My Voice, My Choice
Page 3 of 8
If I was given the music by the person whom I’m doing the work for, I’m just in the middle and doing what they tell me to do. I’m indemnified. I even have them sign a paper that says I’m indemnified.
FALSE. This is somewhat like a driver saying, “The bank robber signed a piece of paper that said if we get caught, I’m just an innocent bystander and it’s his responsibility.” In the first place, having a client sign such a paper shows that you are at the least peripherally aware of the laws, and have tried to circumvent your responsibility. That won’t help and might hurt you in a legal forum. Second, if you are party to illegal copying in any way, you can be held liable. (1989 Basic Books, Inc. v. Kinko's Graphics Corp Fonovisa v Cherry Auction)[an error occurred while processing this directive]I’m not charging any money for the work I’m doing, it’s for my church. Even when it’s broadcast, it’s serving God, and I receive nothing but blessings for my work.
Well….hope that God can provide a good attorney for you. Regardless of whether money changes hands or not, donative, remunerative, or free, it is a violation of the law to use copyrighted works. Damages can be determined based on the impact of the use of the work. For instance, if you used a song from “Jars of Clay*” in your Mormon musical video presentation, and “Jars of Clay” didn’t want to be associated with the Mormon community and further it was found that the use of their song may have had negative impact on Jars of Clay record sales in the Christian community, the fines would be stiff and swift. The same would hold true if a Baptist church program synced Eminem’s* music to an anti-cursing video. Or if a Satanic church synced the Mormon Tabernacle Choir* to visual hate messages. All could potentially be found to be commercially impinging, not just technically damaging. And could incur stiff fines. I don't mean to be disrespectful, but many people seem to be of the opinion that if the work is for religious value, then 'no harm, no foul.' The law doesn't look at issues this way. It is also worth noting that churches, like other institutions, receive special dispensation with regards to use. (Worldwide Church of God v Philadelphia Church of God)
What is a "De Minimis" issue?
"De minimis non curat lex" is a popular concept thrown around by defenders of copyright abuse, meaning that the abuse is so meaningless and trivial that it's not worth defending the legal stand that gives light to the abuse. De Minimus generally applies in situations where, for instance, you go to the local TGI Fridays, and you sing "Happy Birthday" to your birthday child. This song is protected by copyright, owned by Warner. However, since the song is not being recorded, not being broadcast, and not being performed at a cost to Warner, nor is it devaluing the song, it would probably be considered a De Minimus issue. Some would claim that the loss of revenue, value, or compensation to a copyright holder whose rights have been violated by someone syncing copyrighted works to a video work would be De Minimis. Searches of CNI and Nexus don't provide any case law to back this up, suggesting that it's probably another urban myth. "De minimis non curat lex" means that "the law doesn't concern itself with insignificance."
I bought a copy of Norah Jones* CD, and I want to play it on my Rio MP3 player. My neighbor says I can do this.
TRUE. You do have certain rights of fair use to make a personal, backup copy for playback on a personal listening device such as a computer, Walkman©, or a personal digital player. You do not have the right to make more than one personal backup, or share a backup with a friend.
I’m doing an educational presentation for other teachers in my school. I want to use a Marilyn Manson* song in my presentation to talk about how values have changed in society. Is this legal?
In most cases, yes. If the presentation is a free, one-time, in person, non-broadcast educational seminar that will not be recorded nor shared, then it is covered under Fair Use statues. Educational institutions, certain civic and social institutions, and many government institutions all enjoy this benefit. The key words are: free, one-time, in person, non-broadcast, educational. If you peripherally or definitely don’t fit those key descriptions, call an attorney for guidance.
It’s just a wedding, it never goes on the air, it's just a few copies, so it’s legal, right?
FALSE. Using music from any copyrighted source is illegal without specific permissions. Simply because it’s not aired does not mean it’s legal. While the court would probably not find against a bride or groom that had their best friend shoot the wedding, and then they edited their own wedding to their favorite songs for their own viewing and made a few copies for friends, they have and will find against a wedding videographer that syncs video to copyrighted works and makes a dozen copies for the family of the happy couple, whether the editor profits or not.
Using copyrighted music for a video violates several copyright laws. Sync licenses, Mechanical/Compulsory licenses, performance licenses are all huge issues when they are avoided by an amateur videographer making a wedding or event video.
Source: ©2003 Douglas Spotted Eagle
Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
