MOTUnation.com

That is a mess.

The article mentions the Verve song as using unlicensed samples, but there is more to that case that makes it doubly interesting:

Originally, The Verve had negotiated a licence to use a sample from the Oldham recording, but it was successfully argued that the Verve had used "too much" of the sample.[14][15] Despite having original lyrics, the music of "Bitter Sweet Symphony" contains bongo drums sampled from the Oldham track, which led to a lawsuit with ABKCO Records, Allen Klein's company that owns the rights to the Rolling Stones material of the 1960s. The matter was eventually settled, with copyright of the song reverting to Abkco. Songwriting credits were changed to Jagger/Richards/Ashcroft, with 100% of royalties going to the Rolling Stones.[1]

"We were told it was going to be a 50/50 split, and then they saw how well the record was doing," says band member Simon Jones. "They rung up and said, 'We want 100 percent or take it out of the shops, you don't have much choice.'" [sic][16]

Good! People should pay for what they use. I had a meeting this week with a filmmaker who said he "only used up to 6 seconds" and that was the "legal" amount he could use.

I asked to see where that is IN PRINT but of course he could not produce evidence.

Steal intellectual property and get caught and that's bad. Make a lot of money and that's worse - but very good for the copyright owners.

There isn't any length of time. Basically it's a "if it's recognizable, it's wrong". The whole idea is to keep people from being able to link themselves with other's good name and make money off of it. I get this crap all the time at my video production job. About a year ago, I had a client come in all ready to do a take off on the Eminem Chrysler ad, and use the Eminem track. We had to set them straight, and they kept asking, "well, could we use only a few seconds, I hear that's legal?" It isn't. You can use one second and be canned. Oh, and just because it's you're friend playing a cover doesn't make it legal too. We had one creepy client who wanted to use a cover of a Santana song played by this woman (I'm pretty sure he just liked it because he liked her tits).

That said, I've been known to use free sound effects from open-source online repositories (only if I trust that they're not ripped off libraries), but I edit them HEAVILY or make them in-decipherable from the originals. As far as I know, that's kosher and quite common.

MIDI Life Crisis wrote:I had a meeting this week with a filmmaker who said he "only used up to 6 seconds" and that was the "legal" amount he could use.

Where was he getting his legal advice from, Moe, Larry, and Curly Legal?

billf wrote:

MIDI Life Crisis wrote:I had a meeting this week with a filmmaker who said he "only used up to 6 seconds" and that was the "legal" amount he could use.

Where was he getting his legal advice from, Moe, Larry, and Curly Legal?

Dewey, Cheatum, & Howe.

There is this bizzare rumor about 5sec legality. I have no idea where it comes from, probably just wishful thinking that caught on as "fact". Here in Fairbanks it's compounded by the fact that until maybe 15 years ago, there was this Wild West mentality that everything was fair game and ASCAP or BMI didn't look this way (at least in regards to TV and radio) when I came on board over 7 years ago, they were in the process of breaking that mentality, but there were still some holdovers. One of my clients used the Dragnet theme for decades before we put a stop to it shortly after I came on.

I've paid my rent many times over with money from people with such brains. It's called infringement of copyright and it's damn expensive.

Ignorance pays.

But I wonder how enforceable this would be in the 3rd world.

Suppose, Mike, that some guy from Guatemala rips off some of your music. Could you really do something about it? You know how our laws are displayed only in print but never enforced...

He'd probably tell your lawyers to F.O. and I'm not sure there's much they could do about it. Hopefully I'm dead wrong on this

I'd have to balance the poss return v. the cost of litigation. Probably not worth the expense.

That's what I thought.

You could maybe (BIG and not very promising maybe), after years and lots of effort, get results from México, Argentina, Chile and probably Brazil, but I really doubt it. The rest of the countries would be a total waste of your time and effort.

Hope you never have to sue someone south of the USA!

Here in Fairbanks it's compounded by the fact that until maybe 15 years ago, there was this Wild West mentality that everything was fair game and ASCAP or BMI didn't look this way

I have a report somewhere that Alaska has more copyright lawsuits going on than anywhere else in the country - not sure how recent it is.

I probably should qualify that by pointing out that maps and textbooks are the #1 and #2 categories for Alaskan copyright suits but music is up there.

MIDI Life Crisis wrote:I'd have to balance the poss return v. the cost of litigation. Probably not worth the expense.

Isn't that what they count on? It just seems so wrong that that can be used as a legal strategy (even locally). Just sayin.

Sometimes. I think infringers, like anyone else, want to make as much as possible. The trick is to only act on the successful ones. The losers aren't worth the effort. Just like the rest of life.