View Single Post
Old 25th December 2009
  #15
Quote:
Originally Posted by lagavulin16 View Post
Perhaps I'm not as informed as you are, so I'd appreciate a bit of education if you're willing to provide it.

If I'm having a barbecue with my family in my backyard, I'm legally allowed to play Prince. It makes the food taste better.

Last I heard, I'm allowed to have a video camera going, so when I'm old and retired I can fondly look back on how I used to play Prince at family barbecues.

If my two year old starts dancing for the camera, perfectly to the music, and it's the cutest and most brilliant thing I've ever seen, are you saying I'm not allowed to share it with anyone unless I wipe out the audio?

At what point does fair use end and copyright violation begin?
ok - as you axed for it:

this might help as a starter:
Intellectual Property Law: Why Should I Care?

for the point of this conversation, when it goes onto youtube as you have become a producer/broadcaster without a license - it's possible you may or may not be covered under fair use...

it would be more reasonable that your INTENTION is fair use if the resulting video is only accessible via a password given to family for private viewing (as opposed to the whole world) and/or on a personally hosted website such as www.thelagavulinfamily.com as opposed to YouTube who are profiting on the content through ad based sales - without compensating the copyright owners/holders.

the FBI is not going to storm your living room while playing home movies - unless they have reason to believe it's kiddie porn or some other very extreme content.

for your example above - if the music is playing in the background, and you edit a BBQ home video say under 3 minutes total - with several snippets of pop songs playing in the background for short periods - it's possible it could ok - it certainly is interpretive - there are guidelines.

if however, you shot footage of your child dancing and edited that to the prince song, it in it's entirety, I think that would almost certainly not be covered - especially if publicly viewable on youtube or other "mass media" outlets...

more on guidelines and disputes:
Recut, Reframe, Recycle -- Publications -- Center for Social Media at American University

we live in strange time... ultimately... the Copyright Holders should have the ability to determine how their works are being used - especially if someone other than the copyright holder is PROFITING from the work... like say, YouTube/Google (See Fair Use Below).

one recent example - in the case below the copyright holders chose to allow the use, however the copyright holders themselves monetized the content via a revenue sharing scheme with youtube:


the first step towards filtering what is and what is not allowed is covered by the dispute processed and "safe habor" of the DMCA which allows copyright holders to have content removed until it's legality is resolved.

Digital Millennium Copyright Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

as a copyright holder, I can have any of my IP removed from youtube, at will, and I exercise that right daily... I can track, monetize or block my IP globally on a case by case basis which extends to the properties I manage in audio (masters), video and music publishing... and can even extend into trademark and other types of copyrights.

Fair use - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia