DV Info Net

DV Info Net (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/)
-   Wedding / Event Videography Techniques (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/wedding-event-videography-techniques/)
-   -   'Can I copy your stuff?' (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/wedding-event-videography-techniques/104217-can-i-copy-your-stuff.html)

Colby Knight September 23rd, 2007 04:37 PM

'Can I copy your stuff?'
 
A lady called me Friday afternoon. She's getting in 8 days and her video person just backed out. Looking for anyone to video her wedding, she calls me.

I go over all the odds and ends, what's included, congratulations, etc. I mention that each package comes with 6 DVDs. That's one for them, their parents, grandparents, etc. I don't think I've ever had anyone request more than 6 DVDs.

Then she asks if she could COPY them.

Uh... what?

So I asked what I remember someone on this board saying:

'I'd rather you didn't. Are you going to copy the still photographer's pictures as well?'

It drove the point home. I hope.

Douglas Villalba September 23rd, 2007 05:02 PM

I personally encourage my customers to copy them if they need extra copies. I really hate to do copies. To me it is just a waste of time. I rather be editing than looking for masters and holding me up while it burns, print and put them in a case.

Most videographers see it as extra income, but if you charge what it is really worth, they will copy them without your permission.

That is just me.

Jeff Emery September 23rd, 2007 06:46 PM

I don't have a problem with paying customers making copies of the video I produce for them.

I still hold the copyright. But I tell wedding customers they can make additional copies if they have the means to. Of course, if they want me to make additional copies, the discs and cases will look just like the original.

I also produce promo videos for bands. I actually issue them a license to reproduce and distribute copies so if they go to a commercial duplicater service, they have a paper showing they have permission to make copies. Again, if they want me to make the copies, it looks just like the original. I do charge for copies I make.

To each his own but I never could understand wanting to prevent videography customers from making their own copies if they choose to.

Just out of curiousity, why would you object to your paying customer making copies of the video you produced?

Jeff

Patrick Moreau September 23rd, 2007 07:09 PM

Most photographers these days include high-rez files in all packages exactly for this reason. We personally don't- but it really makes the point moot I think.

Adam Hoggatt September 23rd, 2007 09:48 PM

I will offer to make additional copies for clients for free (within reason). After all, I want my demo DVD to get into as many hands as possible, why not an actual wedding DVD? This is advertising that people are asking for! Why not give it to them?

Daniel Ross September 23rd, 2007 09:55 PM

It's not like it's a short film. It's their wedding. Really, they own it as much as you do (regardless of the fact that you edited it and such). Be fair, and charge for making it, but let them give it to whomever they want. Not like you can sell it or anything.

If it were a case where they were going to make 1,000s of copies (ie a celebrity, though this probably still isn't the case), then you might want to get in on that a bit. But for even 100 family members... how does that harm you?

The idea of it is silly, I say.

Martin Catt September 23rd, 2007 10:16 PM

Back when I was a wedding photographer (pre-digital days), I'd set the price so I made a suitable profit up-front, and would turn over the sleeved negatives along with the album(s). It saved me the hassle and liabilities of negative storage, print re-orders, etc. As far as I was concerned, I was working for hire, and the customer owned the copyright to their wedding images. The customers liked the idea that they could get whatever prints they wanted and had control over the negatives.

Me? I collected my money, thanked them, then walked away to do the next job. I called them kamikaze weddings -- hit and run.

Martin

Dana Salsbury September 24th, 2007 12:47 AM

Photographers have the disadvantage of not being able to 'brand' their work. You see photos and nobody knows who took the picture.

With videography, I have my three second animation attached to the video. True, the client could remove it in a NLE, but unlikely. I want the client to show people, so I don't charge royalties. I don't burn multiple DVDs because I want *them* to. It's a waste of time for me to do what they can do on their own.

I agree with the philosophy that the wedding belongs to the couple, but I understand it would be hard to swallow that philosophy as a photographer. We've got to make money to provide the service to a couple in the first place. If I were a photographer I would charge for my *talent* and leave it at that.

Vince Baker September 24th, 2007 02:42 AM

I always maintain that I own the raw footage, however they have paid me to make an edit of their day and when I supply the wedding dvd to them I also transfer the copyright of that edited work to them using a creative common license. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/

They are free to copy it (after all, if sony cant stop people copying their blockbuster movies what chance do we have....) but I do charge a small price if they want a copy with the nice artwork and printed disc...(£15 per disc).

Interesting to see how many different opinions there are on this topic though...

Daniel Ross September 24th, 2007 02:50 AM

Sure, for your work in copying it, a small fee is quite reasonable.
CC is a good idea too.

Eric Gan September 24th, 2007 02:54 AM

I'm with the majority here. I encourage clients to make copies. It's just so easy to copy a DVD that I don't see a point of making clients "feel bad" about it - which is pretty much the only thing you can do.

As for raw footage, I never give them out. I've lost potential clients because of it, but I maintain that policy. I'm not trying to make more money out of them or anything, it's just that raw footage isn't representative of what we do, and I would never want an audience to sit through it.

Noa Put September 24th, 2007 03:18 AM

I also encourage clients to do their own copying or if they prefer I will do it but then I will charge for it, I hardly get any requests for extra copies but that's fine by me.

Tim Polster September 24th, 2007 06:59 AM

It is nice to see the non-gouging attitude of this board.

I agree, we should charge for our talents and products and let everything else go as it will.

When I photograph, I deliver the orginals on CD but give them an option to buy prints from me as well.

I use a pro lab and charge reasonable prices for the prints and the customers will often print pretty many because of the longevity issue with cheaper labs.

In this day and age, the business model of making your money on the back end is gone.

Charing up front allows you to focus on quality and lets the customer feel like they are getting a lot in return.

Patrick Moreau September 24th, 2007 07:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim Polster (Post 749116)
In this day and age, the business model of making your money on the back end is gone.

Are you taking about photo or video here?

Martin Mayer September 24th, 2007 07:52 AM

No-one has mentioned this point yet:

Here in UK: it is assumed that professional videographers supply a PPL holographic sticker on each copy (which costs a few pounds) for the (limited) rights to dub on copyrighted music.

If clients copy (or are encouraged to copy) such a DVD with dubbed commercial music, they are strictly doing it illegally, as they obviously won't be buying and applying the PPL sticker for each copy.

Of course, no-one has been prosecuted for private copying of such a DVD, but it's an issue that might impinge on how we handle this.

I assume there is some equivalent per-copy-payment in other countries that strictly should be applied to each copy?

Rick Steele September 24th, 2007 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Colby Knight (Post 748902)
Then she asks if she could COPY them

How are you going to stop her?

I encourage it. It's a wedding, not exactly black market material. It's nice to have your name spread around.

Adam Hoggatt September 24th, 2007 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin Mayer (Post 749150)
I assume there is some equivalent per-copy-payment in other countries that strictly should be applied to each copy?

Not in the US. I would love to have a system like that here. Instead, we have to interpret the copyright law and decide whether we want to take a chance that we interpreted it right.

Tim Polster September 24th, 2007 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patrick Moreau (Post 749121)
Are you taking about photo or video here?


Both.

Any money made from making copies of your finished products etc...

Daniel Ross September 24th, 2007 02:14 PM

Hm. The UK system sounds interesting. But is that for any song you want? Other media?

In the US, you basically need permission to use anything, and if you have it, then that's probably just fine. If you don't (and this can frequently be the case) it's technically illegal, and probably a bad idea because of it.

Any smart videographer would get some rights setup or use copyright free music or music from a library designed for this. It's just asking for trouble if not.

On the other hand, I doubt it's much of an issue to have copyrighted music IN the film, as part of the ceremony/reception. I'm not sure on the legal issues there, but I think it's just generally seen as a public event that you documented, so probably not something you need to worry about. I'd like to hear from someone who knows the copyright law in this case, though.

Mike Oveson September 24th, 2007 05:11 PM

I don't think anyone knows the copyright laws exactly Daniel. Best bet is to use royalty free music. Definitely safe that way. Not saying that's what I do, but that's definitely the safest way to do it.

In terms of letting clients copy the DVD I'm all for it. I provide five copies up front, with the couple's DVD in a nicer case than the others. If they want to copy it and pass it around that's great. More advertising for me. If they actually like it enough to pass it around to other people then that seems like a compliment to me.

Colby Knight September 24th, 2007 06:32 PM

Wow... I wish whoever said they did have a problem with their stuff being copied would chime in! :)

Seriously though... in my packages, a certain amount of DVDs are included (6), complete with customized labels, etc. If they make copies and hand them off to someone else, I hate to think that my work was being delivered on a less than spectacular looking DVD. Also, it does affect my bottom line because if they want extra, they should BUY EXTRA.

Just seems kind of cheap.

And I know in the pecking order, the wedding video is near the bottom rung.

For know, anyways...

Dave Blackhurst September 24th, 2007 10:53 PM

I think the key here is to deliver a superior looking final product, so that there is incentive to have you make the copies. A high quality (preferably printed on the DVD) "label" is a nice touch, a DVD cover that looks like somthing you'd buy in the store probably helps.

In the end, I concur that if they order up front, I'd appreciate the opportunity to make any "extra" copies they need... what's a few "extras" while burning and printing a project? If they need stuff 6 months later, I've already archived everything, I'd rather they just burn a quick copy...

Daniel Ross September 25th, 2007 12:03 AM

Quote:

Wow... I wish whoever said they did have a problem with their stuff being copied would chime in! :)
Who?

I'd have a huge problem with someone copying my short films. But if I did something specifically for someone, such as a wedding, I think they've got the rights to it once it's made.

If you were to record some band's song, wouldn't you get paid to record it and give them the rights?
If you were to film someone's movie as DP, or edit it, wouldn't you get paid and just give the director/etc. the rights?

If you own the rights, what do you plan to gain with them? Would you sell them?

Whose wedding is it? To whom is it of significant importance?
Do you really care about the wedding? About who watches your videos?

I can certainly see wanting to make more money, and you suggesting they pay you more to make 12 copies from the start, but if they want to copy the videos and show their grandmother do you really want to stop them? (and as has been asked, how?)

If you have a good reason, please post. I'm not saying you can't have a reason, but I honestly don't understand it if so.

Colby Knight September 25th, 2007 07:43 PM

Daniel, when you make your films, aren't you making those for someone? Your audience?

I am very upfront with couples about what's included with my services. You get 6 DVDs included with your wedding... and additional DVDs will cost 'x' amount.

And to flat out ask if they can make copies?! That's just being cheap.

In my opinion, of course.

Vince Baker September 26th, 2007 02:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Ross (Post 749325)
Hm. The UK system sounds interesting. But is that for any song you want? Other media?

In the US, you basically need permission to use anything, and if you have it, then that's probably just fine. If you don't (and this can frequently be the case) it's technically illegal, and probably a bad idea because of it.

Any smart videographer would get some rights setup or use copyright free music or music from a library designed for this. It's just asking for trouble if not.

On the other hand, I doubt it's much of an issue to have copyrighted music IN the film, as part of the ceremony/reception. I'm not sure on the legal issues there, but I think it's just generally seen as a public event that you documented, so probably not something you need to worry about. I'd like to hear from someone who knows the copyright law in this case, though.

The uk system is clearly defined (thankfully) and you must have a license as discussed (the hologram sticker) for each disc and it can contain as many tracks as you like. Any incidental music is excluded from the need for a license but if there is a band playing, or you are recording in the church then another license is required to cover this.

Even so, at a price of about £8 per disc for live music and £4 per disc to cover any music you choose to use during the edit it is still quite cheap.

however, the price for a copy of a disc is already £12 ($23) for the licenses and then I add on the price of the disc, ink, box and photo paper....still works out cheap.

Matt Trubac September 26th, 2007 07:36 AM

The sticker music license system sounds nice. Wish we had that in the US.

As for copies, I tell couples that if they have the capability to make copies on their own, they can do that. I state in my contract that they do not take the video to a 3rd party for copying, but that they come back to me. Most of the time they come back to me. They say the price ($20 USD) is reasonable, and they like the labels and packaging.

Daniel Ross September 26th, 2007 04:46 PM

Quote:

Daniel, when you make your films, aren't you making those for someone? Your audience?
Sure. It's my movie, my story (sometimes, or one I've grown attached to), my directing, etc.
No one else has any reason to have it be more important to them (others are related, but if I'm directing/editing/etc., then I'm usually the most interested).
The audience is the... audience. But not part of the production. "I want to see the movie you didn't make that I don't know about" is not the same as "I wish I'd had someone record my wedding", etc.

In the case of a wedding, isn't it more for the couple?

Whose production was it? Yours or theirs? I see it as a service where you recorded the film and created it within their "production"-- ie, event... the wedding.

Your job is a simple one-- make the film, get it to them, and, of course, get paid to do it.

I can see a legal argument for owning the copies, but that seems kinda extreme.

That would be like the minister charging twice as much if you brought more people to watch.

On top of that, legally, this isn't entirely yours. You don't have releases from the "actors", so you wouldn't be able to sell this anyway.

If you feel you need to charge more then give them full rights, completely understandable.

But why hold back and keep the film from them if not? Does this actually give you any financial gain?

(Again, if they want you to duplicate them, then that's just fine. Charge for your work/time/costs.)


Think of this as a professional relationship with a studio. You are hired, and you make something. But you don't really own it. Legally you own the way the footage was captured, the tapes, the editing, and any other intellectual property, but it's their content.

Or, do you have them sign some sort of release that you own the exclusive rights to the content you record at their event? (Crazy, I say, but then legally correct. -- And if it was my wedding, I'm sure I wouldn't sign such a contract.)

Do you genuinely feel that you can say to the couple, "No. I filmed it, so you need to ask me permission before giving a copy of your wedding video to your grandmother. Sorry. That's in the contract."?

<<>>

As for the sticker licensing, that's very cool.
Still a bit vague-- so these stickers are decided upon between you and the party holding the copyright?

Martin Mayer September 28th, 2007 06:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Ross (Post 750537)
As for the sticker licensing, that's very cool.
Still a bit vague-- so these stickers are decided upon between you and the party holding the copyright?

It is vague - the UK bodies issuing the licences (PPL and MCPS-PRS) don't require to know the exact pieces of music you use, they just pool the income they receive from all sources and divide it up amongst registered artists in proportion to their "popularity" or "volume of output", or some similar statistics.

Not fair, for sure, but pretty convenient for us music dubbers. There are limitations to our use of the system - supposedly only 20 minutes of dubbed music (from memory) but you don't have to nominate the tracks you use.

Steve House September 28th, 2007 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Ross (Post 749325)
...On the other hand, I doubt it's much of an issue to have copyrighted music IN the film, as part of the ceremony/reception. I'm not sure on the legal issues there, but I think it's just generally seen as a public event that you documented, so probably not something you need to worry about. I'd like to hear from someone who knows the copyright law in this case, though.

I am not a lawyer. There's an extensive discussion of the issue in an article by Doug Spotted Eagle over in the articles section of the board. The gist of it is that if copyrighted material is used in your production you must have permission from the copyright owner or it's illegal - full stop. There are a lot of myths around that say "It's only 30 seconds" or "I can make less than 5 copies" or "The B&G gave me the CD of their favourite song to use and its legal to copy it because they own the CD" or some such but they're all just that - myths. While there are some possible exceptions for incidental use such as snatches of music overheard in the background during an interview (and those are only *possible* exceptions, not guaranteed to hold up in court should a rights holder want to make an issue of it with you), if the piece is music you added to the soundtrack or is a material part of the soundtrack (like recording the music that the DJ's playing as the sound while filming the couple's first dance), you have to have permission or you can't legally use it. Whether you'll get caught is another matter, but wedding videographers have been nailed on it and lost major bucks if not their businesses and personal assets because of it - they just don't make the press very often because non-disclosure is often a part of legal settlements these days. Even the cost of defending an action would be a major financial hit even if you eventually prevail.

Daniel Ross September 28th, 2007 05:14 PM

Yes, I meant entirely incidental music, with "IN", which admittedly wasn't very clear.
If you add a track, then you would certainly need permission.
(The only rule I know about is a 10% or 30 second (I think that's the number) allotment of any copyrighted work for purely educational and nonprofit works, and this I have just heard about in passing, though from several generally reliable sources.)

Clearly in the case of a wedding video you are selling, you would need full permission from anything you do. However, anything that was actually recorded as part of the video seems more the responsibility of the bride and groom.


As a matter of fact, this actually ties in very closely with the original question. If you charge for your SERVICES ONLY, then you don't really need to worry about copyright.
Your job is a simple one-- sit at a computer and be paid [arbitrary] $500. Then give them a CD when you are done, as their employee (or something like that), not as an independent production studio.

Issues could still arise from including your own music library if you don't have rights to distribute that, but, really, just like if you were to give them a copy of the CD, except that it might be more noticeable especially as it was related to a financial transaction.

As an example, I know that it's legal to hire an FX artist to work on a Star Wars fan film. But then you can't sell the film itself. People have also paid actors, rented locations, etc.

Your actions are purely your own and you're free to sell them as you want. Selling anything that has copyrighted material in it directly, though, will be a big no no.

But, of course, these actions might be independently illegal (regardless of your pay for working on them), such as duplicating a song on the disc.

If it's their music and you copy it FOR THEM (making duplicate copies might be an issue), then you probably would be fine there.

Of course, it's a gray area still.

Steve House September 29th, 2007 03:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Ross (Post 751612)
...As a matter of fact, this actually ties in very closely with the original question. If you charge for your SERVICES ONLY, then you don't really need to worry about copyright.
Your job is a simple one-- sit at a computer and be paid [arbitrary] $500. Then give them a CD when you are done, as their employee (or something like that), not as an independent production studio.

...

AFAIK you are incorrect. You are not their employee: they're not withholding income and employment taxes from your cheque; they're not directing and supervising your work; they're not sitting beside you telling you which button to push and when to push it. You are not selling them camera operator or editing services in the same manner a TV station's cameraman or segment producer is selling his or her labour to the station. You are actually an independent vendor who is selling them a customized retail product that you have created, that is, the completed and edited video. The fact that they requested that you create it with particular content doesn't make them legally responsible for that content - you are still the one doing the creating and have the final say as to what you will and won't include and the fact that they'll be an unhappy customer if you don't include what they want doesn't shift that responsibility away from you. Think about the still photographer - he doesn't get paid an hourly wage just for shooting and then turn over the unprocessed film to the couple at the end of the day. He sells them a package of completed wedding photos. As the creator of those photos he owns the copyright on them. If if he was their employee, they would own it. The wedding videographer is in the same boat - he's selling the couple a "made-to-order" retail product. He owns the copyright as the creator of the work and as its creator he and he alone is responsible for the content, including insuring that all of the content is legal. The couple can request anything they want, as any customer can do of any merchant, but the courts would likely say that it's the producer's duty to say "no" if the request is illegal and hold you responsible if you don't.

Copyright is violated by the person who makes the copy. If someone comes to you and gives you a CD of copyrighted music and a blank disc and says "I'll give you $5 to copy this for me" and you agree to do it, YOU, not them, are the one that has violated the law. Kinko's ran into trouble from the "charging for sevices" notion with regard to copying printed materials, claiming that they were only providing a service and it was the customer's responsibility if the copying violated copyright. They lost.

Daniel Ross September 29th, 2007 04:17 AM

Well, I WAS talking about a situation in which you would be their employee. Perhaps that is the incorrect word, but the idea is that you are working for them on their project, not on your own, on your own project. Your job is purely technical (of course creative, but that's not really relevant in the eyes of the law).

Being the one who makes the copy is an interesting argument. I can see that being the case.

It doesn't sound like you have any official/professional legal knowledge (not to say you are wrong at all-- very interesting), so I'd love to hear a confirmation of this from someone who works in the field. I wonder if anyone on the board fits this.

Anyway, it's an interesting thought.

Another legal argument is that being the professional, you should be aware of the laws, so perhaps hiding behind that would not be a factor.

One thing to consider, though, is that it's very unlikely anyone would be sued for copying a CD and giving it to a family member. In the same sense, if that was all you were doing from them, it might not be a big deal.
If you were to own the copyright on the film, then actually sell it to them, even including their music, it would be actually selling copyrighted material and benefiting directly, rather than in the process of working with such material coincidentally (if you could argue that).

Steve House September 29th, 2007 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Ross (Post 751775)
Well, I WAS talking about a situation in which you would be their employee. Perhaps that is the incorrect word, but the idea is that you are working for them on their project, not on your own, on your own project. Your job is purely technical (of course creative, but that's not really relevant in the eyes of the law).

..).

You are correct - as I said in my first post I am not a lawyer or legal professional. However I *have* tried to educate myself as much as possible on the topic since like any other legal matter affecting one's profession, it's something that you simply must know.

You seem to think that because the completed video is assembled abstract content rather than a manufactured physical product and your role in the matter is providing an intellectual creative service, that it's not really a "thing" that is being sold. But the law disagrees - intangible intellectual content is just as much an real item sold in the marketplace as is a toaster. Even though you're not building something physical or buying something from a wholesaler and reselling it at retail, you are still a vendor selling a product.

The fact that they are paying you to work on a project on their behalf rather than you working on the project purely at your own initiative doesn't change things. True, if you are an employee hired to make a product, the burden is on the employer to insure his product is legal - a worker on the assembly line is not personally liable if his employer markets a defective product, for example. But the fact that someone requests you do something and pays you money to do it does not automatically make you their employee. If you go into a tailor's shop and ask him to make you a made-to-order custom tailored suit with a certain style and colour of fabric, does that make him your employee? Is the plumber you call to your home to fix your leaky pipes your employee? And more to the point, if the plumber you've hired to fix your pipes does something illegal - lets say, he does work that doesn't comply with the building codes - who is responsible, you or him? He is - even if you have asked him to save you money by cutting corners and do non-complying work. (Remarkably similar to the client who says they can't afford you if you insist on only using licensed material, hmm?) If his assistant does the non-complying work, who is responsible - you, the plumber, or the assistant? Again, it's the plumber. He's the professional - he is expected to know and comply with the law regardless of the client's wishes and he's responsible for HIS employee's actions.

If you, the videographer, have an employee who does your editing and he places unlicensed material in the video at your direction he doesn't have any legal liability. But if you're the videographer and you acceed to your client's wishes and use unlicenses material, it's going to be you on the hook. The argument is that you only provided a service won't protect you, any more than it would protect the plumber who you requested to do out-of-code work.

Daniel Ross September 29th, 2007 01:04 PM

Quote:

you are still a vendor selling a product.
Not if you are selling your time, not the product. It never is yours nor do you own the copyright. They own the footage, the music (or not), whatever.


Hmm. The plumber simile makes sense, but at the same time it's a professional job they are probably licensed to do. Video isn't quite the same.

You keep saying that the assistant wouldn't be responsible. Why is the videographer not the assistant?

If the scenario were to be that you had the bride and groom standing behind your shoulder telling you what to click, would you be responsible then?


Anyway, I just think there may be some ways around this, or, perhaps, LESS legal responsibility than if you were to actually sell them the discs.


But I think that being paid to duplicate someone's CD FOR THEM is not really all that illegal. You don't own the disc nor do you own the songs, anyway. You own the right to listen to those tracks. So, you can listen however you want. Putting it in the video would be no more illegal than putting it on an iPod.
So... if you just worked for them on their computer, it would be fine. But of course that isn't practical. Just not sure where the line would be drawn.



On another note-- this is sorta a documentary. Are there any laws that would allow use of copyrighted material in order to document events? You could document the history of the couple and how music has affected them. Sure, it's abstract, but a lot of legal arguments are weird.



//thoughts...

Steve House September 29th, 2007 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Ross (Post 751907)
Not if you are selling your time, not the product. It never is yours nor do you own the copyright. ...

Nope, you might want to believe it but you are an independent contractor producing a custom product for retail sale. And as the creator of a copyrightable work, you do own the copyright to the video you created for the B&G until/unless you assign it to them.

Quote:

You keep saying that the assistant wouldn't be responsible. Why is the videographer not the assistant?
See above.

Quote:

If the scenario were to be that you had the bride and groom standing behind your shoulder telling you what to click, would you be responsible then?
Yep, you have to be in an employer/employee relationship. An independent contractor is not an employee

Quote:

Anyway, I just think there may be some ways around this, or, perhaps, LESS legal responsibility than if you were to actually sell them the discs.
Lots o' luck and keep your fingers crossed you don't have to defend your theory in court. Lotta shooters tried, lotta shooters died.

Quote:

But I think that being paid to duplicate someone's CD FOR THEM is not really all that illegal.
Legality is like pregnancy - there're no degrees of it. Ask Kinkos. The law does allows YOU to make PERSONAL copies for YOUR OWN use but that permission does not extend to third partys who make the copy for you, ESPECIALLY if they charge a fee to do so and offer the same service to the general public.

Quote:

Putting it in the video would be no more illegal than putting it on an iPod.
Nope, don't work that way.

Quote:

On another note-- this is sorta a documentary. Are there any laws that would allow use of copyrighted material in order to document events?
Nope, there's nothing special about non-fiction or documentary productions unless it's explicitly for academic criticism or journalism.

Quote:

//thoughts...
The topic is reviewed extensively in the article by Doug Spotted Eagle posted here that I referenced earlier and also discussed extensively in the Taking Care of Business forum, where several of the intellectual property attorneys frequenting this board have thoroughly debunked each theory and work-around you have proposed. The law is really quite simple - you must have a proper license to include any copyright work in the videos you make for your clients ... full stop. Wedding and event videos don't even come CLOSE to the exceptions considered "fair use" nor are they covered by the very explicitly defined "works for hire" provisions under the law. Without the license any use is illegal and you have exposed yourself to suit that will require mucho dinero to defend against should the copyright owner discover that you've used their property and wish to pursue you for it. Don't kid yourself, lots of videographers have had the rude surprise of finding a registered letter containing a cease-and-desist demand in their mailbox.

Allister Gourlay September 29th, 2007 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Colby Knight (Post 748902)
Then she asks if she could COPY them.

Just let her get on with it... who needs hassle!

TingSern Wong September 30th, 2007 01:21 AM

If I use royalty free audio (licensed to me) - for example, SmartSound series - (www.smartsound.com) - and I created the video, and I pass on the final copy to somebody else, is that somebody else violating any laws when he copies the DVD - which is a result of my work?

Daniel Ross September 30th, 2007 01:35 AM

Technically violating your copyright unless you give them rights to do so. However, as has been discussed, it's a strange situation. Not like they're trying to make money, etc.

Steve House September 30th, 2007 03:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Ross (Post 752088)
Technically violating your copyright unless you give them rights to do so. However, as has been discussed, it's a strange situation. Not like they're trying to make money, etc.

If they have permission to make the copy, they're not violating your copyright. There's nothing in that law that says money has to change hands for it to be a valid license, only that anyone who wishes to make copies has to have a license to do so from the copyright owner.

Adam Hoggatt September 30th, 2007 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve House (Post 752110)
If they have permission to make the copy, they're not violating your copyright. There's nothing in that law that says money has to change hands for it to be a valid license, only that anyone who wishes to make copies has to have a license to do so from the copyright owner.

Not necessarily. If I buy a CD or DVD I have a legal right to make copies for my own personal use. I can back up my DVD collection on my PC, for instance. Are you saying that if I have my computer savvy friend do the duplication then it's illegal all of a sudden?


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:02 AM.

DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2025 The Digital Video Information Network