Copyright question regarding youtube videos

[stickwolf]

All possible. Probably not malware, just those damn flash sites I guess. Don't take it personally.

If you use Firefox, you can install the Flashblock plugin. That will block ALL flash, but it leaves a little indicator you can just click, so that you can choose to have any individual flash item play after all. Thus, you can be more aware of what you're getting. And you can whitelist sites you know you like.

[MIDI Life Crisis]

Thanks for the tip.

[mikehalloran]

Google is dealing with this in court. Decisions are expected in a few years. Check back then.

[Sean Kenny]

How YouTube thinks about copyright (a presentation on the topic):
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/marga ... right.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This is a really interesting video, the power of the people - the power of youtube!

Worth watching

[mikehalloran]

Hi everyone,
I have a question regarding youtube videos. I have seen some film composers take a video and replace the music with a score they wrote. The composers have given credit to the original film maker and made it clear that they re-wrote the music.

I had a little downtime between projects and found an animation on youtube that was made by an independent animator. The music on it is not very good, so I threw something together for it, which I am very happy with. I have tried contacting the animator, but haven't gotten a response yet.

My question: If I were to post this on a website to show my film scoring skills and give all of the credit (other than the music) to the animator, is this legal? I wouldn't be doing anything for financial gain, other than to provide potential clients material for them to view as an example of my scoring. I would also specifically state that I re-did the music and provide a link to the animator's website. What do you guys think? Yes? No?

Thanks in advance!

Hi,

"Legal" isn't the issue. If it is, then none of us should be answering since, not being lawyers, we are not allowed to practice law. If you need legal advice, get a lawyer.

Google claims copyright for everything posted on YouTube. Not your issue - the courts will sort this out - someday.

Google isn't paying a dime for all the music being played. Again, not your issue - the courts will sort this out - someday.

You have altered someone else's work without permission. That is your issue, no matter how many other people do it.

Can you get into trouble for that? Yes you can. Will you? Not my issue. Again, if you need legal advice, get a lawyer.

Moral issues? We are neither your conscience nor your priest. You may, however, wish to keep the Golden Rule in mind: How would you feel if someone violated your rights in this fashion? The only time I will care about the moral issues is if you violate my rights. Then you will find that I care quite deeply about that.

Friendly advice of a non-legal nature: Never infringe upon the rights of the Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, Walt Disney Co., Chuck Berry or Gibson Guitars. All have serious reputations for not playing nice in that department.

[twistedtom]

Now as I did not see the video with the not so good music on it, therfore I can not judge for my self as to the quality of the music but it may be that the person who made the music feels it is good or fits what he did in the animation. This is his creation; all of it.

At one time there was a discussion here about some one that wanted to take someone else’s drum recordings off of a CD and remix them. This person felt as he could make them into some thing better so he should be able to do such. People here told him “It is not you’re to do with as you wish with out permission”. He argued that he was just using the drums as a raw ingredient in his hip hop remix. I will put forward this hypothetical question; the store has flower, eggs and other fine raw ingredients that I could make into some thing better; so do I have the right to just take them with out paying for them and use them as I wish?

[cowtothesky]

Just for the record, I did not use the video for anything. I do not see a problem with practicing with videos, but I do see a problem with using any of that material, either for promotion or distribution, unless their is explicit permission granted. I wasn't seeking legal advice. I understand that the laws are not yet set in the new video age and I do respect the works of others. We sort of went through all that a few months ago. I had seen composers put up videos or trailers that they re-scored, which is what prompted the question.

[mikehalloran]

>I understand that the laws are not yet set in the new video age<

You understand incorrectly. You cannot incorporate someone else's work without permission and claim any part of it as yours.

If you use someone else's work in yours without their permission, it becomes theirs and no part of it is yours. And, if they don't like it, you are liable for additional damages. This was clearly established during the court battles over sampling. No reason to believe it is any different for video.

Ask George Harrison, Brian Wilson and The Verve.

The Verve sampled four bars of a symphonic recording of "You Can't Always Get What You Want" and incorporated it into "Bittersweet Symphony". Mick and Keith now own 100% of all rights to that song. The Verve knew that, if the Stones had sued, it could have been far, far worse.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and I am not giving legal advice. My views are my own and do not reflect any others especially my employer.

[MIDI Life Crisis]

If you use someone else's work in yours without their permission, it becomes theirs and no part of it is yours.

That's the first I've heard that. Are you sure it wasn't just part of a settlement agreement? I don't believe that is how the copyright laws are written in terms of remedies but again, I may just be ignorant of a recent change in the law.

Would you know what section and paragraph I might find that remedy?

[mikehalloran]

>That's the first I've heard that. Are you sure it wasn't just part of a settlement agreement? I don't believe that is how the copyright laws are written in terms of remedies but again, I may just be ignorant of a recent change in the law.

Would you know what section and paragraph I might find that remedy?<


Nope. You completely misunderstood. 100% is if it doesn't go to court. When they go to court, 100% is only the starting point.

The courts have long held that the entire work belongs to the wronged party - and then awards damages on top of that. The normal settlement is to give up all the rights to avoid punitive damages.

"Surfing USA" said Words and Music by Chuck Berry for the first 28 years except the first pressing. When the copyright came up for renewal, Brian Wilson was able to negotiate with Chuck Berry for the rights to his words. Had he sought permission, he could have negotiated a split but he didn't do that. He was young and that mistake cost a lot of money.

What is in the statute is that you can't change the words or music without permission. This is why arrangements do not belong to the arrangers unless permissions and splits are negotiated in advance (arrangers are paid a flat fee for that reason). You can arrange and record a song any way you want as long as 100% of the royalty is paid to the publishers of the work and you do not alter it significantly (usually by making major changes to the words). Look up Compulsory License.

[MIDI Life Crisis]

I'm a big defender of copyrights, as you know (especially my own). But if a person writes a "suite" with my work and incorporates their own work in another section of the same suite, you're saying the copyright holder who was infringed owns the entire work?

That is really not workable except under a settlement agreement. What I asked you is to defend that statement IN THE LAW. I don't think you can do that.

What if they infringe multiple copyrights of various writers? Do those writers then split the copyrights under the law? I do believe you are mistaken if you think that is the way the law is written. Of course, anything is possible in a settlement agreement.

[mikehalloran]

>But if a person writes a "suite" with my work and incorporates their own work in another section of the same suite, you're saying the copyright holder who was infringed owns the entire work?<

If it gets published and recorded and you are not given your correct royalties and credits, the normal settlement is that you own 100% of the work. I have already cited two examples - do I really need to bring up George Harrison, James Brown and Little Roger?

A suite where you are given your credit and mechanicals for your part and the other guy gives himself another whole part is ok - as long as it is credited properly and the other person does not claim your work as his own. As long as you get your 9.7 cents plus the overage if the work is over 6 minutes and your name and titles are credited properly, it is ok. A recent recording of a 3 minute medley including one chorus of a Willie Nelson tune credited both writers and gave the work both titles. Because, no permissions were negotiated, Willie was entitled to the max royalty. The other writer is also entitled to the same if covered by a third party because that was not one song - it is two.

I do not know of a single instance where copyrights were violated and American or British courts imposed an ownership or royalty split between the rights holder and the violator. Such a case did make the news recently involving Men At Work, the violators and the creators of Kukabura (surprise - not a folk song!) however, this was in an Australian court. But again, I am not a lawyer and only pay attention to this as it affects what I do for a living.

Now, please understand that I AM NOT A LAWYER AND I REFUSE TO PRACTICE LAW. I do know that, if you WANT ME TO CITE THE LAW, I won't because, a) I REFUSE and b) I already know that IT ISN'T WRITTEN IN THE LAW. My point is that THE COURTS HAVE ALWAYS AWARDED 100% PLUS DAMAGES which is why SETTLEMENTS OUT OF COURT ARE USUALLY FOR 100%.

Nowhere does it mention damages and awards for violations. It only says you can't violate. It is the Federal court system that takes it from there.

Many parts of Copyright that are enforced and upheld by the courts aren't in the law. It is in the courts. This includes nearly everything that affects the performing rights societies, by the way. Yea, the PROs, for the most part, aren't mentioned in Title 17. It is the various court decisions over the years that give them their authority, shape and guide what they do. Interestingly, the only parts of the copyright law that mention the PROs are amendments that assume they have the rights that they enforce on behalf of their members. Arguing that they aren't mentioned otherwise has never gotten anyone anywhere.

[MIDI Life Crisis]

>But if a person writes a "suite" with my work and incorporates their own work in another section of the same suite, you're saying the copyright holder who was infringed owns the entire work?<

If it gets published and recorded and you are not given your correct royalties and credits, the normal settlement [emphasis added] is that you own 100% of the work.

That was enough. Thanks. So we are talking about SETTLEMENT and not LAW. They are two very different things. That's all. Clarity.

[MIDI Life Crisis]

If I were to post this on a website to show my film scoring skills and give all of the credit (other than the music) to the animator, is this legal?

"Legal" isn't the issue. If it is, then none of us should be answering since, not being lawyers, we are not allowed to practice law.

Sorry I missed this earlier post guys. Actually, Mike, legal is certainly the issue. And I don't agree at all with your estimation that rendering one's personal interpretation of the law in public is beyond all but the lawyers. Clearly, one should not follow or depend on such legal opinions (in the layman's sense of the word) but providing one's opinion of the law is NOT illegal, at least in the American form of government. One hears many such views daily from non-lawyers in all sorts of forums (online, TV, newspapers, consultations, etc. IT IS PERFECTLY LEGAL to voice one's understanding of a law as long as one does not charge for the advice or attempt to represent someone else in court or contract dealings, per se.

Oh, and back to the o/p. It is illegal for you to distribute the work in any form without the copyright owners permission. That is not my opinion. That is a fact.

[cowtothesky]

If I were to post this on a website to show my film scoring skills and give all of the credit (other than the music) to the animator, is this legal?

Oh, and back to the o/p. It is illegal for you to distribute the work in any form without the copyright owners permission. That is not my opinion. That is a fact.

I have found this to be the case and I have always stood by the copyright laws. I was just asking the question because I had seen other composers do this and I was confused about it. In fact, I just saw a composer's website a few days ago and almost everything that he has up shows another film clip that he has re-scored. He is careful to state that the film belonged to "x", but I happen to know that he didn't get permission from them to use the clips.