NOTICE: THIS IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION
 

Paul,

You clearly represent one of the extreme positions on this issue, and that's fine. I am not, and have not, in any way challenged what you have said from a pure legal point of view.

However, I am confused that you seem to be substantially mis-interpreting what I posted. I thought it was clear English.

I specifically stated that:

1. First, you should consult your attorney.
2. Neither the HFA nor the FAQ is a legal opinion


Why do you imply that I am expressing a legal opinion?
Why do you state that it makes it appear that the HFA statement is a legal opinion?

Please don't put words into my mouth, or into my posts. :-)

I am not an attorney. I am not expressing a legal opinion. I am NOT recommending that anyone use copyrighted music without a license.

However, I can read and write English, and, like everyone else, I'm entitled to my non-legal opinions. :-) If this get's to be an emotional issue, then I will bow out, and you guys can do as you wish, including deleting this thread.

I have nothing to gain one way or the other. I was only trying to help.

Dylan, since you're the FAQ manager, I'm turning this completely over to you. I think I have contributed all that I can. Do as you see fit, including not making any changes to the existing FAQ.

I don't see anything emotional or confrontation in what Paul wrote and he's absolutely right.

"Having said all that, the question is, is there anything we can do to address this issue in a succinct manner that will be of help to future videographers?"

I believe Paul and I have both given succinct answers to this question and we're both attorneys and we both have experience in copyright law (he much more than I - I'm a year out of law school, but I did almost all of my independent research on copyright law, which you can read in the Northwestern University Law Review if you'd like ;)).

Re: NOTICE: THIS IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION
 

Jim, I don't represent an extreme position. What I stated is simple, clear, black-letter law that is not disputed by anyone.


Right. The problem is, you are misstating both what HFA said, and the significance of what they said. HFA is not stating their belief as to the state of the law. They are merely stating the HFA policy with respect to the intellectual property that belongs to their clients. I post videos on my website which are freely downloadable. That's my policy. It's not that law that all vides are freely downloadable.

I don't. My disclaimers re: legal opinions are for my protection -- I can incur significant malpractice liability if I give legal opinions to non-clients.

Because you've written HFA's policy in a FAQ section which deals with videographers' legal right to sync CD music. Black-letter law says you can't (though, again, my personal belief is that fair use would permit it). Just because the law doesn't allow it, doesn't mean that there is no way to use a CD for a soundtrack. You can obtain a license, you can use royalty-free music, or you (apparently) can use music by HFA clients, provided its for 10 or fewer distribution.

The law is not, however, that 10 or fewer distribution copies won't incur infringement liability. The way the HFA material is set out, it makes it seem like there's a difference of opinion -- HFA says you can, and I say you can't.

It's not emotional for me (I guess I need to use more smileys). It is, though, an important issue, because it is central to the ability of wedding videographers to make a living. I think it's fine to say, "here are ways you can use music in your videos." I think it's wrong, though, to say, in effect, "there is a dispute as to whether it is legal or illegal to sync a commercial CD to a video." There's no dispute.

I appreciate that. So am I.

If, in fact, HFA permits such I use, I think it's important to mention it in the FAQ, as it's yet one more source for usable music. The point, though, is that it is, in essence, a license extended by HFA with respect to its clients' music, not a right under law. Anyone seeking to take advantage of HFA's policy should confirm that the particular CD (and song) that they propose to use is part of HFA's "stable."

To muddy the water even further, I have heard from two different sources recently that HFA has stopped issuing these type of licenses because the volume of questions being generated was swamping their limited staff. I understand they won't even answer questions over the phone and insist all inquiries be in writing.

Re: NOTICE: THIS IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION
 

<<<-- Originally posted by Jim Underwood :
Dylan, since you're the FAQ manager, I'm turning this completely over to you. I think I have contributed all that I can. Do as you see fit, including not making any changes to the existing FAQ. -->>>

Dylan is away until Friday at earliest. Will sort it out when back.

Re: Re: NOTICE: THIS IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION
 

<<<-- Originally posted by Dylan Couper : Dylan is away until Friday at earliest. Will sort it out when back. -->>>

And who might this be, Dylan's alter-ego? :-)

Or his lovely wife, possibly.

I don't think Paul could have stated it more clearly -- he is simply relating the law as it stands. As an attorney, he is very well versed on what is or is not the letter of the law in these matters.

Right, Jeff, my understanding was that Harry Fox didn't even touch sync licensing. If they've a new policy it would be nice if someone could provide writen documentation of this. I wouldn't put it in an FAQ just from word of mouth.

Re: Re: Re: NOTICE: THIS IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION
 

<<<-- Originally posted by Jim Underwood : <<<-- Originally posted by Dylan Couper : Dylan is away until Friday at earliest. Will sort it out when back. -->>>

And who might this be, Dylan's alter-ego? :-) -->>>\


Dylan's evil twin. }:)