Music Copyright Question

[Black Lab]

I posted this earlier on the VideoStudio forum, but thought some of the "pros" here may have an opinion:

I know the topic of copying a music cd for background music has been beaten to death (copying for personal use is ok, for commercial use is a no-no, as I understand it for the US), but I didn't find any reference to my particular question, which is this.

Say I am doing a DVD that I intend to sell copies of, be it a wedding or some other event that has a DJ playing music. As I am recording the event I obviously am also recording that music. If I do not edit out the music that was recorded, will the copyright police burst through my door and take my first born?

If the answer to that is no (my son will be glad to hear that), then what if the music that was recorded is of poor quality, I mute it, and replace it with the same song that I happen to own on CD?

I eagerly await your opinions, facts, and ideas.

[Gra]

I have a feeling you must respect the copyright laws of any music found on a DVD for sale regardless (especially as it sounds kinda important to the content as you described it). In all honesty, for a more definate reply, you'd need to consult a copyright lawyer (which I am not).

[Black Lab]

Maybe using the wedding scenario was a bad choice.

Here's the issue. A volleyball tournament was held in town this weekend. I have proposed to video the tournament next year and sell a highlight DVD. During play, a DJ is playing music. If I want the video to showcase the sights and sounds (although the sounds I want are the players, not necessarily the music) of the tournament, I would be breaking the law, even though that music was not played or added by me? What if a McDonald's sign is in the background (as is the music)? Wouldn't that be considered the same thing?

[Gorf]

It's probably similar to here in the UK - which means you need to licence the DVD before you can sell it. The incidental recording of background music and the dubbing of prerecorded music amount to the same thing.

It's also incorrect to assume that "personal use" in the example quoted in your first post makes it lawful. In the US, "fair use" allows you to make backup or cross-format copies to allow you to listen to your music in a format convenient to you (for example, recording tapes of your favourite CDs to listen to in the car). Enhancing a wedding edit by the addition of dubbed music is still copyright infringement, but the fact that it's personal use means that you're highly unlikely to be discovered.

[Black Lab]

It's also incorrect to assume that "personal use" in the example quoted in your first post makes it lawful. In the US, "fair use" allows you to make backup or cross-format copies to allow you to listen to your music in a format convenient to you (for example, recording tapes of your favourite CDs to listen to in the car). Enhancing a wedding edit by the addition of dubbed music is still copyright infringement, but the fact that it's personal use means that you're highly unlikely to be discovered.

That's what I meant

Thanks for your help.

[devo_111111]

I don't think the RIAA is going to be busting down your door for selling a couple of copies of a volleyball highlight video with some music in the background.

Unless it becomes a.... smash hit.

[sjj1805]

I posted this earlier on the VideoStudio forum, but thought some of the "pros" here may have an opinion:

Most if not all of the pros monitor all the forums!

[Black Lab]

I don't think the RIAA is going to be busting down your door for selling a couple of copies of a volleyball highlight video with some music in the background.

Unless it becomes a.... smash hit.

I dig that.

[htchien]

Hi,

If you are using a music from an audio CD, then you must get the copy-right license from the music composer or writer, unless the music is been released under public domain, or the composer/writer is dead over 50 years (in China or Taiwan) or 70 years (in US).

When the creator of the innovation died over 50 years in China/Taiwan or 70 years in US, then the innovation would enter public domain.

I think in your wedding DVD case it would be complicated.

For the video you recorded, you are the owner of the video and you own the copy-right of the video. However, the music or the song in the video belongs to the original composer/writer. If you wish to release your video freely (for example, to sell it), you must get the license agreement from the original composer/writer, unless the music/song is in public domain.

And, if you have taped the DJ in the video, you might need to get the license agreement from the DJ also because his/her face shows up in the video.

So, if you can solve these issues then you might be free to release your video on the DVD.

BTW, I remember if something is well-known by the public, for example in your case 2, the McDonald sign, then it might be fair use to use it in your video.

However, these are only my understanding on the copy-right law over China / Taiwan / US (and might not be correct). You need a lawyer for better assistance.

H.T.

[sjj1805]

I think we can get a bit paranoid here.
If you are deliberately filming a concert or a performer then yes, perhaps you would need to seek permission. But if your filming your family at the local park and a brass band happens to walk past then surely that is incidental - just as if a bird flew across the screen.

How on earth do the Television Film Crews get by when they go out filming news clips?

I remember in my younger days armed with a cine camera and going to a small picturesque village in the cotswolds. I panned across the village square to get a shot of all the buildings.

a few weeks later when the developed film was returned from the laboratory I noticed on playback that there was someone walking in the foreground and as I was panning across the square it was as though I was filming the person walking in the cameras field of view.

Now had that been a famous person, sportsman, politician, pop star etc. do you think I would now be expected to track that person down to get a contract signed. I don't think so!

Surely the legal arguments of "Fair and Reasonable" have to come into play.

[Gorf]

I don't think he is being paranoid.

I was bored the other night, waiting for a render, so I did a bit of channel hopping on NTL. One of the channels was showing "Highlander: Endgame" so I left it on out of curiosity (how much can Cristophe Lambert crowbar out of that franchise?). During one of the fights, there was a really poor attempt to mask the content of a billboard - apparently it wasn't intentional product placement for JVC, they just "didn't notice" until they got the criticism on the films cinema release. The DVD and TV versions have a poorly applied Gaussian blur to hide the advert.

It seems to me that if you make a production (in whatever format) and an incidental recording takes place of some other entity (company, individual) with the potential to sue, you need to be on the ball and get a release there and then. Otherwise, reshoot.

[edit] Incidentally, in the UK at least, you can film anything you want as long as you're on public ground, and as long as the subject of your photo/video is on or visibile from public ground without highly specialised equipment - such as mega-zoom antia-shake lenses.

[Ron P.]

I don't think he is being paranoid...

[edit] ...Incidentally, in the UK at least, you can film anything you want as long as you're on public ground, and as long as the subject of your photo/video is on or visibile from public ground without highly specialised equipment - such as mega-zoom antia-shake lenses.

It is basically the same here in USA. One of the tests the courts apply is that,

1. Are you where you have a legal right to be.

2. What you are viewing is in Plain View.

If so then you can record that. From 24 years Law Enforcement experience, I have had to meet these tests to obtain evidence. An example would be walking by on a public sidewalk, seeing illegal activity in a yard. That could be photographed, video-taped, without the need for a seach warrant. A government agency has the most difficult responsibilty when it comes to such things. Civilians on the other hand do not.

Now there are mitigating circumstances that would be exceptions, for example you are doing this to perpetrate a criminal act, (stalking, or harassment).

On the issue of civil litigation, (law suit) it is a well known fact here in USA, that if someone wants to sue, they can. Does not mean they will be successful though. Most of the time one would have to have substantial assests that is known, for it to be worthwhile.

Most of the RIAA lawsuits were towards those that have blantantly violated the copyright laws, by using the P2P services and downloading thousands of songs, not just one or two.

In summary, what Blacklab is wanting to do, is more then likely totally harmless. The big dogs could care less about him recording a sporting event, and having the audio a part of it. Now if he had Bill Gates' assets, then they would jump on it like flies on stink, just to get his money....

Ron P.

[troppo]

I know here in australia they have started banning parents from bringing their handycam to watch a school play, becasue of music used in the play. I have been asked to stop recording video on my mobile phone at a christian youth conference, because the music in the background is copyrighted. I record the sermon every week at church, and if the keyboardist starts playing softly over the end of the sermon, we have to make sure it's one of our own, non copyrighted songs, or we are in breach of the artists' copyright laws. I bet most of you didn't also know that any songs performed in a church (except the good oletime hymns) are copyright and can only be performed under license, with a fee for each time it is used.
Don't get me started, I hate this letigical society. Everyone seems so scared of not making as much money as they can.

[htchien]

How on earth do the Television Film Crews get by when they go out filming news clips?

For news purpose, it can be used under fair use condition.

I remember in my younger days armed with a cine camera and going to a small picturesque village in the cotswolds. I panned across the village square to get a shot of all the buildings.

a few weeks later when the developed film was returned from the laboratory I noticed on playback that there was someone walking in the foreground and as I was panning across the square it was as though I was filming the person walking in the cameras field of view.

Now had that been a famous person, sportsman, politician, pop star etc. do you think I would now be expected to track that person down to get a contract signed. I don't think so!

Surely the legal arguments of "Fair and Reasonable" have to come into play.

If the video on the famous person is been taken when he was not famous, then it would be in doubt and might not be in fair use condition.

If you taped him when he is already famous, then it might be fair use. However, if the person you taped do not agree you to release the video, then it might not be fair use.


Troppo is right, the church music also has copyrights. That's one of the reason why my church has its own music/video production department for.

Troppo, I really like Hillsongs Music in Australia, do you?

Best regards,
H.T.

[Devil]

You need a lawyer for better assistance.

And if the first one says you can't, then the second one will say you can