A theft is a theft is a theft, regardless...

[hafilax]

I guess it's a bit of a catch 22 for the artists. They're getting some free promotion out of the deal but aggressively pursuing royalties might backfire. It seems to depend on the scale of the use and the depth of the user's pockets.

 

The honorable thing would be to get permission, royalties or not, and give credit to the artists. The problem is that it's generally not worth the hassle for the artists to collect and it's slipped into the collective unconscious that you can put music into presentations or movie clips without getting permission.

[glassgowkiss]

I think Blake nailed it on the head by saying he used music "without thinking twice". I guess the thing to to is to think twice or three times. My point is there is a lot of music out there, a lot of it is good, hight quality and very, very creative. Instead of cutting corners if you are doing slide shows/ films one might contact your local musician and give them some support by using their music with permission and give them some free promotion in return. Since you are not dealing with "label" it will be a very easy "gentlemen agreement" situation, where both sides will benefit from it.

BTW creativity is about exploring unexplored, copying someone's work is just plagiarism.

[hafilax]

It's plagiarism if you claim it as your own. This is more borrowing without permission.

[glassgowkiss]

It's plagiarism if you claim it as your own. This is more borrowing without permission.

I think if you play music and don't give credit, plus you don't even have permission to use it you make it look like your own.

"Borrowing"- how neatly said! Maybe I will "borrow" a few bucks from your wallet without your knowledge. I am sure "a borrower" will return it soon. In case of a film how do you you think you can "return" the item?

Hence my title: a theft is a theft, regardless of what you are stealing.

[genepires]

The bigger issue is if the offending company has enough capital to realistically take away in a law suit. (without hurting the music industry public image too much) The industry cold sue Blake for using thier music but what would it get them? Not a single thing except that the "MAN" is putting down the small man. Maybe patagonia doesn't have the capital to make it worth getting after them. GM does though. I suppose the MAN could sue Blake for $50.

[hafilax]

It's plagiarism if you claim it as your own. This is more borrowing without permission.

I think if you play music and don't give credit, plus you don't even have permission to use it you make it look like your own.

"Borrowing"- how neatly said! Maybe I will "borrow" a few bucks from your wallet without your knowledge. I am sure "a borrower" will return it soon. In case of a film how do you you think you can "return" the item?

Hence my title: a theft is a theft, regardless of what you are stealing.

On the flip side, someone making a documentary had a cell ring while filming. The song was the theme from Rocky and EMI wanted $10000 for 6 seconds of cell phone ringing. They ended up settling for $2500. This wasn't intentional use. It just so happened that the subject at that time had an expensive ring tone. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/16/movies/16rams.html (2005)

 

I wonder why people don't want to ask about royalties? When the label owns the rights the artists probably don't get much, if any, money anyway. I support bands I like by going to their shows. That's where they earn it.

 

I agree that for small bands it is worth contacting them. 9 times out of 10 they'd probably be happy to let you use it if they are credited.

[glassgowkiss]

On the flip side, someone making a documentary had a cell ring while filming. The song was the theme from Rocky and EMI wanted $10000 for 6 seconds of cell phone ringing. They ended up settling for $2500.

 

I wonder why people don't want to ask about royalties? When the label owns the rights the artists probably don't get much, if any, money anyway. I support bands I like by going to their shows. That's where they earn it.

 

I agree that for small bands it is worth contacting them. 9 times out of 10 they'd probably be happy to let you use it if they are credited.

Now this is just laziness on the part of editor- simply change the ring tone or mute it. And again- know your output! I know a lot of film makers are paranoid about background music, which can create a real headache.

 

[hafilax]

It could be difficult to cancel out the ring tone if there is an important spoken part at the same time.

[Edlinger]

[quote=Pete_All the public slideshows I've seen are pretty low-key local affairs in which the climber / presenter is essentially doing the show as a favor to the community and maybe the local climbing shop. Even if the presenter mentions the companies name at the end of the show I would hardly call the show a "commercial" affair.

 

 

 

 

Well said.

[chris54]

I truely mean this who gives a shit.

[ScaredSilly]

Perhaps this might shed some light on the discussion:

 

http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/resources/publications/fair_use_in_online_video

 

One question to ask who produced the video and who owns it and thus who is responsible for securing copyrights?

 

Did Colin make the video and sell it BD? If so I would think he is the responsible party. Or did he make the video as part of his sponsorship agreement? If so, then it might be a gray area of who should be responsible. Certainly, if BD produced it then they would be the responsible party. At this point I would say it is a gray area - as no one knows the sponsorship agreement.

 

[glassgowkiss]

I truely mean this who gives a shit.

Truly if someone steals your car or gear who gives a shit, right?

[glassgowkiss]

Perhaps this might shed some light on the discussion:

 

http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/resources/publications/fair_use_in_online_video

 

One question to ask who produced the video and who owns it and thus who is responsible for securing copyrights?

 

Did Colin make the video and sell it BD? If so I would think he is the responsible party. Or did he make the video as part of his sponsorship agreement? If so, then it might be a gray area of who should be responsible. Certainly, if BD produced it then they would be the responsible party. At this point I would say it is a gray area - as no one knows the sponsorship agreement.

This has nothing to do with fair use at all. I think you have to understand that fair use would be a program reviewing music or a piece of educational nature.

ENG or any commercial production doesn't fall into this category at all, regardless of means of distribution.

And this is a point- it's not only who is producing, but also who is distributing. Most frequently it is up to the distributor (regardless if it Lionsgate or BD), who have to ensure the copy rights are respected.

[ScaredSilly]

And this is a point- it's not only who is producing, but also who is distributing. Most frequently it is up to the distributor (regardless if it Lionsgate or BD), who have to ensure the copy rights are respected.

 

And what do you base the above from??? You say "most frequently" - which implies gray area. Perhaps Colin did take care of it, maybe BD. But until there are some a facts presented much of what has been alleged is just idle speculation. Which being idle speculation some might take as an attempt to defame. Further, I have yet to see anything presented such case law that says anything needs to happen (which is why I posted the fair use info)

 

That said, the topic is important for people to address which is also why I posted the fair use info. However, a quick note to Colin and BD might have have garnered more than slagging them in public.

[glassgowkiss]

I think you are using a term without understanding the meaning of it, which in this specific case is so frequently quoted term "fair use". A simple google search would pretty much show your complete and utterly lack of understanding of this subject matter or meaning of this term.

"Fair use is a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as for commentary, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching or scholarship."

"The legal concept of "Test copyright" was first ratified by the Kingdom of Great Britain's Statute of Anne of 1709. As room was not made for the authorized reproduction of copyrighted content within this newly formulated statutory right, the courts created a doctrine of "fair abridgment" in Gyles v Wilcox, which eventually evolved into the modern concept of "fair use," that recognized the utility of such actions. The doctrine only existed in the U.S. as common law until it was incorporated into the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 107.

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

the nature of the copyrighted work;

the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."

Also before any other reply on your side I would advise you on such terms like: "due diligence" and "commercial purposes product".

As to term "most frequently" - no gray area there- it's the distributor's responsibility to do a "due diligence" as far as copy rights. Some bigger production companies have enough manpower and resources to provide the distributor with the cleared releases, but in case of smaller production companies it is up to the distributor to take care of this part.

And yes, I made BD aware of this already some time ago, so it's not like they were not aware of the problem.