Boys... your points have been made. Let's just agree to disagree.

<<<-- Originally posted by Tony Hall : There are people legally using other people's creations to help make their point... sometimes in situations that they could never get permission. Such as Fahrenheit 911's use of Fox News footage and Army commercials. So, how do they do it? -->>>

Tony, I'm not trying to be confrontational here but how do you know people are legally using other people's creations? Are you judging that by the fact that they haven't been sued? If so, I don't think that's a very good gauge of legality. I'm sure there are a lot of factors that go into the decision whether to sue or not. If someone is NOT sued that doesn't change the legality or illegality of what they did.

I could easily believe that MM used some news footage and used it without permission in his film. I could just as easily believe that the news organizations chose not to sue to avoid adverse publicity.

Good luck.

Dennis

Re: Re: Re: Copyright law
 

<<<-- Originally posted by John Britt : <<<-- Originally posted by Paul Tauger : No. There is no magic time limit, nor is there a magic number of notes or bars. One of the tests for fair use (which is a defense to infringement) is the substantiality of the amount taken, but there is no magic formula.-->>>

Interesting. Way back in high school I took TV Production -- we did a daily/semi-daily newscast, the video yearbook, and other wedgie-inducing things. The teacher specifically taught us that we could use up to 30 seconds of any song before it would be considering infringement. -->>>



Wasn't there just recently a court decision that said no amount of sampling was legal? I thought some group had used a tiny few notes sample from another artist but were found out and successfully sued. I forget where I heard this.

Good luck.

Dennis

<<<-- Originally posted by Tony Hall : I remember being a kid and taping songs off of the radio and then making mix tapes to take to school and give to the other kids. There didn't seem to be anything wrong with it and when I got enough money I'd go out and buy the whole album. -->>>

Of course, the big difference between that and what is going on today is that those second or third hand analog copies often sounded like crap. No one would mistake one of those dubs for the real thing.

Today, digital technology allows anyone to make a perfect copy an unlimited number of times with no loss of quality. A big difference.

Good luck.

Dennis

"I've always heard references in TV shows and stuff like "that's all we can play of that song or we'll have to pay royalties"

I believe Krusty said that in the Simpsons, and it's a joke.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright law
 

Which is why the teacher was teaching high school, rather than practicing law. Your teach was completely, utterly and totally wrong.

Quite the contrary. Sampling is fine IF it comes within fair use, e.g. the Pretty Woman case. It's not fine if it results in infringement and fair use doesn't apply. There's nothing magical about sampling that distinguishes it from any other kind of copying.

Well this thread has taught me that I shouldn't have even brought up the topic here. Most people here are biased and will try to convince you that everything is illegal... even things that are done constantly... especially in documentaries. When the time comes, I'll hire a lawyer; a good one who wants to help me find ways to help me get my work done and will fight if necessary.

<<<-- Originally posted by Tony Hall : Well this thread has taught me that I shouldn't have even brought up the topic here. Most people here are biased and will try to convince you that everything is illegal... even things that are done constantly... especially in documentaries. When the time comes, I'll hire a lawyer; a good one who wants to help me find ways to help me get my work done and will fight if necessary. -->>>

This statement fascinates me.

I _am_ a lawyer, one who practices intellectual property litigation. Do you really believe that knowledge of the law makes me "biased"?

If you hire a lawyer (which you should, rather than depending on free advice on the internet), he or she will explain the business risks of pursuing a particular course of action. You will make the decision whether to risk the liability. No lawyer, however, will be able to tell you, "Here is how you "get around" copyright law."

<< Well this thread has taught me that I shouldn't have even brought up the topic here. >>

Actually I'm very glad the topic was brought up, even though it's a fairly common, frequently discussed subject, it never hurts to have it at the forefront from time to time. We're very fortunate to have an attorney here who is very well experienced with media law and copyright issues and who is willing to answer these sorts of questions. The answers may not be the ones you want to hear but they are the truth and Paul does an excellent job of explaining the law -- not the way things should be, but the way they are. That's a highly valuable resource for all of us.

<<<-- Originally posted by Tony Hall : Well this thread has taught me that I shouldn't have even brought up the topic here. Most people here are biased and will try to convince you that everything is illegal... even things that are done constantly... especially in documentaries. When the time comes, I'll hire a lawyer; a good one who wants to help me find ways to help me get my work done and will fight if necessary. -->>>


I am utterly flabbergasted...

We are "biased" because we don't give you the easy answers you are looking for? You have posted broad generalizations which have been refuted with both advice from an actual attorney as well as with real-world examples. let's take a look:

You wrote: "The music industry isn't going to sue a highschool, a church, or a kid making a tape for his grandparents. [...] try suing a church... not in this country... not unless you've been molested."

This was refuted with real-world examples of both a church and a school being sued. To which you backpedaled: "Ok, I didn't say it was impossible... just very unlikely."


You wrote: "I remember being a kid and taping songs off of the radio and then making mix tapes to take to school and give to the other kids. There didn't seem to be anything wrong with it ..."

This was refuted with a real-world example of how the record industry spent a good bit of money back in the 80s promoting a campaign that said "Home taping is killing the music industry." Obviously, they did think there was something wring with it. You never responded to this statement.


Your arguments then degrade to the level of "every single recording artist that gets a video on MTV end up with a multi-million dollar 'crib'." Which isn't even worth refuting, but still the members here try to set you straight.


As Paul said, if you are serious about creating a documentary, you need to hire a lawyer, instead of looking for some pat words of support on the Internet. And as I stated before: "Philosophically, I think you would find that many of us generally agree with you. But in the TCB section, the purpose is to discuss the realities of business and law and how stay in line with these things while trying to produce our work. What could/should be is nice and all, but someone like Paul Tauger is going to give you the reality of it all, so you can best do your work."

I'd much prefer that a site like this give me the most cautious advice possible, instead of just saying "lots of people do it, so why don't you." We are incredibly lucky that people like Paul post here. He's going to give you the truth. Too bad you can't take it.

You're right, you shouldn't have posted this question here. You shouldn't have posted it anywhere if you weren't prepared to listen to the facts (from a lawyer, no less!)

Now Chris will come and tell me to cool off, but I must say that I don't normally reply with such frustration to posts here... this one in particular just had to come off my chest...

Well, I won't tell you to cool off, John, but I will say that for many people including myself this is always a learning process. The answers may not be what the original poster wants to hear but the advantage is that anyone else who comes along just might benefit from the entire discussion.

And I'm one of those that does. I've written, many times, that the law (or, perhaps, more accurately the various associations which represent copyright owners, e.g. BMI/ASCAP, etc.) hasn't kept up with video revolution which has resulted in professional-quality production values no longer being restricted to major film studios. There needs to be a special license for documentary producers, small independent theatrical release producers, and event and wedding videographers. The problem is, the folks in a position to implements these licenses simply aren't interested. It can be done in the form of a compulsory license, which will require an act of Congress, or voluntarily licensing, which would require the cooperation of music publishers. I've previously spoken with BMI's counsel to see if there would be interest in such a license; unfortunately, there was absolutely none -- BMI doesn't see a small production license as a signficant source of revenue (I think BMI is wrong). There are, however, industry associations, such as WEVA, who are in a position to lobby for this kind of license. THEY are the ones who have dropped the ball, in my opinion. Anyone here on dvinfo.net who is a member of WEVA or other production association should be complaining long and loud to the leadership.

Until then, all I can do is be the bearer of bad news.

<<<-- Originally posted by Paul Tauger :

I _am_ a lawyer, one who practices intellectual property litigation. Do you really believe that knowledge of the law makes me "biased"?

--->>>

I'm laughing as I type this in...

Actually Paul, I *DO* believe that your knowledge of the law makes you biased.... Biased in favour of not being wrong! :)

I was going to say, "biased in favor of actually knowing the law"

;-)

I brought the topic up here out of curiosity, not for real legal advice. I don't believe a lot of what the so-called experts around here claim. It's funny how people will believe anything without questioning a person's motives or credentials. Am I impressed by the title "copyright lawyer"... yeah, about as much as I'm impressed by the title "indie filmmaker". Who cares. I find the opinions of much of the lawyers around here slightly biased at best and a little suspicious.

The real question is: how likely are you to get sued and what's your odds of winning... I don't think the laws are as black and white as some try to make them sound.

I'm done with this conversation and I don't think there's much to be learned from it. I think everyone should get their own lawyer for important projects.