|
|||||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
May 11th, 2005, 12:21 PM | #121 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: St.Louis, USA
Posts: 145
|
Useful information
|
May 11th, 2005, 01:07 PM | #122 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: St.Louis, USA
Posts: 145
|
Sites i found useful to get license
Useful information on getting license for music and movie for educational and other purposes.
www.harryfox.com www.songfile.com www.mplc.com repertoire.bmi.com ascap.com Last edited by Harikrishnan Ponnurangam; May 11th, 2005 at 01:16 PM. Reason: The hfa.org is wrong harryfox.com |
May 26th, 2005, 03:00 PM | #123 |
Major Player
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Venice, FL
Posts: 850
|
Copyright liability
The subject keeps me intrigued.
Assume the following people involved in a DVD project are all different people. Producer Director Camera Operator Editor Duplicator Client ?????? Now let's say that there is some copyright violation involved in the project, most likely uncleared music. But everyone had a hand in it. Who is legally responsible for this, and who can be sued? My guess would be the producer and the client are the only ones who can legally be held liable. I hope Paul shows up for this one.
__________________
You are either growing or dying. |
May 26th, 2005, 03:29 PM | #124 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: San Mateo, CA
Posts: 3,840
|
The "author" of the work is responsible for infringements. For copyright purposes, this is usually the producer. Whoever "owns" the example you describe above. "Having a hand in it" does not indicate ownership.
(My thoughts until Paul weighs in with a more accurate take.) |
May 26th, 2005, 05:28 PM | #125 |
Wrangler
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Mays Landing, NJ
Posts: 11,794
|
Yeah, let's see what Paul says, but in most lawsuits the philosophy is to to name everyone in sight and let them try to get excused....
|
May 26th, 2005, 10:39 PM | #126 |
Wrangler
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Los Angeles (recently from San Francisco)
Posts: 954
|
This is a complicated question, and there's no easy answer.
Infringement liabiltiy can arise for direct infringement, i.e. someone makes an unauthorized copy, or contributory infringement, i.e. someone does something to facilitate someone else making an unauthorized copy. Without knowing specifics, it is possible for some or all of the listed positions to incur liability. It is not a defense to infringement liability to say, "I was just doing my job." Copyright infringement liability is also strict liability, meaning, it is not a defense to say, "I thought it was legal," or, "I didn't know I was infringing." |
May 26th, 2005, 11:09 PM | #127 |
Hawaiian Shirt Mogul
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: northern cailfornia
Posts: 1,261
|
if your production is not a LLC, INC, limited partnership etc in addition to your list you might add INVESTORS , persons with points... remember those that get to a piece of the profit action might also also get a piece of the liability action !!!!
but remember even if you are a LLC doing something that you know is wrong you will not be able to hide behind a LLC/inc etc ... |
August 30th, 2005, 10:42 PM | #128 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Cherry Hill, New Jersey
Posts: 75
|
copyright issues "Eye on the Prize."
I just heard on my local public radio network that it has been illegal to buy or screen a copy of the 1987 documentary “Eye on the Prize” since 1993 when the copyrighted material used in the film expired.
A philanthropist has donated about 250,000 dollars to help finance the heralded documentary on the American Civil rights movement. His money buys a limited reissue with, I believe no TV broadcast. I bring this up, because I am confused by all of this. There are some twenty songs that need to be paid for. What confuses me is the money the owners of the song- “Happy Birthday” wants because it shows up in a video clip of friends singing it to Martin Luther King at a surprise birthday party. What gives????????
__________________
"The Light is the melody, the Motion is the lyrics..." |
August 31st, 2005, 02:11 AM | #129 | |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 5,742
|
Quote:
|
|
August 31st, 2005, 05:09 AM | #130 | |
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,244
|
Quote:
Good morning to you, Good morning to you, Good morning, dear children, Good morning to all. The Hills' catchy little tune was unleashed upon the world in 1893, when it was published in the songbook Song Stories for the Kindergarten. (The composition of "Good Morning to All" is often erroneously reported as having occurred in 1859 by sources that confuse Mildred Hill's birth date with the year she created the melody.) After the song proved more popular as a serenade for students to sing to their teachers (rather than vice-versa), it evolved into a version with the word "teacher" replacing "children" and a final line matching the first two, and "Good Morning to All" became more popularly known as "Good Morning to You." (Ironically, in light of the copyright battles to come, "Good Morning to All" bore more than a passing resemblance to the songs "Happy Greetings to All" and "Good Night to You All," both published in 1858.) Here the trail becomes murky — nobody really knows who wrote the words to "Happy Birthday to You" and put them to the Hills' melody, or when it happened. The "Happy Birthday to You" lyrics first appeared in a songbook edited by one Robert H. Coleman in March of 1924, where they were published as a second stanza to "Good Morning to You"; with the advent of radio and sound films, "Happy Birthday" was widely popularized as a birthday celebration song, and its lyrics supplanted the originals. By the mid-1930s, the revamped ditty had appeared in the Broadway musical The Band Wagon (1931) and had been used for Western Union's first "singing telegram" (1933), and when Irving Berlin's musical As Thousands Cheer made yet another uncredited and uncompensated use of the "Good Morning to All" melody, Jessica Hill, a third Hill sister who administered the copyright to "Good Morning to All" on behalf of her sisters, sprang into action and filed suit. By demonstrating the undeniable similiarities between "Good Morning to All" and "Happy Birthday to You" in court, Jessica was able to secure the copyright of "Happy Birthday to You" for her sisters in 1934 (too late, unfortunately, to benefit Mildred, who had died in 1916). The Chicago-based music publisher Clayton F. Summy Company, working with Jessica Hill, published and copyrighted "Happy Birthday" in 1935. Under the laws in effect at the time, the Hills' copyright would have expired after one 28-year term and a renewal of similar length, falling into public domain by 1991. However, the Copyright Act of 1976 extended the term of copyright protection to 75 years from date of publication, and the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 added another 20 years, so under current law the copyright protection of "Happy Birthday" will remain intact until at least 2030. (from Urban Legends Reference Pages @ http://www.snopes.com) Hope that explains it. Just because something is legal, it doesn't mean it's "right." Jay |
|
August 31st, 2005, 06:41 AM | #131 |
Major Player
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Venice, FL
Posts: 850
|
Should I put a copyright notice on certain work?
I am always concerned about professional pilferage, unauthorized broadcast or webcast, or people re-editing my work and presenting it as mine still (making me look bad?). But I do some work (personal events like parties, birthdays, etc) and legacy biographies where I have no problem or issue if the client wants to make additional copies for family. Likewise, some corporate work becomes the property of the client when all invoices are paid.
I am thinking that if I put a copyright notice on the work, they may have problems making copies (now or in the future as laws get more stupid). I know that Kinkos gets pretty restrictive about this today. Right now, I put in the contract that the client has the right to make unlimited copies. But especially for personal events, it is unlikely they will have the contract around in 10-20 years when they want to make copies for the grandkids. I would like to hear people's thoughts on this issue. Should I worry about it? Should I change the copyright notice that I put on these projects?
__________________
You are either growing or dying. |
August 31st, 2005, 07:02 AM | #132 | |
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,244
|
Quote:
Frankly, the chances of you or I loosing any significant sums of money due to copyright infringement (illegal copies) are pretty slim. Yes, someone could take our work and butcher it, saying it was ours, but why would they? So, as far as any copyright notice on your works are concerned, I'd say do as you please. But realize that it will not have any real affect on those who have no regard for the law. Jay |
|
August 31st, 2005, 07:46 AM | #133 | |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Cherry Hill, New Jersey
Posts: 75
|
d'uh
Quote:
Steve, what gives???? You totally missed my point. I was talking about the fact that the songs were a part of a personal film or video- the song was not added to the film clip but was part of journalist reportage of the event- like a wedding. I understand artists rights - I have been a photjournalist and fine art photographer for 25 years. That was not my point. If the song was added to the film score- I understand, but if it is part of a journalist clip, then no. If fine art photgrapher or photojournalist had to get permission to exhibt or publish a photograph because someone is wearing logo hat or shirt than we all lose as artists and reporters. No artist should ever be exploited - but there are lines.
__________________
"The Light is the melody, the Motion is the lyrics..." |
|
August 31st, 2005, 07:51 AM | #134 | |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 5,742
|
Quote:
|
|
August 31st, 2005, 08:32 AM | #135 | |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 5,742
|
Quote:
I saw an interesting case of this just the other day that might interest you as a fellow photographer. There was a movie on TV called "The Amber Gatherer" where the story hinged around a photojournalist who had dropped out of sight and assumed a new identity. But meanwhile another photographer who I guess had worked for the same news service had taken over some of the first photographer's unpublished work and published it, claiming it as his own. Now the interesting point is that some of the photos that were being shown in the gallery scenes, etc, were in fact Robert Capra's classic photos of the Spanish Civil War from the 1930's. Those pictures are literally textbook examples of photojournalism in action and there's absolutely no question they were made during coverage of news events. But I would be extremely surprised if they could have been reproduced as part of the plot elements in an entertainment movie without securing permission to use them and paying whatever royalties were demanded. Interesting what you say in your last paragraph. There is a case winding its way through the courts right now where a photographer has being sued by someone who he had photographed on the street in a public setting as a result of the images being displayed in an art gallery, claiming he had no right to exhibit them without a written release. |
|
| ||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|