The legality of using copyrighted music in online videos?

[zumajoe]

Hey I was just wondering if anybody could give me a quick run-down on the laws for this.

I'm assuming it would vary among different artists/labels, and maybe requires permission?

The most that could happen is a cease and decist, especially since the videos are not-for-profit? Isn't there a 30 second law or something?

I just want to create a Ron Paul dvd .iso or youtube video, but want to be legit.

Thanks!
-Joe

[robertwerden]

nope. You will need permission no matter what. Bottom line is everyone does it though.

[Mr. White]

No legal advice, not qualified to give it.

I would imagine cease and desist at most. In terms of production value though I'd discourage you from picking a song who's lyrics tell the story. That Evanescence movie everyone was fawning over a few weeks ago was constrained by the repetitive lyrics.

[zumajoe]

all i needed to know. thanks guys!

[Corydoras]

nope. You will need permission no matter what.

Ah, not quite. Actually, I think you're in the clear.

Look up the concept of "fair use." Here's one explanation that includes some useful examples:
http://www.copyrightkids.org/definitions.html#fairuse

""Fair use" is the right of the public to make reasonable use of copyrighted material in special circumstances without the Copyright Owner's Permission. The United States Copyright Act recognizes that fair use of a copyrighted work may be used "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research." Factors to be considered include (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether the use is for a commercial purpose or is for non-profit educational purposes; (2) what kind of work is the copyrighted work (for instance, is it creative or factual); (3) the amount and importance of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential commercial market for or value of the copyrighted work. "

[dircha]

You are correct that there are fair use exemptions for use of often small portions of other works, but whether it is fair use or not depends on the context. It isn't as simple as always needing permission.

What we can say, however, is that as a general rule, incorporating copyrighted music specifically as a soundtrack, in any length, is not fair use.

[constituent]

in any length, is not fair use.

^^^

[Corydoras]

However, you get a lot of leeway for its being for non-profit educational use.

[unklejman]

If you want a great source of royalty free music check out www.gmpmusic.com

I know some times having lyrics to reflect the subject is powerful though.
EDIT: Something is going on with their site right now. Usually they have a pretty good search with categories.

[cjhowe]

However, you get a lot of leeway for its being for non-profit educational use.

The leeway doesn't come from fair use, but rather fear of customer alienation. Most of the Ron Paul videos out there are not educational pieces. They are at best art and can be argued that they serve a profit motive for the artist in promoting themselves even if the infringing work is not being offered for profit motive. Taking the Evanescence video, you have an anti-establishment song being reworked into an anti-establishment message. It doesn't serve Evanescence to alienate those watching anti-establishment messages and ignoring the potential infringement allows them to saturate that market further.

[ronpaulfan]

If they want it down, they will take it down:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIf6W-veSos

[Corydoras]

If they want it down, they will take it down:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIf6W-veSos

True.

However, I would bet that ironically, the music in that video is copyrighted.

[Matt Collins]

However, I would bet that ironically, the music in that video is copyrighted.All works of art in the US are copyrighted the instant they are fixed in a tangible medium of expression.

[Matt Collins]

""Fair use" is the right of the public Wrong. Fair Use is a defense, not a right. Fair Use is only used in court in front of the judge.

[davidhperry]

If a content owner were to come after anyone, they would go after YouTube or whomever was hosting the video. A while back, the Comedy Central TV network wanted its video off of YouTube. They didn't go after the people who uploaded them, they went after the entity that was distributing them (YouTube in this case).

People go after the deep pockets.

[Matt Collins]

However, you get a lot of leeway for its being for non-profit educational use.It depends on the amount and substantiality of the use. It also depends on the nature of the way the work is used- is it being used for profit, personal use, etc...

[Matt Collins]

If you want a great source of royalty free music check out www.gmpmusic.comCreative Commons is another great place too: http://creativecommons.org/

[Corydoras]

People go after the deep pockets.

Unless they're the RIAA, and then they go after the senior citizen who owns the computer that her ten-year-old grandson downloaded with.
:rolleyes:

[Matt Collins]

The most that could happen is a cease and decist, especially since the videos are not-for-profit? Isn't there a 30 second law or something? No, any use of a copyrighted work requires permission from the copyrighted holder. If you get sued by the copyright owner you can try to apply a Fair Use defense if the nature of the use falls into specific catagories.

See this:
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html



I just want to create a Ron Paul dvd .iso or youtube video, but want to be legit.Then you would lawfully need to get permission from the copyright holders (which will involve attorneys and lots of money changing hands). The reality of the situation might be different than that, but if you want to be "legit" and "lawful" that is what must be done.

[Matt Collins]

Unless they're the RIAA, and then they go after the senior citizen who owns the computer that her ten-year-old grandson downloaded with.Not exactly true. They sued people for uploading, NOT for downloading.

[Matt Collins]

If a content owner were to come after anyone, they would go after YouTube or whomever was hosting the video. A while back, the Comedy Central TV network wanted its video off of YouTube. They didn't go after the people who uploaded them, they went after the entity that was distributing them (YouTube in this case).

People go after the deep pockets.Yes and no. Of course they will shot-gun lawsuit as many parties as possible, however when one uploads a video like that, I would bet money that there is a transfer of liability and a statement that the uploader must agree to which says they either own or have clearance for everything they upload. I've never uploaded to YT myself personally so I am not 100% on how they do that.

[Primbs]

Hopefully many of the artists will view us as marketing their works and keeping their name in the spotlight. Now many artists are hoping to get any attention at all.

Many of the songs are from bands that have not had national press in many years or decades and should welcome the exposure to a whole new young generation.

I probably had not thought of certain bands for many years until I saw some Ron Paul videos and now I have gone to these bands websites to see what they are up to and may go to their concerts and buy a cd.

Many of the Ron Paul videos seem educational to me. They are informing the public about a candidate.

[Matt Collins]

Hopefully many of the artists will view us as marketing their works and keeping their name in the spotlight. Unfortunately most professional recording artists these days do not own their own music. the record companies do.


Many of the Ron Paul videos seem educational to me. They are informing the public about a candidate.A judge would not see it that way.

[Corydoras]

But if a campaign video were made by someone who is not in the video business, and it were not sold, then it would be difficult to make a case that the use of the music was commercial.

[cjhowe]

But if a campaign video were made by someone who is not in the video business, and it were not sold, then it would be difficult to make a case that the use of the music was commercial.

I would still disagree that the grassroots RP videos are non-commercial, but ignoring that argument, you still have to deal with the damage done to the marketability of the infringed product. If someone were to take an artist's music and promote Kim Jung Il with it, that association would likely damage future sales. In copyright you have to deal both with diverted revenues as well as damaged revenues.


As a side note to whether it's commercial, the fact that you've uploaded it to YouTube and YouTube is using it to raise ad revenue, you've made it commercial. That you are allowed to participate and benefit from the YouTube community, you've been provided with consideration in this venture.

[Corydoras]

In copyright you have to deal both with diverted revenues as well as damaged revenues.

Good point.

[Matt Collins]

CJ - Ahh yes, it's good to see someone else who seems to understand copyright too! :-)