|
|||||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
January 18th, 2010, 10:14 AM | #61 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Norwich, Norfolk, UK
Posts: 3,531
|
Those in Europe will probably be aware of EasyGroup who own Easyjet. Their company branding & logo is all orange & Orange the Telco tried to prevent them starting up a mobile phone company called naturally enough EasyMobile that used the colour orange in their branding. BBC NEWS | Business | Orange colour clash set for court What made this particularly hilarious is that Easygroup itself is very protective of the common English word 'Easy' & pursues other companies who try to use Easythis or Easythat as their company names.
|
June 9th, 2010, 02:39 PM | #62 |
Major Player
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Fredericksburg, VA
Posts: 282
|
I have a problem applying the reasoning/definitions/purposes of a synchronization license to the specific application of videotaping a live musical performance. In this case, there is no "synching" involved. It is, unfortunately to my perception until you guys educate me, hardly any different in purpose/accomplishment for the copyright holder than a phonorecord created with a mechanical license of a licensed or exempted live performance. There is no more risk to the artist's work being associated with unseemly images than was allowed by the performance license or exemption allowing the performance in the first place. There is no more copying than what could be covered by a mechanical license (which is MUCH easier to secure). Since there is no reference/definition of the terms mechanical or synchronization licenses specifically in the Copyright Title 17 law, I'm left to flounder with individual sites' definitions... which again, seem to miss the specific example of video taping live authorized musical performances. Bottom line is, I'm suggesting a mechanical license seems like it ought to be made to be allowed to fit such a need as to record and make/distribute video copies of a legal, live musical performance, if no adiitional images are to be synched with the music
3. WHAT IS A SYNCHRONIZATION LICENSE... Often referred to as a "Synch" license, a Synchronization License allows the user to reproduce a musical composition "in connection with" or "in timed relation with" a visual image, e.g., motion picture, video, advertising commercial. For example, if you wish to use the song, "Ain't Nothing Like The Real Thing" on a beverage commercial, you must first obtain a Synchronization License from the copyright owner of the music....Signature Sound: Music Clearance & Licensing- 11 Most Asked Questions Synchronization License Music Publishers issue licenses as copyright owner or his agent, usually to a producer, granting the right to synchronize the musical composition in timed relation with audio-visual images on film or videotape. BMI.com | Music Licensing | Types of Copyright Perhaps the remining issue would be the creation of a new, derivative work, which is a guaranteed, secured right of the original copyright holder. Last edited by Sam Houchins II; June 9th, 2010 at 03:24 PM. Reason: Afterthought |
June 10th, 2010, 03:26 AM | #63 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 5,742
|
The term "synchonization" goes back many years to the early days of the first "talkies" where movie sound tracks were distributed to the theatres on separate media (disks) from the film and the two were played together in synchronization for the performance. Today the term hangs on even though the technology to get the sound track in sync with the image has changed. When you shoot a video of a music performance, the sound of the music is recorded in synch with the pictures you're recording. When you edit, you make conscious decisions of how the soundtrack lines up with the picture, what images are on screen while a certain set of notes is playing - it's been "synched" even if the picture is just a static shot of the band that is playing the music, If you lay in background music under a dramatic scene, the music is explicitly placed in the soundtrack in exact relation to the picture, it's been synchonized. If you play a theme as the credits roll, again the music has been consciously positioned with respect to picture - they're synched. The images the license talks about are not ADDITIONAL images beyond those of the performer(s), they're having ANY images of anything at all appear along with the music. Essentially it boils down to, for all practical purposes, with very few exceptions, if music is part of the soundtrack of a film or video, no matter what role it has in the soundtrack, it has been synced to the picture and you need the synch license from the copyright holder (publisher or composer/lyricist).
Mechanical licenses deal with distributing audio recordings, solely as audio recordings, without any accompaning images. When a band records a song, the mechanical is what allows them to make and sell copies of the resulting CD. Mechanicals have almost nothing to do with film/video soundtracks.
__________________
Good news, Cousins! This week's chocolate ration is 15 grams! |
June 10th, 2010, 07:50 AM | #64 |
Major Player
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Fredericksburg, VA
Posts: 282
|
Thanks for the history lesson, Steve. Learning the "why's" of things helps it sink into my brain and for it to stick there.
As I've poked around and read, it appears to me that video has been sorely left out in the cold as a medium to have access to the use of music. Why congress should feel that they should compel copyright holders to allow musicians to record/distribute their songs in audio format, and yet not equally allow for that recording to be on the soudtrak of a video still escapes my reasoning synapses. Especially, as expressed above, when there would only be images of the performers themselves legally performing the music, or in the case of a wedding, recording an event where the music was legally being played. I so appreciate those in the know who've taken the effort to beat it into our heads the legal rights and wrongs so we can come to grips with it and adhere to it. Perhaps congress will someday extend the usage exemptions to a fairer, larger circle of media to include video. Again, to compel audio reproductions, but to exclude video is where the unfairness gets me. If audio recording/distribution were as equally uncompelled, then there would be no inequity to my mind. I still just don't see how the one can be justified and the other condemned. God bless... |
June 10th, 2010, 08:18 AM | #65 | |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 5,742
|
Quote:
As for music at a wedding or a corporate event being legal, maybe so and maybe not. Did they actually pay performance royalties on all the music that was played? They are supposed to but but that's honored more in the breech than in the practice I think.
__________________
Good news, Cousins! This week's chocolate ration is 15 grams! |
|
June 10th, 2010, 09:21 AM | #66 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Lowestoft - UK
Posts: 4,039
|
I can only speak for the UK, but the various agencies here do make sure people know licenses should be in force - obviously, people take advantage, but they are legitimate business expenses. A venue local to me have been doing it for years, and the big sticker from the copyright agency is up on the office wall. The trouble is, this license is for playing music to the public on their premises, and the copyright agency just realised there is a theatre in the building. The owners, confident in their belief they were licensed, just found out that for over 15 years, they've been operating illegally. This year, the new charges will kick in - the agency accepting that it was a genuine mistake.
If you read a CD label - then the list of things you can use it for are quite limited. The fact that we do use them outside of that wording isn't justification for doing it. |
June 10th, 2010, 01:03 PM | #67 | |||
Major Player
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Fredericksburg, VA
Posts: 282
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The business that typically provides space for events like weddings/receptions should hold blanket performance licenses to cover their own rears because they're as much responsible for music being played in their establishment as those actually performing/playing the music, and apparently it's actually the business that's more often than not the party sued, if there's suing to be done... and Personal use allows for an audience of, "a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances." I'd like it to be demonstrated why a wedding/reception would not fall under the category of an event solely attended by, "a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances," and therefore allow for one of those in the, "normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances," to either perform music for that, "normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances," or to play personal legal copies of music for that, "normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances." Thanks for you thoughts/comments heretofore, Steve. God bless... Last edited by Sam Houchins II; June 10th, 2010 at 01:57 PM. |
|||
June 11th, 2010, 02:33 AM | #68 | |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Norwich, Norfolk, UK
Posts: 3,531
|
Quote:
Unfortunately the PRS/MCPS haven't yet caught up with the Internet & there is no such straightforward licensing scheme for limited use on Internet sites in e.g. a showreel |
|
June 11th, 2010, 04:05 AM | #69 | ||
Inner Circle
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 5,742
|
Quote:
Quote:
And in that same vein, when you are a videographer recording an event or wedding, whether you are a major player or just a weekend semi-pro, you become a distributor of video recordings, albeit probably with a relatively limited circulation. If those recordings contain other copyrightable work, you are effectively in the same boat as the venue or DJ above. Even if the music played was valid personal use of the event organizer or host, it's not YOUR personal use and since you're the one making the copies, your use is what counts. You can't get around it - when you make a film or video of a performance, you are making a derivative work and distributing copies of same. Mechanicals are not liceses for derivative works because audio recordings are not derivative - in fact, I believe the provisions of the statuory mechanical license specifically prohibit any substantial alteration of the orginal music. But a film or video of a performance is more than just a reproduction of the music itself and the whole is quite different from the original music by virtue of the added images.
__________________
Good news, Cousins! This week's chocolate ration is 15 grams! |
||
June 11th, 2010, 05:53 AM | #70 | |||||
Major Player
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Fredericksburg, VA
Posts: 282
|
Quote:
"§ 103 · Subject matter of copyright: Compilations and derivative works... ...(b) The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material." Quote:
Regarding hiring a performer or DJ and having the legalities covered, what I mean to suggest is that the task of securing a performance license may not be so onerous as might be imagined, and should already be covered without any further action needed by the family/performers; in that, businesses that regularly hire out their space for gatherings like weddings/receptions, with or without providing the actual performers (musicians or DJ's), but where music is typically performed/played, those businesses should already be carrying blanket performance licenses. If the wedding party has hired the services of a performer, just asking the business providing the space should lead to the discovery that the performance licensing is already provided. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I'm sorry if I've still missed a point you've made and either haven't rebutted or accepted it, or incorrectly rebutted it in ignorance. God bless! |
|||||
June 11th, 2010, 08:13 AM | #71 | |
Trustee
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Willmar, MN
Posts: 1,400
|
Quote:
Copyright music is used all the time in video - look at commercials, major video productions, movies, etc. and they pay big money for it. What does not exist at this time is an affordable method of securing music for your production. If you want to hire a band/musician to record a version of a popular song for inclusion in your video, it can be done fairly inexpensively. I've done that before - we used "Who'll Stop The Rain" by John Fogarty. While we could not use the recording by CCR, we could make our own recording. It was just a matter of paperwork and a small check. |
|
June 11th, 2010, 09:14 AM | #72 | ||
Major Player
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Fredericksburg, VA
Posts: 282
|
Quote:
Quote:
This seems reaonable to me, though again I acknowledge and emphasize that this is not how it currently is. |
||
June 11th, 2010, 04:57 PM | #73 | |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 5,742
|
Quote:
__________________
Good news, Cousins! This week's chocolate ration is 15 grams! |
|
June 11th, 2010, 05:03 PM | #74 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Apple Valley CA
Posts: 4,874
|
Just to toss in a twist, look up "incidental" - this is a category that Steve didn't cover, because it's a really grey area...
If you play your own music, you're fine... check. If your friend comes in and DJ's for you, fine...check. (But what if he's a "pro" DJ and trading services with you, or even just doing it 'cause he's a good friend?) If you hire a DJ, he is responsible for clearances, and is supposed to have a license to "perform" for profit, for which he pays a fee... check. If you hire out a venue, and they play music, they probably have a license... check. NOW, and this is the twist up that we've wrangled over at length, without a conclusion that satisfies everyone... so let's not thrash it too much, OK? It's a mind bender for the "video guy", thus why it gets hashed around. You hire a Videographer to document an event - he makes NO choices whatsoever about WHAT is performed, and is making no changes to the ambient audio, which is by nature "sync'd" to the performance (meaning whatever audio he captures is in effect just "what happened", or incidental to the visuals captured). Part of that "documentation" includes a DJ playing (hopefully licensed, but is the videographer supposed to go aroud asking "show me your papers?"). Effectively the videographer CAN'T remove the audio being captured unless he's "looping" the audio. He may make minor edits for continuity or timing, but the end result "documents an event", as it happened, just as he was hired to do. Is the videographer responsible for licensing? HMMMMM. The "copyrighted" material is incidental to the CONTENT of the video, which is the EVENT, and the videographer had NO control over what was played (and thus captured). Really hard to argue when and how liability/responsibility attaches. Still, you see those blurry logos on lots of TV shows... incidental or not. <Tangential issue - I'm deliberately leaving out "audio sweetening", as in adding a sync'd sound track, for a reason... as I listen to an "indy" commercial on a cable channel with the hook from "Day Tripper" subtly playing in the background... I doubt it's "cleared", and I've been catching a LOT of these lately... I'm sure Chase clears their music that plays in their commercials, but probably not these "little" business entities...> I'd argue (aside from the above tangent) the answer is no... admittedly this is problematic if you're making copies of the event video for profit, but I contend that the "buyer" of the copies/services is NOT asking you to duplicate a copyrighted work (although technically speaking you end up doing so by circumstance, as does any private party who brings a cell phone or camera to an "event", and not one of them paid a license fee, nor can you argue they have to, up until it posts on You Tube, another wrench in the current state of licensing...). You are documenting AN EVENT, not "copying a work, the any copyrighted material/music is incidental. Just to add some perspective, remember that a "sound track" is carefully chosen, little "sound bites" and audio sweetening to create an ambience in a 'big movie". Audio is a complete "department", just as companies have deparments dedicated to "product placement" so that soda can you see (and you see the logo in ANY scene) isn't generic, that laptop has the "apple logo" right side up (when it's upside down on most commercially available ones IIRC), and so on (though I saw a computer on a kids show with a PEAR logo... he he he). Each element is carefully chosen - something an event videographer can't do, isn't expected to do, and generally WON'T do! IMO this creates a "loophole" of sorts, especially when you consider that if a licensing fee has already been paid for the "performance", the copyright holder has ALREADY recieved compensation - I know the "legal theory" is that they could or should be compensated for EVERY "needle drop" (every time anyone anywhere listens to the licensed work), but as a practical matter, this is hard if not impossible to to achieve (if you had to pay EVERY time you listened to a CD or MP3, instead of "buying" the right to listen anytime you wanted, would you buy ANY music??). There are many aspects here, but conceptually, as long as a copyright holder is compensated from the licensing of the performance, if they did not prohibit videotaping of that specific performance, the horse is out of the barn IMO... I don't want to have this thread get too crazy, but these aspects of copyright ARE grey areas, so it's fair to discuss. FWIW, Steve is my "evil twin" on this subject, and while we love the intellectual discourse, it's probably a bit much for most people to watch the "mindwrestling"! I appreciate Steve a LOT both as an alternative viewpont and as a worthy "adversary" - we're like the two guys at the "virtual bar" debating whether Wonder Woman or Catwoman is "hotter" <wink>! Hope this helps put a handle on a "tricky" subject, you might also search "Carterphone" here for another thread that Chris (our host) started that adds further intellectual examination to the theoretical aspects, and might be worth the read! |
June 11th, 2010, 05:20 PM | #75 | |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Apple Valley CA
Posts: 4,874
|
Quote:
As a practical matter, you can argue over whether a "free market" works or not, I'd say maybe it's not the "best", but others are worse... so there ya go. As a simple practical matter, If you are an IP owner/creator, you want to be able to benefit from and "control" your creative work, and you should respect the same rights to your "fellow creators". Only fair, right? THAT should be the bottom line, and the problem arises when the technology leapfrogs the rights structure, as it has with the digital revolution. The principles remain the same, but when it's all 1's and 0's, the "control" (and thus the trail for compensation to get back to the creator) becomes more difficult, simply because the methodology to "copy" 1's and 0's is now democratized and ubiquitous. |
|
| ||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|