|Posted on February 28, 2010 at 2:32 PM|
fair use, copyright, license, sync here's a note from another thread that got started. Thought it might be good to post it here as well.
There are discussions within fair use for educational and documentaryuse in specific circumstances that you can use 10% or 30 seconds.EXAMPLE
"Use 10% of a song, not to exceed 30 seconds, and donot show the finished video out of the classroom. Do not duplicate,distribute, broadcast, webcast or sell it. Proper attribution must begiven when using copyrighted materials. i.e. "I Am Your Child" writtenby Barry Manilow/Martin Panzer. BMG Music/SwanneeBravo Music. Theopening screen of the project must include a notice that "certainmaterials are included under the fair use exemption and have been usedaccording to the multimedia fair use guidelines". Your fair use ofmaterial ends when the project creator (student or teacher) losescontrol of the project's use: e.g. when it is distributed, copied orbroadcast"
But this is a very specific use. NOT for a commercial project.
If you are manufacturing and distributing copies of a song which youdid not write, and you have not already reached an agreement with thesong's publisher, you need to obtain a mechanical license. This isrequired under U.S. Copyright Law, regardless of whether or not you areselling the copies that you made. You do not need a mechanical licenseif you are recording and distributing a song you wrote yourself, or ifthe song is in the public domain.
Also for Film/broadcast/new media ( anything locked to picture) you need a Sync license from one of the following
BMI.com | Welcome
U.S. Copyright Office
A music synchronization license - or sync license, for short - is amusic license that allows the license holder to "sync" music to somekind of media output. Often sync licenses are used for TV shows andmovies, but any kind of visual paired with sound requires a synclicense. A sync license gives you the right to use a song and sync itwith a visual in that when you hold a sync license, you are allowed tore-record that song for use in your project. If you want to use aspecific version of the song by a specific artist, you also need to geta master recording license. Typically, a sync license is obtained froma music publisher while the master recording license is obtained byfrom the record label or owner of the master. A sync license covers aspecific period of time, and the license will stipulate how the songcan be used. There is one flat fee involved in obtaining a synclicense, and once the license is in place, the song can be used asstipulated as many times within the license period as the licenseholder likes. In other words, if you obtain a sync license and use thesong in a film, you do not have to pay a fee on the sync every time thefilm is viewed.
Also, Master use rights are required for previously recorded material that you do not own or control.
A sample is typically the use of an excerpt of a sound recordingembodying a copyrighted composition inserted in another soundrecording. This process is often referred to as digital sampling andrequires licenses for the use of the portion of the composition and thesound recording that was re-used in the new sound recording. In someinstances, artists re-record the portion of the composition used in thenew recording and, therefore, only need to obtain a license for the useof the sampled composition.
There are occasions where FAIR USEcomes into play for Documentary and educational films... here's a PDFof some fair use issues. Lots of good fair use details here: Fair Use& Copyright: -- Center for Social Media at American University
your project, as described, does not fall under fair use doctrine.
btw even Weird Al gets permissions for his parody material.
also on the comment ( here i go, into the storm)
And what happens when you want to write music that is itself a form ofcriticism? What if you want to make a literal quotation but thecopyright holder does not want to be a party to such criticism? Shouldsuch criticism be possible only with textual products and not musicalones? Or should music, too, be a viable basis of cultural criticism?
Here the courts said that there is fair use when quoting music, despite the protestations of Yoko Ono over the use of Imagine.
If we must, by default, seek maximal permission for our musicalcreations and enterprises, then we should expect "dangerous" music togo underground, and only "safe" music to be mainstream. I cannot thinkof a more insidious way to destroy the cultural value of music.
the court ruled on this based on the movie being a social commentaryabout intelligent design. ( therefore a documentary/news/educationalpiece if you will... ) The ruling has nothing to do with the tune ormusic unto itself what-so-ever... safe , dangerous or otherwise....
It's all about how something was used and with what. not the somethingitself. the whole fight could have been over a picture, or a poem, or avideo, or a document, any copyrightable widget.... it's got nothing todo directly with the song.
ms georgia hilton mpse cas