The music industry, as far as I know, doesn't care.

[Renie]

This is a quote from a video orientated forum regarding using music for showreels. It seems a fairly common assumption among video/film makers that they can use music for their reels without consent, credit or payment to the artists/label etc. Quite often it is said that it is doing the artists a favour by giving them exposure.

how would you feel about your music, production/composition whatever being used in this way?

[Midlandmorgan]

That REALLY sucks...the attitude that we don't care...I work closely with a video production company here, an outfit that makes double damn sure whatever they put on a project, be it commercial, wedding video, home made porn, whatever, is cleared or original for hire...

One problem with the whole notion of just "using" someone else's material: finding out about it... A production company that makes $5Million a year in the industrial/training video can go on indefinately, as how many of us are going to see a training video of field specific H2S gas sensor logs or the latest in speculum technology?

Lets see if we can get some video guys to participate in this debate...might get interesting.

[Clueless]

Problems abound. I am an artist, entrepreneur, project studio owner, and supporter of the Creative Commons . The problem, as I see it, is that rights clearance in the tradtional world is so onerous and/or absurd that it incents people to break the law.

I think that a better way to solve this problem is: stay tight on the things that matter, and get loose about the things that don't. If somebody uses the flashdance theme to support an instructional video on welding, is that really something that should require highly paid lawyers and lots of $$? No (which is why, likely, so few welding videos bother negotiation such rights--they never try, or they do without clearing).

OTOH, if you have put forth the sweat to make something happen, and you can define what you want to protect (and no, "everything" is not the right answer) of course you should be able to protect and profit from it.

The problem as I see it is that so many people want to reserve rights to become accidental millionaires that, when one looks at society as a whole, we end up short-changing society or creating a society of scofflaws.

[Tim Halligan]

I work in audio post, and we do a truckload of the training film/corporate type productions. If we source the music, we ALWAYS declare the production music, and this gets added to the clients bill. If a client rolls up with a commercial track, then we will not use it unless the client can produce a letter from the publishing company giving permission. No exceptions...ever.

If the edit suite has sourced the production music, we remind the client that he should be getting a bill, and when we send the master back for re-stripe, we call the editor and remind him that he has to declare the music. Most of them say "okay, filling out the form now". Some say "huh?", so we send a blank form over for them to use.

The big problem in Australia, is that the production music/distribution companies send out their music libraries for free to production companies. Not all of these companies realise that they have to pay for usage...and some get quite a shock when we do a rough calculation of how much they are going to owe.

I've had music of mine used, but I make damn sure that I know who is using it for what...and they all know that I still OWN it, and the permission is for THAT show...not carte blanche for all of their productions. I only do this for regular clients, who I consider friends.

Cheers,
Tim

[bassmac]

You always hear about big time advertisers using popular music for TV commercials, and then settling out of court with the artist later - because they never had the rights to use it.

Obviously they know better, but their theory is to make the profit first, and settle for a fraction of it later - and only if they get caught.

Overall, it probably cost them less than paying for the rights up front - and they donÕt have to pay until after the profits are in.

ItÕs good business from their point of view.

[Dave Martin]

Originally posted by bassmac
You always hear about big time advertisers using popular music for TV commercials, and then settling out of court with the artist later - because they never had the rights to use it.

Always hear? Some details would be lovely. I seem to remember something where permission had been granted by the publisher but not the artist (or vice-versa), but I don't 'always hear about big time advertisers' doing this sort of thing - maybe some local spot...

[LTA]

First off, IMHO it isn't responsible for a video production company to sync unlicensed music to their videos and films, even if it is just a simple demo real.

Many of these small companies feel they are under the radar, and won't get caught, even though they are familiar with the process. I got to sit in on a video editing session (32 hours of FUN spread over 2 days), and gave my friend crap about using a Beatles song. I kept asking him how much the sync fee was. They know good and well what it would cost to do it right, and validate it using arguments very similar to the excuses for using cracked/pirated software. "Everybody else is doing it," "The client demands it," "I need to do it to stay competitive," and "The industry is gouging us little guys with the prices."

New royalty-free music is easy enough to get. Fire up acid or garage band, line up a few loops, and you are done.

Now, i have seen commercial composers that, when asked for a specific song, will go and rearrange the chords, change the key, rhythm and tempo, play it upside down, and completely change the harmonic and melodic motion. When you hear it, you do think of the theme it was based on. But, it is so twisted it is truly a completely different work, and royalty free. Or, as royalty-free as using a I IV V chord progression can be.

[tINY]

But, at some point it becomes ridiculous. I take execption to having to pay Michael Jackson (or whoever "owns" it) to include a rendition of "Happy Birthday" on a home Video. The women who came up with the lyrics have been dead for years. They "stole" the tune from some "traditional" song anyway.

I understand that artists need to be paid royalty on their work, but anyone "owning" a Jimi Hendrix song 30 years after he is dead is asinine.

Unfortunately, there are too many lawyers. The lucky thing for us is that if we don't get rich, they can't take what we don't have.



-tINY

[LTA]

Originally posted by tINY
Unfortunately, there are too many lawyers. The lucky thing for us is that if we don't get rich, they can't take what we don't have.

That's why insurance was invented :)

[StoneinaPond]

Originally posted by tINY


But, at some point it becomes ridiculous. I take execption to having to pay Michael Jackson (or whoever "owns" it) to include a rendition of "Happy Birthday" on a home Video. The women who came up with the lyrics have been dead for years. They "stole" the tune from some "traditional" song anyway.

I understand that artists need to be paid royalty on their work, but anyone "owning" a Jimi Hendrix song 30 years after he is dead is asinine.




-tINY

Does that mean that after you die, I can come to your house and take whatever I want? You're dead, right?

There are such things widows and widowers, surviving children, who do have a right to the proceeds of a dead relatives estate.

Or should I wait 30 years before arriving on your survivors doorstep and demanding the use of the fruits of your labors for free?

[Killahurts]

Originally posted by tINY
The lucky thing for us is that if we don't get rich, they can't take what we don't have.

Wow, the current state of the music industry in a nutshell.




As far as licensing goes, if someone uses one of my compositions in a payable situation, unless given special permission by me, they will pay for it, or I will pursue them for it.

The products of my mind are not free of charge, nor will they be after I'm gone.

[Tim Halligan]

Originally posted by tINY
I take execption to having to pay Michael Jackson (or whoever "owns" it) to include a rendition of "Happy Birthday" on a home Video.

Technically, you should...but these days the rules only seem to apply to commercial operations - it's impossible to administer beyond that.

So, you shoot and edit a home video for YOUR family, including your Happy Birthday rendition...at home in iMovie, then fine - no-one else will see it - no payment required.
You shoot and edit a home video for ME, and I pay you for your services at your professional facility on broadcast gear - yep, you pay...or rather - I do, because you will pass those costs onto me...probably with a loading to cover the paperwork grief.

Remember when they changed (eased) the rules regarding dubbing of CD's to cassette to play in your car..."Fair/reasonable Usage" or something similar...well, realistically, this is in the same sort of territory.

Cheers,
Tim

[Rodney Gene]

They should just ask...

I have about 20-30 tunes in the can that I think would be marvelous for film (many written for film) and I would be willing to give them to film makers to use...for free.

They are doing nobody any good sitting in my music cabinet and they are damn worthy or being used.

I suspect that many people would lend a song for a film. If I was asked, and I said no thank you, I could guarantee there would be a line of people behind me who will say yes...for free.

We should all be able to make a living at our craft and I will continue to support any musician I work with. I don't work for free but I will contribute to the artistic energy and sharing by giving away as much as I can. Exposure does indeed help the arts and or artist.

[Teacher]

Originally posted by Renie


how would you feel about your music, production/composition whatever being used in this way?

I'd love it but thats because I'ma no body. If I was Britney, M&M, 50 cent, etc. I'd probably be angry.

[tINY]

Originally posted by StoneinaPond
Does that mean that after you die, I can come to your house and take whatever I want? You're dead, right?

So, 30 years after I'm dead, other people will be living in my house (if it is still standing) and they probably won't be related to me. So, fine, break in and take what you want, it won't matter to me.

Ideas are different from physical objects. I don't think that EMG and Fender are paying the Bell family to use the idea of magnetic pick-ups. Nobody has tracked down the heirs of Brahms or Bethoven, either.

Copyright and Patent protection are a good thing, but the right to collect fees from anybody who uses an idea you had 300 years later is stupid. And Fat Cats buying and selling these "rights" 30 years after the guy who came up with it died is insulting.

Reasonably, 15 or 20 years after you're dead is a good time to expire any copyright protection. But, I guess we need something for the lawyers to do (I don't want them out walking around).



-tINY

[Dave Martin]

Originally posted by tINY

Reasonably, 15 or 20 years after you're dead is a good time to expire any copyright protection. But, I guess we need something for the lawyers to do (I don't want them out walking around).

That's enough time? I supposed that you're assuming that there won't be spouses, children or business interests that could use the income.

By that logic, though, I would also guess that you wouldn't mind if widows were removed from the social security rolls 15 or 20 years after their husbands die?

Dude - READ the rules, then study them enough to make a statement doesn't sound ignorant. (Here's a hint - that statement will not be similar to the ones that you're making now...)

[loudist]

Here is something to ponder... if you as an editor get paid to sync uncleared material, then you and the facility can also be named in the suit along with the client who supplied/requested/demanded its use.

Ass covering required.

[not_so_new]

Originally posted by tINY


So, 30 years after I'm dead, other people will be living in my house (if it is still standing) and they probably won't be related to me. So, fine, break in and take what you want, it won't matter to me.

Ideas are different from physical objects. I don't think that EMG and Fender are paying the Bell family to use the idea of magnetic pick-ups. Nobody has tracked down the heirs of Brahms or Bethoven, either.

Copyright and Patent protection are a good thing, but the right to collect fees from anybody who uses an idea you had 300 years later is stupid. And Fat Cats buying and selling these "rights" 30 years after the guy who came up with it died is insulting.

Reasonably, 15 or 20 years after you're dead is a good time to expire any copyright protection. But, I guess we need something for the lawyers to do (I don't want them out walking around).



-tINY

I could be wrong here, it has been about 10 years since my copyright law classes but I seem to remember this being set at 75 years then it is considered public domain.

As to your other point...

So, 30 years after I'm dead, other people will be living in my house (if it is still standing) and they probably won't be related to me. So, fine, break in and take what you want, it won't matter to me

Okay so what happens if your family is still living there?? It is only in this century and really just in America were property and dwellings are not handed down from generation to generation. It was very common up until quite recently that a family home would be in the hands of one family for years. Does that mean you would not care if someone broke into the house then??

Also using this same analogy, I (for one) do care when someone breaks into someone else's home, it is bad for the owners, bad for the community and bad for society as a whole. At some point you gotta have some concern for the world as a whole.....

or to put it another way

The world does not stop at your door, it starts.

If I own it then you don't... PERIOD.... I can let you use it but I can also decide that you should not as well, my right not yours.

No matter how well "I got the News" might fit in your porn movie if Donald Fagen and Walter Becker decide that they do not want their work to be associated with it they have the right to refuse to let you use it. If their kids decide using their song in your porn movie years after they are dead would tarnish the work of Steely Dan then they have more right to the legacy than you do. 75 years was the amount of time determined by the government that no one is going to be hurt by the use of a piece and it is fair game. Them's the laws, you don't like it talk to your state rep but I will be talking to mine to keep them in place.

Sorry man, I am not riding you but I disagree that everything is fair game in our society and that it is always us against the "fat cats." Laws are in place to help us all. The perversion of these laws is the problem, it is not the laws themselves.

Rock on...

[tINY]

Originally posted by not_so_new
I could be wrong here, it has been about 10 years since my copyright law classes but I seem to remember this being set at 75 years then it is considered public domain.

In 1790, copyright was granted for 14 years another 14 year extension could be secured in the 14th year. 28 YEARS TOTAL FROM PUBLICATION

In 1909, a new law changed this to 28 years with a possible 28 year extension. 56 YEARS TOTAL FROM PUBLICATON

Then, in 1976, Congress passed the '76 copyright act (in effect begining 1 Jan 1978) that allowed protection of individual works for the creators life + 50 years. That act also allowed protection on works for hire (i.e.: corporate contract stuff) for 100 years from creation or, if shorter 75 YEARS FROM PUBLICATION.

In 1998, to save "Steamboat Willie" from public domain, the Disney Corp. lobbied for the Sonny Bono Copyright Protection Act. which automatically extended copyright protection another 20 years.


95 YEARS PROTECTION FROM PUBLICATION DATE

For reference, the constitution of the USA says that congress has the power ". . . to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."

Originally posted by not_so_new
The world does not stop at your door, it starts.

If I own it then you don't... PERIOD.... I can let you use it but I can also decide that you should not as well, my right not yours.

What you "own" is the right to reproduce your previous (registered) publication. If I want to use your cheezy synth tracks as backgound music for my video, I should pay you for it (or record my own, similarly cheezy tracks). I have no issues with the copyright concept.

I take exeption to the length of time. Seventy-five years for a corporate venture is plenty and 50 years after an author's death is probably a little too much. Most art is derivitave at some level anyway.

I don't want your lazy great-grandson (who never worked a day in his life) to try and sue my progeny for $100k because some background music he used for his holographic production sounded a lot like your work from the early 21st century (no matter how much the cheese mellowed over the years).

Originally posted by not_so_new
Sorry man, I am not riding you but I disagree that everything is fair game in our society and that it is always us against the "fat cats." Laws are in place to help us all. The perversion of these laws is the problem, it is not the laws themselves.

That's why I don't like bad laws, they are too easy to abuse. I still say 20 or 30 years after you're dead and gone is plenty of time for your Trophy wife and her sponging boyfriend to have found another way to support their drug habit


-tINY

[Tim Halligan]

Originally posted by loudist
Here is something to ponder... if you as an editor get paid to sync uncleared material, then you and the facility can also be named in the suit along with the client who supplied/requested/demanded its use.

Ass covering required.

In Australia, AMCOS (the mechanical copyright owners society) changed their policy...
You are an editor at a facility and you sync uncleared material...in the old days, they would pursue the facility...now they pursue the operator...ie:YOU. The theory is that the operator SHOULD know the rules, and therefore abide by them. Clients are considered ignorant (in so many ways...but that's another story), and by NOT fining facilities, they don't end up killing the goose that lays expensive eggs.

Major ass-covering required. Protect YOURSELF!!!

Cheers,
Tim

[LTA]

Originally posted by Tim Halligan
Remember when they changed (eased) the rules regarding dubbing of CD's to cassette to play in your car..."Fair/reasonable Usage" or something similar...well, realistically, this is in the same sort of territory.

I believe cassette tapes have a small surcharge worked into the price that is distributed back to the major record labels as part of that agreement.

[ttauri]

Originally posted by LTA
I believe cassette tapes have a small surcharge worked into the price that is distributed back to the major record labels as part of that agreement.

I always thought that was a royalty paid to the John Cage Trust for the silence.

Peece,
T. Tauri

[NeoVXR]

Originally posted by Tim Halligan
In Australia, AMCOS (the mechanical copyright owners society) changed their policy...
You are an editor at a facility and you sync uncleared material...in the old days, they would pursue the facility...now they pursue the operator...ie:YOU. The theory is that the operator SHOULD know the rules, and therefore abide by them. Clients are considered ignorant (in so many ways...but that's another story), and by NOT fining facilities, they don't end up killing the goose that lays expensive eggs.

Major ass-covering required. Protect YOURSELF!!!

Cheers,
Tim

truck driver problem...
he can drive 20 hours without sleep or get fired...

the "goose" is a very abstract one. it is said to represent many people vs. 1 person challenging some "rights" issue with it. well, it doesn't. it represents the abstract interest of property. but track down responsibility (which should be proportional to property) when the goose did something wrong, e.g. monopolism, or environmental damage. the bigger the goose, the less likely it can be stopped from trespassing.

the driver has to drive every day. the artist sells a tune and lives happily ever after... (well, one in a million)
it takes lawyers and executive force to keep this in order. the majority would not agree to the situation to the extreme how it is handled today. the disney case is a brilliant example of irresponsible lobbying to squeeze more money out of the public.
if apes had invented copyright a million years ago, we would still sit in the trees, but every moment we take another comfortable position, we had to give a bundle of bananas to the family of the one who took this position first.

I am not ranting against artists receiving wealth for their marvellous work. But culture is a mutual thing. It needs to flow, but not be restricted by too much control and perpetual ownership. It is not something to buy and sell and gamble with, like a freight ship with a load of steel. Does every saxophone player in the streets of New Orleans pay royalties? Would be a silent place...

What about the illegal "grey album" ? Some good tracks there, would be a pity if the guy decided to keep it secret because it was not licensed.
The problem of derivative work in our culture is growing...

Well, it is a just a discussion and a solution to these problems will never be perpetual.
To me, it is very much about the responsibility of ownership, and the reponsibility of using other's work.

[Bob Olhsson]

Originally posted by tINY

That's why I don't like bad laws, they are too easy to abuse.

The original laws were bad laws that favored corporate interests at the expense of the creative community. Prior to that time copyright law was left to the states with much more generous terms.

The recent adjustments were made to bring the United States CLOSER to being equal to the rest of the world. American artists still earn way way less in copyright royalties than their counterparts in Europe do. Silicone Valley wants to keep it that way.

[StoneinaPond]

So, 30 years after I'm dead, other people will be living in my house (if it is still standing) and they probably won't be related to me.

Time to start a family?

[tINY]

It's just that we don't tend to live in the house that our grandparents lived in out here on the west coast. That mindset may drive differing opinions on how long our heirs should get a free ride on a song we wrote....


-tINY

[ntimkovich]

I believe that almost every law that we have, and particularly so-called "Intellectual Property" laws, are solely geared toward the protection of the property of the wealthy. We are not wealthy -- Disney is.

Hypothetically speaking:
How effective would you or I (mere peons) be when trying to lobby congress to keep our descendant's art out of the public domain? Especially if (hypothetically) Disney wants to use it in their new movie?

The answer is that our time would be better spent at home. You and I (mere peons) do not have the capital to make anything different. I guarantee Michael Eisner has several Washington phone numbers on his speed-dial.



The theoretical grey area comes about because "laws" apply to everybody, and therefore everyone should abide by them. In reality, this is not true. Disney knows it can screw us and then pay us off while making a TON of money. They directly and knowingly break the law, and get away with it, with a smile.


If you don't believe me, then why is Ken Lay not in prison?


My take -- don't let the system get you down. Make as much good music as you can and try to protect it, but don't hold your breath. And if you get lucky and Disney decides to steal your music, settle out of court, take the money and go make more music.


nick