-based stories should be treated differently than fictional stories in that regard? Especially for something done purely for entertainment value such as a wedding video? After all, it's not news, it's just a momento like the piece of wedding cake frozen in the fridget. Note that for journalism, at least in North America it was decided in the legislation that the public's need to know the current news overrides the right of an IP owner to profit from his work, but not all documentaries are news coverage by a long shot... the factual material in "March of the Penguins" is not as crucial to the survival of a free society as is the debate surrounding the "Wikileaks" controversy. The doco maker feels HIS story is vitally important to get out but the fact is, most may be interesting but aren't really all that earth-shakingly important.

The difference between that and coffee cups, tiles, etc, is the worth of a piece of IP is not in utility of the physical object but rather the ideas that it is based on. Use those ideas to illustrate your own and you need to license them from the person who created them.

BTW, to the OP ... you probably don't need permission from Carly Simon. You need permission from the composer and lyricist that created the song, as represented by the publisher for that paticular song, and from the record label that issued the recording that is being played. Unless she's the song's publsher or issued the song on her own label, Carly's permission is irrelevant.

The difference between that and coffee cups, tiles, etc, is the worth of a piece of IP is not in utility of the physical object but rather the ideas that it is based on. Use those ideas to illustrate your own and you need to license them from the person who created them.


I disagree, fundamentally, from a common sense point of view. With this mindset future documentaries and newscasts will be plagued with problems, and riddled with those blurred backgrounds we are increasingly exposed to. Newsmen and documentarians should be free to do their journalism without interference. Freedom of expression and freedom to reflect reality as we see it every day.

The difference between a movie and a documentary would be that in the movie everything that is placed there is placed for a reason, and anything can be excluded. If someone chose to have a serial-killer watching the Simpsons in a movie (to highlight some theme or something) and it was an active and artistic choice to do so then they had better get permission and pay for it.

If something appears in the background of a newscast or documentary, and is irrelevant to the story, and has no 'artistic' or 'intellectual' relevance to the story then why should it be immune?

You say "Use those ideas to illustrate your own and you need to license them from the person who created them" and yes I agree with you, if you use them to illustrate your own idea. If the are not been used to illustrate an idea then they are just another product out in the world, and should be treated as such.

There was a man on a news item today, who was really upset some music he had written had been used in a product without his permission - he put his case very well. He said it was something he made, hearing it used to support something somebody else had made was like having your house broken into. He pointed out he spent hours and hours on the piece, honing and tweaking until he considered it perfect. Somebody else, who couldn't be bothered to do it themselves, or even pay to have it done by somebody just took it, and without any though - used it as if it was theirs. He couldn't find any circumstance for justification. I tend to think he was right!

Incidentally, youtube use audio fingerprints - popular songs are in a database, and as these don't require an entire song - it can even find a problem piece if it's been edited. The user has no idea of which part of the recording is being used for the sample, so it's luck.

What is it with this generation that they feel entitled? Especially when it comes to media. Maybe it has to do with the lack of formal training which was once the norm. When I started you learned your craft from elders in the business, who learned their craft from their elders in the business. If you were a director of photography it was because you earned the title. Now in 2011 if you want to be a media producer/film maker/director of photography/sound recordist/insert title here/ you buy a computer and cheap camera, give yourself the title of DP, and then gleam the Internet for information on how to shoot and light. Don't get me wrong, the Internet is a wealth of information, but not all of it is correct information. In the case of copyright materials, these kids are not learning the dos and donts. And when they are informed they don't comply. Maybe they feel that they are not dealing with tangibles like a solid object they can see in their hands. They would not likely steal a car, or kick in you door and rob you, but in their minds a copyright song or video clip is just digital information on a computer screen which they can access on the Internet. The fact of the matter is, just because you can access copyright materials on the Internet does not give you the right to use it. It's stealing plain and simple. And because these kids have never worked in a professional capacity, they have no respect for the works of other professionals. But not to just single out young pups, stealing goes on at the corporate level as well. Years back I composed music packages for TV stations. News opens, bumps, and the like. A company which owned 7 TV stations across the country liked my music pkg and a special agreement was reached for all 7 stations. Well after a year they decided not to renew the contract. Two years later I get a call from the disgruntled VO guy at one of the stations. They were still using my music. Two years of income x 7 TV stations! Bottom line, no matter how famous or rich you think a songwriter may be, that does not give you the right to steal from them. They are real people who work hard to support their real families.

All the Best!

Dave

The ironic thing is that all the people who started out in the past few years and seem to have a lenient attitude to sampling all issue their work on CD with the copyright blurb clearly in place. So they seem to consider other people's copyright not a problem, but consider their own 100% valid!

The fact of the matter is, just because you can access copyright materials on the Internet does not give you the right to use it. It's stealing plain and simple. And because these kids have never worked in a professional capacity, they have no respect for the works of other professionals.

I admire Carly Simon as an artist and I respect Prince William and Kate Middleton as a couple. To use either in a non professional video to be shared among friends is a tribute to both from a common sense point of view. From a modern, self interested and profiteering point of view it is stealing.

This all seems to be an issue because I am a videographer, as we all are, but remember that I was not on a shoot, I was with friends. I could have shot this as an English teacher or an asphalt spreader, perhaps then it would be less of an issue.

I make my money from my professional gigs, and I use royalty free music or sound effects from the Apple iMovie library (which are royalty free - I checked in 2006) and I get upset if I don't get paid, but if somebody uses one of my videos to entertain somebody they know, I don't ruin the media it so it can't be enjoyed - I actually take it as a compliment, why wouldn't I? I value people over money, and I'm sure Carly does and probably the writer/composer of 'Nobody Does It Better' does but it's the publishing company who only gives a toss about money, they wouldn't know the first thing about creativity and non profit sharing which is why they do what they do, and they are more guilty of ripping of artists than ANYBODY is.

I'm just getting the topic back firmly on the rails, I know I have a valid point and I don't know why so many defend this ever increasing big brother-ism of the world. I wonder if the recent Google takeover has anything to do with this.

Are Simon and I the only people here who has used whatever music we fancied to compliment a video we created for our friends or family?

I'm just getting the topic back firmly on the rails, I know I have a valid point and I don't know why so many defend this ever increasing big brother-ism of the world. I wonder if the recent Google takeover has anything to do with this.

Are Simon and I the only people here who has used whatever music we fancied to compliment a video we created for our friends or family?

I don't think anyone here is arguing against your using whatever music you fancy to complement a home video created for friends and family.

The problem is, you put that video on YouTube. YouTube is a money-making, commercial venture, that makes advertising dollars by leveraging content of their users. By putting your video on YouTube, you entered in agreement with YouTube whereby you are receiving their service free of charge (ability to upload HD videos and make them accessible to anyone in the world), in exchange for them collecting revenue from advertising along your own video(s). So, technically, you and YouTube, in a joint business venture, are using a Carly Simon song to make money, without permission.

There isn't much "big brotherism" here; this is fairly easy to understand. Anyone who has ever created any artistic expression for a living will understand why the Carly Simon audio track was removed from YouTube.

I disagree, fundamentally, from a common sense point of view. With this mindset future documentaries and newscasts will be plagued with problems, and riddled with those blurred backgrounds we are increasingly exposed to. Newsmen and documentarians should be free to do their journalism without interference. Freedom of expression and freedom to reflect reality as we see it every day.


It really does not matter if the movie is a scripted narrative film, or a documentary. Either genre has still one primary purpose, which is to entertain (in addition to making money for the producer).

As mentioned before, there is only one, very narrowly defined category, that is exempt from copyright clearance, and that is news gathering. The only way such use is allowed is when copyrighted content (music soundtrack, video, spoken or printed text) is incidental to the primary story of the news item. The scope here is extremely narrow and very carefully evaluated, to make sure that NOBODY is making money (or getting famous, which indirectly provides meaningful gain) by leveraging someone else's copyrighted work without compensating that someone else.

If everyone had the same view then that documentary would have to start paying the people who made the shirt the guy was wearing, his jeans, the mug he drank coffee out of, the particular brand of coffee he was drinking, the manufacturer of the glasses he used to read with, the biro he wrote with, the pad he wrote on, the architect of the building they were in, the company who made the tiles on the floor, the brand of paint on the wall. The tailor who made the curtains around the window behind him, all the brands of cars on the highway in the distance, the company who made that window, the chair he sat on, the desk they were at.

They would even have to pay the manufacturer of the TV that the damn Simpons was showing on in the background!


I'm not sure you clearly understand the point of copyright. None of the items you mentioned in your example are copyrighted (nor are they coypright-able, to begin with). These are objects for everyday use, not expressions of artistic idea (although an artistic idea was clearly used in the industrial design of at least some of them). If that mug had a copyrighted cartoon from the New Yorker, then yes, the clearance must be obtained from the cartoonist (or owner of the rights).

As for brands and their logos appearing visibly (and identifiably) in a commercial picture, that falls into the category of product placement, where different kinds of sponsorship agreements are in place.

I do see your well presented point from the YouTube perspective, it doesn't make it any less of a bummer though! Maybe I'm being over defensive, but the rigid and sobering formality of many of the comments has made me feel like a bit of a criminal when I set out to do something to make people smile.

I agree with copyright but in this case it just seems to have gone too far and there is no such thing as justice, only law... I have technically abused it however I want to dress it up and that to me, from a human and personal point of view is wrong, but a human and personal point of view doesn't stand up.

I know I can't change the way it is,

Try looking at it from another point of view. How would you feel if somebody else did this with your own material?

Perhaps you have spend a bit too much time in Thailand, where (to my understanding) neither is the law too consistent and reasonable, nor is the enforcement of it any consistent at all.

Coming originally from a place not much different than that (with the respect to laws, their logic, enforcement, and especially corruption), I had a very lax attitude towards them. Having lived in the developed world for the past 20 years, where laws generally make sense and reflect the state of civilisation, as well as enforcement is consistent and meaningful (plus lack of corruption), I have learned to respect situations such as copyright, even in seemingly extreme situations (like posting a cellphone video on YouTube).

Recently, my daughter (10) had a performance at her school. I wanted to post the clip on YouTube (private link) so that her grandfather can watch it overseas. Before doing that, I looked up the copyright status of the work she had performed (it was Bach, in public domain, so I was OK). Most people don't even think of this, but it is real.

Perhaps if cases like yours become more common in America, and people begin to raise their voices about the extreme enforcement of copyright laws, someone might draft some federal legislation that might broaden that news gathering exception just ever so slightly, so that we could squeeze our little home videos through that little loophole.

Try looking at it from another point of view. How would you feel if somebody else did this with your own material?

I believe that is exactly his point; if he were an artist, supporting himself by writing and recording music, and his track ended up on a home video, shared on YouTube, he wouldn't mind, unless somebody was making inordinate amount of money from that video.

As mentioned before, there is only one, very narrowly defined category, that is exempt from copyright clearance, and that is news gathering. The only way such use is allowed is when copyrighted content (music soundtrack, video, spoken or printed text) is incidental to the primary story of the news item

OK. I was not clear on that, and what you've said makes a lot of common sense to me. However I would have thought that documentary programs should also have been exempt (assuming that the copyrighted content is incidental to the story as with news stories). A good deal of documentaries use newsreel footage as it is, and I find good documentaries are a form of news gathering in a broader context. Does anyone here agree with that?

Sorry to keep dragging this away from the Carly Simon topic, but while we're at it: what about investigative documentaries, in the vein of Michael Moore style stuff where the companies being 'investigated' or whatever would never allow their material to be used, and yet you see it?

At any rate a lot of 'fringe' news stories these days suffer from the blurred backgrounds (usually entertainment related news stories - I know its not really news, but the point is that this phenomenon seems to be growing and I reckon its only going to go one way...).

...As mentioned before, there is only one, very narrowly defined category, that is exempt from copyright clearance, and that is news gathering...
Two more exempt categories, under Fair Use (Fair Dealing), also interpreted narrowly: Education (specifically, performance in the classroom for educational purposes, and scholarly research), and Parody (that comments on the original work). The Parody exemption is in the USA only, as I understand it.

News reporting is a little broader as well, to include criticism and review.

Wikipedia's Fair Use page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use) is some of the clearest writing I've seen on the often-tangled subject. Note that copyright exemption under Fair Use is not an international agreement, it's only in a few countries!

I'm not sure you clearly understand the point of copyright.

I fully understand the point of copyright; what I'm saying is that in terms of news gathering and documentary work there ought to be a semblance of common sense, as stated above, when the items in question are incidental, and have no consequence to the material filmed.

When I've used copyrighted temp music, I post those pieces on Vimeo with a password and only share it with the people I'm working with. This is similar to using temp music in a studio. It only goes public when I've written, performed, and include my own music for the piece.

I think there's an interesting line between filming MY wedding where a DJ might play anything and a documentary about weddings. For MY wedding, I feel that the artist who's work crept in cannot steal the event any more than I can steal their music. If I'm not selling it and the artist's work is secondary and in the background, I'd like to have the rights to share MY wedding video freely. The artist's work adds little or no value and my wedding video doesn't reduce the artist's potential income.

On the other hand, a documentary about weddings to be aired on a cable channel is a professional, money making venture. The producer could film a wide variety of wedding scenes for the production. In other words, the presence of an artist's music doesn't prevent the producer from making a doc about weddings in general.

Artists' works shouldn't be stolen. But the presence of artists' works shouldn't steal the world away from the documentary filmmaker either.

I believe that is exactly his point; if he were an artist... he wouldn't mind... Not all artists would agree with that point of view, though. That's why we have copyright.

For those artists who don't mind sharing their work freely for others to create derivative
works, there is Creative Commons (http://creativecommons.org/) -- that's the material that should be sourced for these
types of projects, instead of property protected by copyright.

...
I think there's an interesting line between filming MY wedding where a DJ might play anything and a documentary about weddings. For MY wedding, I feel that the artist who's work crept in cannot steal the event any more than I can steal their music. If I'm not selling it and the artist's work is secondary and in the background, I'd like to have the rights to share MY wedding video freely. The artist's work adds little or no value and my wedding video doesn't reduce the artist's potential income.
...

Share freely with friends, yes. Invite as many as you like over to your house to watch it with you or mail them a DVD if they're out of town. But posting to YouTube, etc, goes far beyond sharing with friends into the realm of publishing for the general public's consumption, while the wedding videographer who shot your wedding made the DVDand published it in the first place as a purely commercial product distributed to the public (albeit a small public).

I think there's an interesting line between filming MY wedding where a DJ might play anything and a documentary about weddings. For MY wedding, I feel that the artist who's work crept in cannot steal the event any more than I can steal their music. If I'm not selling it and the artist's work is secondary and in the background, I'd like to have the rights to share MY wedding video freely. The artist's work adds little or no value and my wedding video doesn't reduce the artist's potential income.

On the other hand, a documentary about weddings to be aired on a cable channel is a professional, money making venture. The producer could film a wide variety of wedding scenes for the production. In other words, the presence of an artist's music doesn't prevent the producer from making a doc about weddings in general.


But you neatly jumped right over the elephant in the room BETWEEN those two examples. Wedding videographers who shoot other people's weddings for profit. Copyright law (at least in the USA) expressly prohibits using even "incidental" or "background" music from the DJ at the reception(*). There are notable cases of major-league cine and TV productions that never saw the audience (or were withdrawn from circulation) all because of inability to negotiate the rights to ambient background music.

(*)There is a "Fair use" case for LEGITIMATE news coverage.

Something to remember when using music that is now public domain such a Bach, is the song may indeed be in the public domain, but the particular recording of it by Symphony Orchestra X is likely under copyright.

But you neatly jumped right over the elephant in the room BETWEEN those two examples.

You bet I did. I'm not a copyright lawyer. ;)

Something to remember when using music that is now public domain such a Bach, is the song may indeed be in the public domain, but the particular recording of it by Symphony Orchestra X is likely under copyright.

Luckily, in my case, that Bach piece was performed live by my 10-year old daughter (accompanied on the piano by my wife). No mechanical royalties either...

YouTube also does this thing where instead of pulling your video off, they add a banner advertisement at the bottom of your video for the song that you used. The idea being that if the viewer likes the song, they can click on the ad and purchase the download. It's good for the musician, good for YouTube, and sort of good for the video maker - but I hate banner ads.

I think Google did this for that famous wedding ceremony video, where the wedding party dances down the aisle.

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? A character in the film wakes up with an exact reproduction of Mike Tyson's tattoo on his face. The artist is claiming a copyright on the design and wants royalties.

I understand why people get upset about documentary film making being burdened, but the simple fact is that if you're making an original production, it's up to you to jump over all of the hurdles involved with properly making the piece. If you don't follow the rules, you could end up making something that can never be shown. It's one of the many things that makes this craft a difficult one. We all have to creatively work within these limitations. You kind of need to assume that just about everything has a copyright - even a tattoo - and work from there. It's a pain, but at the end of the day your work will likely be more original because of the extra effort you need to put into it.

Luckily, in my case, that Bach piece was performed live by my 10-year old daughter (accompanied on the piano by my wife). No mechanical royalties either...

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. And in the UK, they have even ANOTHER layer of copyright, the engraving (graphical layout) has separate copyright protection from the edition. OTOH, getting mechanical and sync licensing is a lot easier in many other countries where copyright laws were developed later (or updated more recently) than the USA.

A character in the film wakes up with an exact reproduction of Mike Tyson's tattoo on his face. The artist is claiming a copyright on the design and wants royalties.

I've seen the Ed Helms poster for The Hangover II, (which incidentally was partly shot just up the road last October), and remember wondering if Tyson and his tattoo artist had been consulted, which he should have been - I'm surprised the production didn't cover themselves on this one. They should know how greedy and opportunistic people have become (especially in the US) and take every precaution possible.

I'm sure the artist would have demanded an extortionate amount to have the tattoo used and I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that he will be revelling in the fact that he can sue and make even more money. If we are not careful then one day we will all be suing each other and seeing therapists and there will be no space to move creatively whatsoever.

Try looking at it from another point of view. How would you feel if somebody else did this with your own material?

I'd be delighted.

I don't want to have to say a third time that this topic is about sharing a private video amongst friends but what I will add is that perhaps what I could have or should have done is set the video to private so that it could not be viewed unless I posted somebody a link.

I don't expect everybody to agree with me but to fill three pages I must have a valid point.

Classical music is often available in "Urtext" or original editions which have no editing (such as fingerings etc) applied - it's usually the editing that is copyright in new editions not the underlying music.

...
I don't want to have to say a third time that this topic is about sharing a private video amongst friends but what I will add is that perhaps what I could have or should have done is set the video to private so that it could not be viewed unless I posted somebody a link.

I don't expect everybody to agree with me but to fill three pages I must have a valid point.But it's not about sharing a personal video privately with friends. It's about publishing a video to the general public on YouTube, no different than plastering a picture on billboards coast-to-coast, printing a book for general circulation, hanging a picture in a gallery open to the public, or broadcasting a film on a TV network. Posting to YouTube means you have published it to everyone on the planet with a computer and internet connection. True, they may have to click a certain link but functionally that's no different from having to tune my TV to the proper channel at the proper time to watch the latest episode of The Simpson's. People seem to have the notion that because they're not Sony Studios or Columbia Pictures they don't have to abide by the same intellectual property laws the mainstream professionals do.

What about using a "cloud" storage provider like Dropbox or even Amazon instead of Youtube? If the online repository is simply an extension of the private files on your hard drive, wouldn't it fit the definition of "private"?