Copright Law

[wworld]

I live in the USA. In this country, apparently applying music to a video infringes copyright law if you have no license to do so (according to a Wikipedia article) and it doesn’t fall under Fair Use Rights.

Fair Use Rights basically is an exception to the copyright law and allows you to use copyrighted material freely IF it falls under Fair Use.

Now, I try my hardest not to brake copyright law, but other’s don’t know about it (In my opinion, it’s a big tangled mess -it really only is enforced if it’s done for a profit, a big company is behind it, etc. I think)

On YouTube, for instance, there are videos with other’s published music. Or unofficial copies of official music videos. On Facebook, people share these kinds of videos. What am I supposed to do? Tell them about copyright law? Tell them to take down the link to the video? Basically become a big fat nuisance?

I’m not even 16. And yet I probably know more about this stupid copyright law then most adults I think.

It’s not even really enforced. And I think it is almost impossible to enforce on such a minute level. And the government doesn’t seem to show any effort to clean up this mess. The only thing it actually does in my opinion is confuse me and make me be a nuisance to others (“that goes against copyright law” or things like that)

I’m not talking about things like pirating music, movies, etc. That’s definitely wrong. But playing a song in a video is more often than not illegal I thin if it doesn’t falll under Fair Use Rights. Making a music video featuring you dancing/singing along with a song would most likely infringe copyright law too if you hope to share it online.

So, what do I tell other people who have posted links to videos that I think infringe copyrights on those minute levels? (Including reposted music videos even though they aren’t really official). I can’t watch out for everyone. I need to watch out for myself. But I don’t want to give silent scandal. Please help.

 

[06convert]

The waters are left muddy intentionally. It’s an attempt to get people on the fence to take the “better safe than sorry” stance and avoid using copyrighted material.

It’s sad, but like you said, if an organization wants to spend the money and the time they can claim whatever against whomever. Having stuff on Youtube gives you a bit of a buffer. If a organization doesn’t like something they can complain and have it removed by Youtube pretty easily without any legal action necessary.

In terms of your responsibility. You need to watch out for you. You must do what your conscience tells you about your actions. If you feel the need to point out copyright infringement to others you certainly can, but you don’t have to. People deserve to know the truth, but what is the truth with such a gray law? Unless you are 100% sure it’s illegal, why guess at it?

If someone is blatantly doing something illegal you may mention it to them. After all you shouldn’t let someone rob a house simply because they don’t see anything wrong with it, but I wouldn’t nag them about it. Once they know the truth it’s their choice. Most people have no ill intent to violate the law.

 

[beeliner]

Making a music video featuring you dancing/singing along with a song would most likely infringe copyright law too if you hope to share it online.

Not ‘most likely’, absolutely!

Composers and artists have a right to protect their work.

To do that you would need a ‘synchronization license’.

You would contact the publisher, usually through your attorney, and it’s possible that an arrangement could be worked out.

There have been many well-publicized instances of music theft, the details of which are beyond the scope of this thread.

One involved the late comedian Morey Amsterdam, who plagiarized the melody of a Creole song, “L’annee Passe” (“Last Year”) for his song “Rum and Coca-Cola”, a megahit for the Andrews Sisters in the 1940’s. Amsterdam had to give back every cent he made from it.

A more recent example involved the British crud-rock group The Sex Pistols, who attempted, unsuccessfully, to release an obscene parody of Ralph McTell’s song “Streets of London”.

Now, with something like a personal video, you might possibly get away with it, but don’t count on it. You should no more steal intellectual property from its owner than merchadise from a retail store.

 

[Reepicheep]

I think you have no obligation to be everybody else’s conscience.
As you say, the law on this subject is murky. Even the experts aren’t always sure. Why should you be expected to know?

I would say you have no duty to speak unless you are quite certain that what you see is blatant theft.

 

[runningdude]

So, what do I tell other people who have posted links to videos that I think infringe copyrights on those minute levels? (Including reposted music videos even though they aren’t really official). I can’t watch out for everyone. I need to watch out for myself. But I don’t want to give silent scandal. Please help.

You have no obligation to report suspected copyright infringement - that’s up to Youtube and the copyright owners to handle!

Its gets confusing, because many musicians allow their music to be played on Youtube. There is even a section where you can choose a background song for your video. You can use these songs without worrying about copyright infringement.

I make my own videos, and I use Creative Commons or public domain soft effects whenever possible - or I make my own.

 

[Alicia05]

Hi! Much of what you say resonates with me, so I 'd like to put in my own 2 cents :twocents: worth of opinion and research.

I would argue that intellectual property is an illegitimate form of property to begin with, and that is often why it is difficult to promote (like you said, it’s really only enforced sometimes, and what about all those Youtube videos??!! ).

Basically,

1. **Ideas are infinitely reproducible, whereas tangible, material things are not. **
   If I write something on this forum and someone else reads it, we can each have a “full copy” of the idea in our minds. However, if I have a pizza, and I want to share it with someone, we cannot both have a full pizza; we either have to split it in some way or I can give the whole pizza to the other person. This, btw, is the reason we have property rights at all, so as to be able to allocate scarce resources.
   If you want to make money on an idea, keep it a secret until you start to sell the product/service.
2. **Intellectual property does not respect each person’s legal right to be able to use one’s property in whatever way one wants as long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others.
   **An example from the novel Against Intellectual Property by N. Stephan Kinsella:
   “… if A writes a novel, he has a copyright in this ‘work.’ If he sells a physical copy of the novel to B, in book form, then B owns only that one physical copy of the novel; B does not own the ‘novel’ itself, … Thus, even if B owns the material property of paper and printing press, he cannot use his own property to create another copy of A’s book. … In this way, A’s ownership of ideal rights gives him some degree of control-ownership- over the tangible property of innumerable others.”

There are many more arguments, however, and I would suggest first learning as much as you can about IP, and then discussing it with others whom you think maybe are not acting ethically or morally. That way, no matter which position you take on the issue, you’ll be able to confront them and answer their objections.

Of course, prayer for clarity always helps!

I highly recommend Jeffrey Tucker’s lecture entitled The Evils of Intellectual Property if you want to learn more on the subject! It’s TERRIFIC!!

 

[wworld]

I’ve come across something that just strengthens my views on this whole copyright law thing being a mess.

So I was on Facebook. Someone posted a link to an unoffical “official” music video.

However, Yahoo! has a news article about the same music video (it was posted by that same person who posted the other one on youtube. They ARE the same.) which, obviously, has that unofficial official music video embedded into it.

Well, since Yahoo! posted a news article on it, as long as that video is viewed through Yahoo, it falls under Fair Use Rights I think. Which means that exact same video is legal on Yahoo. I think.

However, if that same video is watched through the person Youtube’s channel, well… it most likely doesn’t fall under Fair Use (unless a bond between it and yahoo was somehow created under another part of copyright law ). I think.

That means the Yahoo! version is legal. And the Youtube version isn’t.

I don’t know for sure really.
In fact, I don’t know if the Yahoo! one falls under Fair Use. I think it does though, as it IS for newscasting.

If I was correct (and I could be wrong), then that’s an example of how messed up and obscure copyright law is in the US.

 

[runningdude]

I’ve come across something that just strengthens my views on this whole copyright law thing being a mess.

So I was on Facebook. Someone posted a link to an unoffical “official” music video.

However, Yahoo! has a news article about the same music video (it was posted by that same person who posted the other one on youtube. They ARE the same.) which, obviously, has that unofficial official music video embedded into it.

Well, since Yahoo! posted a news article on it, as long as that video is viewed through Yahoo, it falls under Fair Use Rights I think. Which means that exact same video is legal on Yahoo. I think.

However, if that same video is watched through the person Youtube’s channel, well… it most likely doesn’t fall under Fair Use (unless a bond between it and yahoo was somehow created under another part of copyright law ). I think.

That means the Yahoo! version is legal. And the Youtube version isn’t.

I don’t know for sure really.
In fact, I don’t know if the Yahoo! one falls under Fair Use. I think it does though, as it IS for newscasting.

If I was correct (and I could be wrong), then that’s an example of how messed up and obscure copyright law is in the US.

How do you know that the video isn’t “official”?

Either way, news organizations will sometime post links to “unauthorized” videos, usually unaware that the video is such. Simply viewing the video to understand the news article, regardless of whether you watch it on Youtube or Yahoo would be fair use.

However the greater exposure the video gets could help the copyright holder spot it and have it taken down more quickly, but there is no need to worry about reporting it.

if the video is unauthorized,

 

[beeliner]

How do you know that the video isn’t “official”?

Either way, news organizations will sometime post links to “unauthorized” videos, usually unaware that the video is such. Simply viewing the video to understand the news article, regardless of whether you watch it on Youtube or Yahoo would be fair use.

However the greater exposure the video gets could help the copyright holder spot it and have it taken down more quickly, but there is no need to worry about reporting it.

if the video is unauthorized,

I own the copyright to 14 videos, I have sample clips of all of them online, anyone is free to enjoy, propagate, or even download, those sample clips, that’s free advertising for me. My website address appears at the end of each clip.

Buy the full-length video and post it online, I will sue you, and don’t think that I don’t check!

 

[runningdude]

I own the copyright to 14 videos, I have sample clips of all of them online, anyone is free to enjoy, propagate, or even download, those sample clips, that’s free advertising for me. My website address appears at the end of each clip.

Buy the full-length video and post it online, I will sue you, and don’t think that I don’t check!

I never said anything about posting the unauthorized video, merely commented on responsibility to report such an unauthorized post. It is no one’s responsibility other than yours, the copyright holder’s, to report or enforce such infringement.

 

[beeliner]

I never said anything about posting the unauthorized video, merely commented on responsibility to report such an unauthorized post. It is no one’s responsibility other than yours, the copyright holder’s, to report or enforce such infringement.

Oh, I understand that, rd, my comment was really directed to those misguided, but I’m sure very nice, posters earlier in the thread who seem to think that one’s intellectual property enters the public domain upon publication, at least in ‘philosophical’ terms.

The “Rum and Coca-Cola” case is a classic example. All Mr. Amsterdam and his publisher would have to have done was get the permission of the composer’s publisher to use the melody in return for a percentage of the profits - or - write their own melody based on the original but different enough to avoid infringement.

Posting copyrighted material online, or copying it, without the author’s permission is no different from intentionally bumping into him on the street and lifting his wallet. Now THAT’S philosophical!

 

[adrift]

One involved the late comedian Morey Amsterdam, who plagiarized the melody of a Creole song, “L’annee Passe” (“Last Year”) for his song “Rum and Coca-Cola”, a megahit for the Andrews Sisters in the 1940’s. Amsterdam had to give back every cent he made from it.

He did not have to give back every cent. Morey Amsterdam
Amsterdam was subsequently involved in a copyright suit over the song, which dragged on until 1948. In the end, Lord Invader was given a substantial royalty payment for having written the original lyric to the piece, while Amsterdam retained the credit (and the publishing rights) for his revised version of the lyric.

 

[edwest2]

Viacom has taken legal action against youtube.

viacom.com/news/Pages/ourcaseagainstyoutube.aspx

Copyright means “right to copy.” If you do not know where it came from, don’t copy/download. If you have permission or know for a fact that the material is being offered for free by the copyright holder then you can copy/download.

I work in the media. Nothing is murky. Piracy is stealing. If b0b96854 is offering something then the odds are it’s stolen and he doesn’t know it’s wrong to post it or doesn’t care.

Fair use is simple: If you are a newspaper, blogger, magazine or student, you can quote brief portions of published works for criticism, review or to complete your term paper, but the original source must be clearly identified.

Peace,
Ed

 

[adrift]

Viacom has taken legal action against youtube.

viacom.com/news/Pages/ourcaseagainstyoutube.aspx

Copyright means “right to copy.” If you do not know where it came from, don’t copy/download. If you have permission or know for a fact that the material is being offered for free by the copyright holder then you can copy/download.

I work in the media. Nothing is murky. Piracy is stealing. If b0b96854 is offering something then the odds are it’s stolen and he doesn’t know it’s wrong to post it or doesn’t care.

Fair use is simple: If you are a newspaper, blogger, magazine or student, you can quote brief portions of published works for criticism, review or to complete your term paper, but the original source must be clearly identified.

Peace,
Ed

The link is from March 24, 2007 since then Viacom Loses To YouTube In Landmark Copyright Case

06/23/10 SAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge handed Google Inc. a major victory Wednesday by rebuffing media company Viacom Inc.'s attempt to collect more than $1 billion in damages for the alleged copyright abuses of Google’s popular YouTube service.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Louis Stanton in New York embraces Google’s interpretation of a 12-year-old law that shields Internet services from claims of copyright infringement as long as they promptly remove illegal content when notified of a violation.

And
Google Wins Viacom Copyright Lawsuit

June 23, 2010

The ruling, if it survives, is a boon for internet freedom, especially as it applies to search engines, video-hosting companies, picture-hosting services like Flickr, social-networking sites like Facebook and micro-blogging services such as Twitter. But it will make it all the more difficult for rights holders to protect their works.

In short, Wednesday’s decision says internet companies, even if they know they are hosting infringing material, are immune from copyright liability if they promptly remove works at a rights-holder’s request — under what is known as a takedown notice.

 

[exnihilo]

I’m not a attorney so I cant speak as one. I believe I have an extremely limited understanding of the law. I think you have to be careful where you take your advice from because a lot of folks claim to know something about this area of the law who dont really and dont understand the law in general.

The biggest problem I see is that some people, mostly media corporations, grossly misrepresent the law in order to keep people from exercising their legal right to intellectual property. False copyright claims are a criminal offense but the government works for corporations, not individuals, so is never prosecuted.

I recommend the following links on a very informative site which I recommend exploring:

Copyright Fraud - Includes a great example of the NFL’s misrepresentation

Fair Use

 

[adrift]

Iworks for corporations, not individuals, so is never prosecuted.

I recommend the following links on a very informative site which I recommend exploring:

Copyright Fraud - Includes a great example of the NFL’s misrepresentation

Fair Use

That was very enlightening. It explains how the Bible can be copyrighted.

It was also interesting to learn of the other side of the coin.

Falsely claiming copyright is a criminal offense, but it hardly matters. The fine is ridiculously small:

 

[runningdude]

That was very enlightening. It explains how the Bible can be copyrighted.

It was also interesting to learn of the other side of the coin.

Well, the Bible is a little different. Claiming copyright on a Douey-Rhimes translation or a King James translation (in the US*) would be ridiculous, as these are hundreds of years old, and long in the public domain.

However, the New American Bible or the New International Version were originally translated in the 1960’s at considerable expense, for which the publishers need compensation to provide this resource. Translation counts as a creative effort.

(*The King Jame’s bible is under perpetual copyright in England, as one of the major forms of income for the royal family).

 

[runningdude]

I’m not a attorney so I cant speak as one. I believe I have an extremely limited understanding of the law. I think you have to be careful where you take your advice from because a lot of folks claim to know something about this area of the law who dont really and dont understand the law in general.

The biggest problem I see is that some people, mostly media corporations, grossly misrepresent the law in order to keep people from exercising their legal right to intellectual property. False copyright claims are a criminal offense but the government works for corporations, not individuals, so is never prosecuted.

I recommend the following links on a very informative site which I recommend exploring:

Copyright Fraud - Includes a great example of the NFL’s misrepresentation

Fair Use

In general, I agree with the website that these blanket copyright statements might be too strong and over reaching. However, I think it neglects a common scenario that provides publishers of historical texts a greater leverage over copyright, compilation of various manuscripts.

The example offered on that site about a “verbatim” historic text being copied sounds over reaching, but one should check if there is a footnotes or modifications sections, because these modifications could reflect a creative effort to restore the text. If these modifications exist, these alone could be under copyright protection, those this would discount the claim its a verbatim copy.

However, most of the original Shakespearean texts for instance have been lost to history, and so authors must painstakingly research and gather versions published over the past 500 hundred years, and choose which texts to provide. While these texts would remain in the public domain to the extent they are copied verbatim, the compiled text as a whole would count as a creative work.

Copyright protection would serve as an economic motivation to restore these classic works, as it guarantees only the authors and publishers that put this effort in would be compensated if the newly compiled work is successful.

 

[exnihilo]

The example offered on that site about a “verbatim” historic text being copied sounds over reaching, but one should check if there is a footnotes or modifications sections, because these modifications could reflect a creative effort to restore the text. If these modifications exist, these alone could be under copyright protection, those this would discount the claim its a verbatim copy.

The problem I see is that people are able to get away with misleading copyright claims. Publishers are not obliged to make very clear exactly what is copyrighted. And what constitutes a creative work in regards to picking texts might be unclear. I dont know what the case law says but like many things this ultimately comes down to something you can only really know by having a trial. What I mean is a person could in good faith not believe that the choosing of some texts really constitutes a creative work.

Copyright protection would serve as an economic motivation to restore these classic works, as it guarantees only the authors and publishers that put this effort in would be compensated if the newly compiled work is successful.

It might have some motivation. But I think the current copyright law actually discourages more than it encourages. There are actually some good cases made against IP.

Arguments against

 

[adrift]

The problem I see is that people are able to get away with misleading copyright claims. Publishers are not obliged to make very clear exactly what is copyrighted. And what constitutes a creative work in regards to picking texts might be unclear. I dont know what the case law says but like many things this ultimately comes down to something you can only really know by having a trial. What I mean is a person could in good faith not believe that the choosing of some texts really constitutes a creative work.

It might have some motivation. But I think the current copyright law actually discourages more than it encourages. There are actually some good cases made against IP.

Arguments against

When VCR’s started to be in every home, there was a law suit over them. It was determined that it was not copyright infringement. I was later told that it was against the copyright to record something and then let someone borrow it from you or make a copy of it for someone else. I checked with an official and was told that it was a gray area. In other words, it hadn’t been decided by a court. It is a confusing subject