Copyright <again>

[beowulf 1]

Purchasing music to listen to does not include allowing someone to sync to video on a dvd or any other format.

It's not likely to be prosecuted if it's on DVD and only used by immediate family, but it becomes much more likely to be prosecuted when uploaded to youtube or other similar sites.

[Skwrl 56]

In short, yeah. A copyright gives the copyright holder the exclusive right to, among other things: (i) reproduce the work (in this case, a song), (ii) prepare derivative works based on the work (in this case, adding video to the music), (iii) publicly distribute the work, and (iv) publicly perform the work. (There are some other rights - and limitations to those rights - here, but aren't really important to this discussion.)

If I commit copyright infringement, one possible defense is "fair use". But fair use is very limited.

Practical example: playing on my iPod at the moment is the song "Panic Switch" by the Silversun Pickups. I paid for it. Let's say I think to myself, "gee, I like that song", and I film a tandem student and decide to use a substantial part of the song in a video I make. I have just made a derivative work of the song (I have added video to the song.) Absent a defense to infringement, I have committed copyright infringement.

Is my use fair use? I paid for it. I am not making much extra money, or charging people extra for it. Maybe I'm not making any money at all!

Unfortunately, that's not what fair use is about. I would lose the argument.

From a good article on the subject found here: http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html

Quote

The "fair use" exemption to (U.S.) copyright law was created to allow things such as commentary, parody, news reporting, research and education about copyrighted works without the permission of the author. . . . Intent, and damage to the commercial value of the work are important considerations. Are you reproducing an article from the New York Times because you needed to in order to criticise the quality of the New York Times, or because you couldn't find time to write your own story, or didn't want your readers to have to register at the New York Times web site? The first is probably fair use, the others probably aren't.

(Note: my use in the quote above an example of fair use - ironic, eh?)

So, I have made a derivative work of the song. The way the courts look at it (I know this isn't realistic), but my copy on the video is as good as a copy on an iPod. Therefore, if I give someone the video, I've diminished the market for the song (one more person has it that didn't pay the copyright holder). Almost certainly not fair use.

Like I said - I don't think it's good policy. And I wish it was different. But that's the lay of the land right now.

Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography

Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

[DSE 3]

In addition to the derivative work, you have also;
ignored mechanical/compulsory licensing fees
ignored sync fees/restrictions
ignored duplication of a master restriction

At one level, this is such a simple topic that I just don't understand why more folks simply don't "get it."

At another level, 300 years of copyright law have created a Gordian Knot.

[ChangoLanzao 0]

Quote

In addition to the derivative work, you have also;
ignored mechanical/compulsory licensing fees
ignored sync fees/restrictions
ignored duplication of a master restriction

At one level, this is such a simple topic that I just don't understand why more folks simply don't "get it."

I think people don't "get it" because they feel that the laws (which overly complex and strongly favor the large industries) are fundamentally unfair especially when it pertains to personal, non-commercial uses. You are correct in stating that at one level it is such a simple topic ... if I legally purchase a song, I should have the right to make as many copies as I want for my own personal use. Simple. I should also have the right to listen to it while I watch my tandem video. Whether or not it is playing through my stereo or if I burn it on to the DVD makes no difference to the copyright owner and I should not be made to feel like a criminal for doing this.

This is how I feel about it and I suspect that many people would agree with this point of view. I know full well that the music industry and their lawyers wouldn't agree and that the courts probably would not interpret the currently existing laws in my favor. That's why I always use Creative Commons by-sa, licensed music in my videos and I think all DZ's should do the same; avoiding music which carries prohibitively expensive restrictions, mechanical/compulsory licensing fees, sync fees/restrictions, and duplication of a master restrictions entirely If everyone could just avoid buying and listening to that kind of music, perhaps the world would be a fairer place

It seems to me that the SONY v. Tenenbaum case isn't about these issues that I think are closer to home for the skydiving community. It is about an individual illegally obtaining/downloading music and/or illegally distributing it and being singled out by the RIAA in order to put fear in the public mind. I don't think that the RIAA would go after a DZ or a member of WEVA in this way because there would be too high a risk that the issue of "fair use" would come up and the jury might not be sympathetic to the RIAA.

Has the RIAA ever "nailed" a member of WEVA? Should DZ's and videographers really worry about being nailed in the SONY v. Tenenbaum way?

[Skwrl 56]

Quote

Simple. I should also have the right to listen to it while I watch my tandem video. Whether or not it is playing through my stereo or if I burn it on to the DVD makes no difference to the copyright owner and I should not be made to feel like a criminal for doing this.

Sure. Lots of people feel this way. But don't confuse that with "fair use", which has a very specific, convoluted, messy meaning.

What you're talking about is what one of my old law professors called an "Otta' be". In other words, you're saying it otta' be the case that you can copy a song that you bought, or use it in a video, etc. But that's not the world we live in at the moment.

I could imagine a huge variety of amendments to the Copyright Act that would make it closer to what you want. But that's more of an SC topic.

As for "how often they come after you", like I said before in my speeding example, that's a different issue. I have no idea, personally. Spot?

Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography

Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

[LloydDobbler 2]

Just a couple of points...

Quote

I think people don't "get it" because they feel that the laws (which overly complex and strongly favor the large industries) are fundamentally unfair especially when it pertains to personal, non-commercial uses.

I think people don't "get it" that the laws favor industries and individuals equally. As an independent writer and photographer, my work is protected by copyright law, just as the intellectual property of a major record label is protected.

Are the laws too complex? Yes. But the laws only seem to favor "large industries" because they produce more works than we individuals.

Quote

I don't think that the RIAA would go after a DZ or a member of WEVA in this way because there would be too high a risk that the issue of "fair use" would come up and the jury might not be sympathetic to the RIAA.

Then I'm guessing you haven't been involved in much IP law. I'm no attorney, but I've seen my share of this stuff. The RIAA, or the MPAA, or whomever, will gladly sue if they think they can make an example out of someone. And in this case, they definitely could.

From what I've seen, in a case where commercial work is involved, fair use isn't much of a risk to the plaintiff at all. First off, the jury's job is to interpret the law, not the way they think the law should be. It's generally more likely that they will execute their duty as instructed by the judge, and not attempt to 'legislate from the jury box'. Especially in a case where money has changed hands, which is a pretty good way to take the bite out of the fair use defense.

Secondly, while the law doesn't favor the big corporations, the system does. The RIAA would gladly have their attorneys sue a small-time DZ or videographer, if only for the simple fact that the individual has little chance of being able to afford a long, drawn-out lawsuit. The plaintiff wins by simply outlasting the defendant.

Signatures are the new black.

[ChangoLanzao 0]

Quote

Quote

Simple. I should also have the right to listen to it while I watch my tandem video. Whether or not it is playing through my stereo or if I burn it on to the DVD makes no difference to the copyright owner and I should not be made to feel like a criminal for doing this.

Sure. Lots of people feel this way. But don't confuse that with "fair use", which has a very specific, convuluted, messy meaning.

I totally agree. The definition of "fair use" needs to be clarified and lined up more closely with what The People think is fair.

Quote

What you're talking about is what one of my old law professors called an "Otta' be". In other words, you're saying it otta' be the case that you can copy a song that you bought, or use it in a video, etc. But that's not the world we live in at the moment.

Yup ... that pretty much sums it up for me. I just need to wait for an opportunity to be on a jury so that I can actually make a contribution to the change , I don't think my congressman would be much help.

Quote

I could imagine a huge variety of amendments to the Copyright Act that would make it closer to what you want. But that's more of an SC topic.

Yeah ... I don't want to go there either. I'm just not sure it's desirable to invoke the still unsettled SONY vs. Tennenbaum case in order to perpetuate fear of the RIAA. Instead, I think DZO's and vidiots should be encouraged to properly use royalty free and creative commons licensed music that is legal to sync in their videos.

Quote

As for "how often they come after you", like I said before in my speeding example, that's a different issue. I have no idea, personally. Spot?

No, I wasn't asking how often. I actually would like to know if they EVER went after a WEVA wedding photographer in the SONY v. Tenenbaum way, actually going to a jury asking for astronomical punitive damages?

[ChangoLanzao 0]

Quote

Just a couple of points...

Quote

I don't think that the RIAA would go after a DZ or a member of WEVA in this way because there would be too high a risk that the issue of "fair use" would come up and the jury might not be sympathetic to the RIAA.

Then I'm guessing you haven't been involved in much IP law. I'm no attorney, but I've seen my share of this stuff. The RIAA, or the MPAA, or whomever, will gladly sue if they think they can make an example out of someone. And in this case, they definitely could.

You're guessing correctly So you've seen your share; can you mention a few of the cases? I'd really like to read about them. Honestly. Any links?

Quote

Secondly, while the law doesn't favor the big corporations, the system does. The RIAA would gladly have their attorneys sue a small-time DZ or videographer, if only for the simple fact that the individual has little chance of being able to afford a long, drawn-out lawsuit. The plaintiff wins by simply outlasting the defendant.

Now there's a topic for SC!

[ozzy13 0]

So my DZO caught wind of this thread and now we will be using royalty free music. The problem I have is it all sucks... Its also expensive. It all sounds like techno shit.. Anyone got any ideas?

Never give the gates up and always trust your rears!

[DSE 3]

Quote

if I legally purchase a song, I should have the right to make as many copies as I want for my own personal use.

You DO have that right. If you want to have a copy of a song you bought on your computer, iPod, CD, whatever for your OWN use (effectively defined by being listenable on one device at a time), it's perfectly legal.

Quote

Has the RIAA ever "nailed" a member of WEVA? Should DZ's and videographers really worry about being nailed in the SONY v. Tenenbaum way

There was a threat of a suit against a fairly well-known wedding videographer, and WEVA stepped in to help. This acted as a stop-gap, and as a result (3 years later) WEVA has secured discounts for their membership with ZOOM and they're working on other deals. BTW, WEVA membership is open to Skydiving videographers too....Wedding and EVENT Videographers Association.

I'm really surprised at the question of "has this ever happened?" that comes up regularly.
No one ever believed that Tenenbaum would ever see court. No one believed that Thomas Rasset would ever see a court. It's like a having a cutaway; stay in the game long enough and it's not a question of "if" but rather "when," IMO.

Keep in mind, I've got nothing to gain by trying to help keep DZ's legit. It's true that at some point, my company will release a library of songs made specifically for skydiving videos...but that's a "someday" thing.

I'm concerned about the DZ that becomes the test case for sync, replication, mechanical violation. A judgement remotely close to Tenenbaum or Thomas-Rasset would bury almost any DZ out there.

[Icon134 0]

Quote

For those using cinescore... are you using the default themes that came with it, or did you buy any more? I'm just playing with the demo... I think I'll go for it. But I'm just curious if it comes with enough variety that works well for skydiving videos. Any of the themes available for sale have a lot of good stuff for skydiving videos?

you could probably get by with the standard music... I did download a few others... specifically, Corn Fest, Hot Curry, and Hard Tail from the Real Rock Theme Pack... because I like rock and roll... I have used some of the built in themes from the Cinescore DVD themes (which is a seperate DVD and you'll have to pay shipping if you want to get it... but it adds several themes so I think it's worth the $10 or what ever it is for shipping...

Quote

I haven't looked at acid... I assume that's too much trouble for quick edits. Especially for the musically challenged. Sound about right?

It certainly does take a more time to build music with Acid then it does in cinescore but I get more control over what I'm building... and fwiw I don't consider myself to have a great deal of musical prowess... and I mostly screw around and figure it out as I go along... I did get some extra loop packs for Acid because I like a particular style of music...

I think Funk has a good feel for skydiving videos and there are several funk style loop packages...

I imagine I could do more with it if I got some instruction or was more creative...

Livin' on the Edge... sleeping with my rigger's wife...

[ozzy13 0]

ok someone please help.
https://secure.gettyimages.com/Music/PumpAudio?esource=googMusic_Licensing&country=usa&kw=USA+copyright_free_music

I went on this website to get copyfree music. I started talking to one of there representatives. What they are telling me is that If we reproduce it on DVD's it will cost $2000-$3000 for 20 songs and 20000 to 30000 for the whole library. They are saying its because of the reproduction that the costs are so high.
The other option is dont tell them we are reproducing. But then we are in the same boat we are in now.

What is everyone else doing ( The ones that are not using Copy right music)

Our DZ is still using boards to edit. Not computers

Never give the gates up and always trust your rears!

[parachutist 1]

Quote

What is everyone else doing ( The ones that are not using Copy right music)

It sounds like you're asking the right questions before purchasing. You'll need to shop around and find some royalty-free music that gives you better rights when you buy the license. For example, here is a copy of desirable rights, granted from one particular distributor:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

RIGHTS GRANTED

Synchronization Rights

The right to use the music as a soundtrack 'synced' with visual images as part of your production.

•You have the right to synchronize the audio content from any Wavtracks Royalty Free Music product (without any further payments) with audio and/or visual productions or applications such as film & video productions, training and marketing presentations, corporate videos, on hold messages, radio presentations or commercials, television presentations or commercials, musical recordings, live performances, Web pages, multimedia presentations, interactive programs, computer games, audiovisual or computer generated displays, programs or presentations which may incorporate streaming audio or podcasts. (hereinafter referred to as "the Production").
•You may create unlimited copies of the Production.
LIMITATIONS

Copyright infringement is a serious offence. Wavtracks protects its copyright by all necessary means, including legal action. You are not authorized to:

•Sell, Loan or give away unsynchronized sounds from any Wavtracks Royalty Free Music product. (Although the music can be sold as part of the Production)
•Claim ownership or authorship of the music represented under this agreement

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

[ozzy13 0]

ok. does anyone know of any sites like this. Music with lyrics would be better.

Never give the gates up and always trust your rears!

[Bill_K 0]

Quote

ok. does anyone know of any sites like this. Music with lyrics would be better.

From Chris's post on page one of this thread, plus one click.

[tonyL 0]

Hi

Just curious about this from a UK perspective. Did a bit of internet searching and found:

http://www.iov.co.uk/showarticle.pl?id=4202

The law in various countries is different with regards to copyright so without trying to muddy the water too much is there not something similar to these blanket licenses for "Private Function Video" available in the US?

Looking at these costs they would be quite reasonable if you only made 1 copy of the tandem video.

Tony

[DSE 3]

Various countries all have similar laws to the USA (all but two signed Berne), however, the UK and Australia have private use laws in place. Australia is in danger of losing theirs due to abuses.

The short answer to your question is that no...there are no private use licenses for the USA similar to those in Oz or UK, because typical Fair Use laws cover the use. It gets muddy because a "professional" is creating the work AND replicating the work.
This is how they've got us by the short n' curlies;
Sync
Duplication
Mechanical
all performed by a "professional."
If you give the student an edited video with no music and tell them to put their own music on, it's perfectly legal for them to use ANYTHING they want.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

Quote

So my DZO caught wind of this thread and now we will be using royalty free music. The problem I have is it all sucks... Its also expensive. It all sounds like techno shit.. Anyone got any ideas?

Just an idea.

I know a local musican/producer/studio owner.
We discussed this subject a while back. I'm nowhere near doing tandems yet, but I showed him a couple "standard" tandem videos asking for his opinion. Clearly using copyrighted music was not an option, and he agreed that the usual royalty free stuff was overused and not really suitable.
He offered to compose/record/produce a score that would be suitable for tandem vids.
Upbeat and happy for the intro/waiver/gearup. Tension building for the airpane ride, with a crescendo for the door opening.
Fast and furious for the launch and freefall.
And so on.

It would be the same score for all the tandem vids, but most of them get the same music anyway.

Copyrighted by him, licensced to the DZ (including a synch). Credited to him on the vid.

Couple hundred for the project, maybe a couple bucks per use. We didn't get down to details, but he was interested in the project and willing to work with me when I have the skills to make use of it.

Again, just an idea.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[DSE 3]

Quote

[

Again, just an idea.

And a damned good one (other than the coupla bux per use). Licensing GREAT stock can be as cheap as .10 per use.

[FreeflyChile 0]

I understand that people WANT to be able to use music they buy in whatever form they want (such as syncing videos with music), but why do people think that the fact that copyright law prevents it is unfair?

Looking at it from the copyright holder's perspective:

creating an original work often involves:
1) expressing ones feelings/desires/inspirations in a very specific way, where the work is an embodiment of an inspiration that the author chose to express in that way because it is what has meaning to them
2) expenses - sometimes small, but sometimes very large (I can't imagine that recording a 'real album' is very cheap, and films can cost hundreds of millions to make
3) substantial sacrifice by those involved - can be a part of 1 or 2, but sometimes just getting your work to see the light of day can be the culmination of years of sacrifice and development

I agree that sometimes the record companys (OK, often) are bullies to both the artists and the consumer with respect to this, but removing the protection they have to make money essentially removes part of the incentive to be a record company to begin with. Nowadays, it's not as important as there are so many avenues to release music (youtube, etc), but the 'record deal' is still the goal of many aspiring musicians.

Further, having the DZ sync copyrighted music to a tandem video adds value to the video that was not there before the music was added - why should the DZ enjoy the benefits of this music that was developed, produced, recorded and distributed by others without compensating anyone? THAT does not seem fair to me. I know that the actual monetary damage done by syncing copyrighted music to a tandem video without permission is very very small...but a lot of times this is a slippery slope thing - where do you draw the line?

I'd argue it's much easier to say "no one can do it" rather than have a scale or limit - because then you REALLY don't know if you're doing something wrong.

Do I think it's right that a grandma can get sued because her granddaughter used Napster? No.

But I think that in the argument of the creator of the work (or the person who paid the creator of the work for the right to use the work) vs. the general public, I don't think that it's CLEARLY the general public that should be able to do whatever they want with copyrighted works as long as it's "not very big".

If this was allowed, it'd really take away from the value of creating these works.

Just my opinion.

[DSE 3]

Quote

Further, having the DZ sync copyrighted music to a tandem video adds value to the video that was not there before the music was added - why should the DZ enjoy the benefits of this music that was developed, produced, recorded and distributed by others without compensating anyone? THAT does not seem fair to me. I know that the actual monetary damage done by syncing copyrighted music to a tandem video without permission is very very small...but a lot of times this is a slippery slope thing - where do you draw the line?

I'd argue it's much easier to say "no one can do it" rather than have a scale or limit - because then you REALLY don't know if you're doing something wrong.

Do I think it's right that a grandma can get sued because her granddaughter used Napster? No.

But I think that in the argument of the creator of the work (or the person who paid the creator of the work for the right to use the work) vs. the general public, I don't think that it's CLEARLY the general public that should be able to do whatever they want with copyrighted works as long as it's "not very big".

If this was allowed, it'd really take away from the value of creating these works.

Just my opinion.

Brilliantly said.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Further, having the DZ sync copyrighted music to a tandem video adds value to the video that was not there before the music was added - why should the DZ enjoy the benefits of this music that was developed, produced, recorded and distributed by others without compensating anyone?

Conversely, the music industry is enjoying the benefits of having the video enhance their music and the free advertising that we provide. One could argue that it's as much of a benefit to them as it is to us. A while back I had a video on YouTube muted by Warner. The audio in question was a remake of an old one-hit-wonder seventies tune that was performed by a now defunct and rather obscure band. Fair enough, it's their music and I respected that decision but I'm pretty sure that the band didn't mind the free publicity so to speak and my use in no way would hurt album sales (did I say "album"? I'm showing my age). I actually tried to contact them to get permission to use the music but couldn't get in touch with them. (ok, I didn't try that hard but I tried).
I guess the point I'm trying to make is that I think that both entities benefit and the the music industry would do well to just back off a bit. As a result I no longer use their music and consequently, I no longer buy it either.

[danielcroft 2]

IMO there's a big difference between a DZ using track to enhance something they sell and an individual just putting some music over a personal video which is not for sale. Some of my videos on YT were muted so I deleted my account, I also stopped adding music to my videos. I have actually purchased music that was in videos that people have created because I liked the song & hadn't heard it before. I think fair use should encapsulate a person adding a sound track to a personal video which is not for sale. This should be a no brainer on videos where the whole song isn't used.

I'm no lawyer of course.

[DSE 3]

Quote

Conversely, the music industry is enjoying the benefits of having the video enhance their music and the free advertising that we provide. One could argue that it's as much of a benefit to them as it is to us.

-*most* tandem videos don't credit the artist (even if they do, doesn't natter, see next point)

-It's the copyright holder's right to choose who may copy their works (hence the term copy-right). By using the music without permission, you've just taken away their right to choose who may copy, and how they'd like to be compensated for granting a license/right to copy.

By that same token then....
UPT would enjoy the free publicity and advertising if I jumped a Vector rig. Do you think that Bill is going to sit quietly and smile if I simply walk into his office, pick up his rig, walk out, and jump it, saying nothing to him as I do? Particularly if he doesn't know me from Adam?
Or...maybe you have a company logo on your truck/car. Surely you'd appreciate the publicity and advertising of me driving around in your truck/car as I pull my DZ trailer behind it? So when you go to get in your car tomorrow and it's gone, you won't mind because someone is giving you free publicity and advertising, right?You're not going to call the police or anything, just because your car/truck has been taken without your permission, right?

[danielcroft 2]

If I could make a copy of my truck from the master that I keep then no, I probably wouldn't care. It's not the same issue. Owners of original content should have every right to control who has the ability to use that content. This is backed up by the law. My contention is that, when the work is not being used in any commercial capacity, what loss is the copyright holder incurring?

p.s. hope you're healing well DSE