0
AFFI

Copyrighted Music – Staying Ethical, Honest and Legal

Recommended Posts

After reading several posts and an article By Douglas Spotted_Eagle (DSE) at http://dvinfo.net/articles/business/copyrightfaq1.php - it has really opened my eyes to the ethics and potential consequences of copyright violations and what it could cost companies out there committing such violations (such as a DZ using music on tandem videos).

I have a few questions.

1) Do you have a link you can send me to a good source of music that can be purchased for use that is decent music with a variety that will not break the bank of a small budget?

2) If I were to use copyrighted music for self promotion (demo reel), I understand that is a violation, question is can I be sued for money or will I just be issued a cease and assist type order?

3) If I were commissioned to make an edit for someone and they provided me with copyrighted music, which will be in trouble, me or the entity that hired me to do the edit?

4) Further to that point, if the company I am working for hires me to film an event, but I have nothing to do with the post production and they use copyrighted music in their production can I be held liable even though all I did was provide the raw footage?

5) If I have already (and I have) made an infraction, how do I protect myself now that the damage has been done? Would it be sufficient to just stop, or do I need to also send a letter demanding that the edit no longer be used by anyone I provided it to?

6) If I cease on my own and begin to remain within legal boundaries, can I still be sued for prior infractions, or will the fact that I realized what I was doing is wrong and changed my practices be sufficient to avoid litigation?

********************

I have always tried to be as ethical and honest in all my practices, both personal and professional and have never really encountered this type of concern until I started skydiving.
I honesty never considered how dishonest this practice was, I grew up making mix tapes for friends (back in the days of records and cassettes)and stuff like that so I had never given this issue much thought or consideration.

I really want to thank you for opening my eyes Douglas, and educating me to the fact that I am being unethical and dishonest in this practice and helping me to realize that if I am to consider myself an honest person, that I need to (and will) stop this practice immediately.
Thank you Douglas.
-
Mykel AFF-I10
Skydiving Priorities: 1) Open Canopy. 2) Land Safely. 3) Don’t hurt anyone. 4) Repeat…

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

ethical and legal are not necessarily the same thing here ;)

anyway, there is a lot of music (good as well as not-so-good) available under the creative commons license

a good place too start is http://www.jamendo.com/en/



Thanks for this site! I found a lot of great music. You can search by genre (tag) and by music that can be used commercially. Plus there is an option to support the artist. Since we do make some cash with our vids, I think it is great that this site provides an option to donate to the artist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1) Do you have a link you can send me to a good source of music that can be purchased for use that is decent music with a variety that will not break the bank of a small budget?
http://www.vasst.com/royalty_free.htm has a fairly comprehensive, although not complete list.

2) If I were to use copyrighted music for self promotion (demo reel), I understand that is a violation, question is can I be sued for money or will I just be issued a cease and assist type order?
You can be sued for having bad breath...Yes, you can be sued for damages. Will you? Depends on who owns the content, how they perceive the damage, and what the actual damage is. Bear in mind however, copyright violation is now a criminal act as well as a civil action...So they *can* get you on either count. So far, only one person has been convicted (AFAIK) for criminal violation.

3) If I were commissioned to make an edit for someone and they provided me with copyrighted music, which will be in trouble, me or the entity that hired me to do the edit?
All parties involved with the illegal master replication and sync license violation will be zapped, but you as an editor are particularly exposed because you committed the act, and this post alone demonstrates you knew it was wrongful. Consider how a tandem accident sues the DZ, aircraft, rig, whomever...it's not dissimilar.

4) Further to that point, if the company I am working for hires me to film an event, but I have nothing to do with the post production and they use copyrighted music in their production can I be held liable even though all I did was provide the raw footage?
No. Not anymore so than a royalty-free stock footage provider can be held responsible for where their works show up and what they are synced to.

5) If I have already (and I have) made an infraction, how do I protect myself now that the damage has been done? Would it be sufficient to just stop, or do I need to also send a letter demanding that the edit no longer be used by anyone I provided it to?
You can't protect yourself. You can't unring a bell. All you can do is say "I screwed up, I didn't know it was illegal at the time, I've stopped doing this, and I can't put the cat back in the bag. They they have to demonstrate damages for past violations (hard to do, if much time has passed).

6) If I cease on my own and begin to remain within legal boundaries, can I still be sued for prior infractions, or will the fact that I realized what I was doing is wrong and changed my practices be sufficient to avoid litigation?
You can be sued for bad breath....but if you are nailed (it's highly unlikely, but becoming more likely every day with Youtube spiders, etc.) if you've ceased using illegal content, that'll go a long, long way towards any legal action that might come your way. Ignorance is no defense, but showing you've "realized the error of your ways..." helps, based on conversations I've had, panels I've sat upon, and how it's perceived by the industry as a whole.

Keep in mind, I'm not a lawyer. That article you referenced is now nearly 5 years old, and a few things have changed in 5 years, mostly for the worst. Overall, that article is aimed at editors making dozens of replications, and it's a little over the top for tandem operations, although they're at high risk these days too, and the risk isn't getting any lesser.

********************

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just to throw something into the ring here..... if you get a myspace account and befriend a lot of the indie artists out there, they will happily (often) give you permission to use their music. I have permission from The Machine Gun Blues, Dr. Das, Visionary Underground, Shaheen and many others, and I try to stick to that music.
Pete Draper,

Just because my life plan is written on the back of a Hooter's Napkin, it's still a life plan.... right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Just to throw something into the ring here..... if you get a myspace account and befriend a lot of the indie artists out there, they will happily (often) give you permission to use their music. I have permission from The Machine Gun Blues, Dr. Das, Visionary Underground, Shaheen and many others, and I try to stick to that music.



This raised another question for me. When an artist has a contract with a record label how much of their work do they own and do they have the authority to allow you do use their music. I know the cut and dried answer is the artist owns their work, but when they have entered a contract with a corporate entity where they agree to receive payment for the corporation for the music they produce does the artist still have any right what so ever to allow or deny the use of the music created.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just uploaded a video of my first static line jump back in 1993...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIruDF3qHv8

nothing special. but I've included a soundtrack in the background.

In less than 5 minutes of my posting, I received the following email from youtube:

Quote


help center | e-mail options | report spam
Dear merloti,

Your video "First Static Line Jump" has been identified by YouTube's Content Identification program as containing copyrighted content which UMG claims is theirs.

Your video "First Static Line Jump" is still available because UMG does not object to this content appearing on YouTube at this time. As long as UMG has a claim on your video, they will receive public statistics about your video, such as number of views. Viewers may also see advertising on your video's page.

Claim Details:

Copyright owner: UMG
Content claimed: Some or all of the audio content
Policy: Allow this content to remain on YouTube.


Place advertisements on this video's watch page.

Applies to these locations:
Everywhere

UMG claimed this content as a part of the YouTube Content Identification program. YouTube allows partners to review YouTube videos for content to which they own the rights. Partners may use our automated video / audio matching system to identify their content, or they may manually review videos.

If you believe that this claim was made in error, or that you are otherwise authorized to use the content at issue, you can dispute this claim with UMG and view other options in the Video ID Matches section of your YouTube account. Please note that YouTube does not mediate copyright disputes between content owners. Learn more about video identification disputes.

Sincerely,
The YouTube Content Identification Team

© 2008 YouTube, LLC





Interesting huhn?
Una volta che avrete imparato a Volare, camminerete sulla terra guardando il cielo perchè è là che siete stati ed è là che vorrete tornare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
not something I'd class as "interesting" but rather a sign of what I predicted over 3 years ago, and wrote about recently in Parachutist.
Identifying music is now completely automated. People are gonna start being busted for it when they upload it.
A DZ isn't the same as an individual.
People have little choice but to either run a risk or get honest/straight. Universal Music Group and Warner both have limited agreements with YouTube. No DZ as an entity can benefit from those agreements, but individual students and videographers can, depending on choice of song.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I hope this doesn't sound stupid but if I pay for a cd and I make a video and use the music off the cd and give credit to the artist for the music part. How can I get in trouble? I paid for the music, so its mine to do with what want to do with. I'm not taking credit for writing the song but I paid for it. I know some lawyer out there can get money out of me i am sure .I just don't see the big deal its not like I am reselling it
Never give the gates up and always trust your rears!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
if you buy a CD, rip it, and sync it to video, you're violating two laws:
1-Sync license laws
2-replication/distribution of copyrighted works

you *are* reselling it if it's part of a tandem video, but re-sale isn't a factor in whether you're violating the laws or not.
Copyright violation is now criminal in addition to civil, so be cautious in what you do.
BTW, you don't buy a song when you buy a CD. ou merely buy a license permitting you to listen to that song. The only thing you own is a silver disc. You don't own it's content.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks good to know. I have a friend that tells me that in Europe there are no copy right laws. Is that true? He copies all of his software from over there so he doesn't have to pay for it and NO my friend is not me lol
Never give the gates up and always trust your rears!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Thanks good to know. I have a friend that tells me that in Europe there are no copy right laws. Is that true? He copies all of his software from over there so he doesn't have to pay for it and NO my friend is not me lol



Your friend is wrong. All countries save two, are signatories of the Berne Convention, and all but a handful are signatories of the DCMA. What *is* different are the punishments and consequences in a couple Scandanavian countries.
There will always be pirates and ilegal users of software, music, and other IP. Some folks are born without a conscience and just don't care. Some use pirate ware to test out software before buying. Personally, I've been on that road a few times, and have no issue with that particular use of illegal tools if the manufacturer doesn't offer a demo/trial. Cinemacraft used to not offer a demo, so most of the pro video cats were using an illegal crack to test it before spending 5K on an encoding software. But....in my case it turned into a spend/purchase.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Imaging if your photo turned up on van halen's latest CD cover! Using many cameraflyers arguement of "I'm selling the video, not the music", they are selling music, not the photo, but not a camera person in the world wouldn't be pissed. (if they just did it without permission) Just because they don't "need" the money and most of us "do" that doesn't make it right for "us" to do it but not "them".
My O.C.D. has me chasing a dream my A.D.D. won't let me catch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Imaging if your photo turned up on van halen's latest CD cover...



That was a great analogy. Imagine if Starbucks wanted to use a big hit for their ad and all they had to do was spend $10 on a CD to get use of it for they're mega-bucks national campaign. Hell, they're not selling music, they're just selling lattes...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I hope this doesn't sound stupid!!! that was my first line . With that said. My statement was and is I'm NOT selling anything. That's why I don't see the big deal about it. I'm not Van Helen selling albums using other peoples pictures. I'm not Starbucks advertising with other peoples music. I'm just a guy that likes to video my skydives and put music too it that I paid for . Then post it too let people see for FREE. I don't see a problem with that if I give the Artist credit for their music
Never give the gates up and always trust your rears!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I don't see a problem with that if I give the Artist credit for their music



But you see...you remove the artist's right to allow or not allow you to use their music. You might be willing to allow anyone to use your video for free, even if they give you credit. Problem is, what about when fundamental oil worshipers use your video to create a free, online video extolling the evils of skydiving and how only horrible live-sheep eaters that beat kittens for fun are skydivers?
Free or not, you've taken something that doesn't belong to you, used it to make your work appear better, and benefit you. You benefit whether you do or don't make money. Your video *looks* better because of the music you choose. Sound is 70% of what the audience sees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have to say audio is a huge part of most video, but I'm not sure I would say that music is %70 of the video.

Second

It sounds like everything on Youtube is illegal. As a matter of fact am I illegal right now for mentioning youtube without written permission. What about the guy that reposted the message he got from youtube? Is he illegal for posting their literary work without permission or compensation? Afterall, this is a public forum just as youtube is. What about the people that put videos on youtube from the family vacation at disneyland? Could disneyland sue them for illegally distributing images of thier structures? What about the video that has LCD display info on it? Could the camera maker sue you for distributing its icons without compensation? Its part of the video right? Sounds to me like the music industry has sand in its vagina over some stupid stuff. Now dont get me wrong. I understand if someone is making money on their work. Then maybe they should have a hand out asking for a cut. But come on....some kid puts a song on a dumb little skit or short movie, puts it on youtube and the record labels want compensation? thats just retarded! They should be glad the kid bought the song and even more happy that he is advertising the song on youtube. the more that song is heard by the public the more people that will buy it. If anything, the music industry should love all this music on youtube. Its just more exposure for them.

Wow the world is becoming more and more difficult. with more and more laws and more and more greedy cry babies. Land of the free? As long as you by a ridiculously overpriced liscense and sign a bunch of paperwork it is.

Finally,

What solution does the recording industry suggest? Where is the Liscense for us to purchase that is relative to our use of the music? what is the USPA doing to contact the recording industry to arrange an affordable solution? In my opinion the recording industry shouldnt get its panties in a wad until they have offered a realistic solution. And dont tell me royalty free is the solution. Thats like saying eat mud instead of drinking water. That stuff is expensive and mostly crap for what we do.
I'll huff and I'll puff and I'll burn your fucking packing tent down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I have to say audio is a huge part of most video, but I'm not sure I would say that music is %70 of the video.

Second

It sounds like everything on Youtube is illegal. As a matter of fact am I illegal right now for mentioning youtube without written permission. What about the guy that reposted the message he got from youtube? Is he illegal for posting their literary work without permission or compensation? Afterall, this is a public forum just as youtube is. What about the people that put videos on youtube from the family vacation at disneyland? Could disneyland sue them for illegally distributing images of thier structures? What about the video that has LCD display info on it? Could the camera maker sue you for distributing its icons without compensation? Its part of the video right? Sounds to me like the music industry has sand in its vagina over some stupid stuff. Now dont get me wrong. I understand if someone is making money on their work. Then maybe they should have a hand out asking for a cut. But come on....some kid puts a song on a dumb little skit or short movie, puts it on youtube and the record labels want compensation? thats just retarded! They should be glad the kid bought the song and even more happy that he is advertising the song on youtube. the more that song is heard by the public the more people that will buy it. If anything, the music industry should love all this music on youtube. Its just more exposure for them.

Wow the world is becoming more and more difficult. with more and more laws and more and more greedy cry babies. Land of the free? As long as you by a ridiculously overpriced liscense and sign a bunch of paperwork it is.

Finally,

What solution does the recording industry suggest? Where is the Liscense for us to purchase that is relative to our use of the music? what is the USPA doing to contact the recording industry to arrange an affordable solution? In my opinion the recording industry shouldnt get its panties in a wad until they have offered a realistic solution. And dont tell me royalty free is the solution. Thats like saying eat mud instead of drinking water. That stuff is expensive and mostly crap for what we do.



I didn't say "music" is 70% of video, I said "sound" is 70% of video. And many tests have proven that statement accurate.
Get used to drinking mud, because you can't afford a license to use popular songs. End of story.

So...you won't get your panties in a wad when I come to your DZ, jump your rig and wear it out, without asking your permission? Because it's the same thing.
Yes, much of what is on YouTube is illegal. And YouTube is diligently working to clean it up so they're not liable. They have an interim grace period with many of the various labels.
Yes, it *is* land of the free. You're free to write your own hit song and use it in your tandem videos. As a songwriter, I'm free to collect whatever monies the market will bear for the songs I write. And I'm free to pursue anyone who impinges my freedoms by illegally using music or images I've created, words I've written, or products I've developed.
Funny how freedom works that way.

Quote

If anything, the music industry should love all this music on youtube. Its just more exposure for them.


Not quite. Overplay dilutes the value of a song. I think even 5th graders figure that one out.
To clarify one more point for thost that didn't get it in the first act...when you buy a CD, you don't "buy" a song. When you download a song, you don't "buy" the song. You purchase a LICENSE to listen to it. Nothing more. You don't purchase any right to do anything with the song other than listen to it.
Bringing up families and Disneyland structures is fairly absurd, but you already knew that, so we'll just let that one slide right by.
Either way, once again you've brought this subject dangerously close to Speakers Corner, so we'll bring it back on track.
Talk about options, talk about where to find legal music sources, but you're not free to talk about what's stupid and what isn't regarding existing laws.
That's what Speakers Corner is for.
Go there, if you want to debate the merits of copyright.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I have to say audio is a huge part of most video, but I'm not sure I would say that music is %70 of the video.



A little off topic, but do a little test. Put on a movie and leave the sound off, then put on another movie and leave the screen off. Without sound, you can't follow what's going on. Without image, you can still follow the story line and know what's gong on (or try to watch a movie on a plane without renting the headphones).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Um, DSE has made more money in ONE SALE of his music to a movie than I made all last year. Yet he'd sell a CD for personal use for $15. I think he knows what he is talking about with the differences. If you won't accept an answer from an EXPERT in this field, why ask the question?
My O.C.D. has me chasing a dream my A.D.D. won't let me catch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This thread is interesting to me, because it sounds like what I run into every Tuesday night: I teach IP law at a law school part time (though, as full disclaimer, I focus on patent licensing and not copyright).

There is a constant battle between people arguing (sometimes persuasively) about what the law should be. But as you listen to those arguments, you should keep in mind that thay may not be what the law is.

Basically, Spot is 100% right - that's the state of copyright in the US today. If you use a copyrighted work without consent (a.k.a., a license) you are violating the copyright holder's rights. YouTube has simply automated the process of detecting copyright infringement.

Saying "it should be enough to give the artist credit" is a "policy argument" (in other words, "this is what I think the law should be..."). You can agree with those policy arguments or you can disagree with those policy arguments (depends on your point of view).

But at some level, it doesn't matter one bit - what the law is is what, ultimately, you have to deal with.

To the person who posted that Europe doesn't have copyright - that's just not the case. In fact, European law on copyright is even more complicated, in part becase it's harmonised between all of the EU countries (sometimes well, sometimes not) and in part because Europe has a concept of "moral rights" which give artists limited rights to control the way their copyrights are displayed even if they assign (sell) their rights to the copyrighted work.

And finally, on the YouTube automated technology - I read something interesting about it: it basically tries to match the music with whatever is in the database. If the audio track on an uploaded video doesn't precisely match the database, it doesn't detect it well. Basically, it seems to fail if there's too much noise. (For example, if you balance the sound so that it's 10% of the sound from the mic on your camera - noise - and 90% of an artist's work, it doesn't seem to detect it). But before you rush off to do that, keep in mind that it's still copyright infringement to use an artist's work that way. (It just isn't as easily detected by YouTube's automagic copyright detector thingy.)
Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography

Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The laws are what the laws are regardless of what you think they should be. It isn't all that expensive to be legal. I bought a copy of Acid Studio 6 and used it to do the music for a video for an Octoberfest booth for Skydive Dallas. It was much more diffucult then using some elses music. I just used the sounds and loops that came with it, but worth the effort. Yea the music isn't as good as what you get commercially, but it felt good to know that the whole project was done by me and I don't have to worry about someone claiming I infringed on their rights. I did all the editing and shot most of the video with the exception of two clips. When I get home I will post it online so you can check it out.

It's not that hard to be legal. There are plenty of royalty free sounds and loops that are very cool and and don't cost a lot. If you spend some time you can put together a sound track that sounds professional.

For my next project I will be buying some sounds and loops from SonyCreativeSoftware.com. They are not that expensive and sound great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0