|
|||||||
|
|
My Voice, My Choice | ||||||
 |
|||||||
|
|
So, copyright violations are civil, not criminal. Even if I get caught, what’s the worst they can do to me? First, while copyright violations are indeed civil and not criminal, new laws allow criminal prosecution in cases where over 10 copies of protected material and/or 2500.00 was transacted in the process of copying. So, if you make 25 copies of a wedding video, and you were paid more than 2500.00 for the shooting, editing, and delivery of that wedding video, watch out. Most attorneys will admit that this law is more or less untested at lower levels but it does exist and is a straw to be grasped by the copyright holder. [an error occurred while processing this directive]How long do copyrights last? Can I just wait for the copyright to expire and then use the copyrighted media? Copyrighted works are generally protected for the life of the author plus seventy years, or in the case of works made for hire, ninety-five years from the date of first publication, or ninety five years from the year of its creation, whichever expires first. So, don't wait up too long if the work you want to use is fairly recent in nature. You'll be well past grey by the time it's available. The term used to be shorter, but the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act changed all this in 1998. You've noticed that the local drugstore has signs that say "Cigarettes sold to those born before 1985 ? Similarly, due to the SBCTEA, the first year that all works enter public domain will be 2019, when works from 1923 become PD, or Public Domain. I shoot a lot of dance recitals and then sell the videos to the parents. The dance instructor has since informed me that her dance choreography is copyrighted and I can't sell the videos without paying her a royalty and obtaining her permission. She says I'm covered for recording the music and I believe her because the dance studio has an ASCAP sticker on the window. The dance instructor is right in saying that the dance choreography is copyrighted. She is wrong in saying that you are covered for the music because she pays ASCAP or BMI fees. ASCAP and BMI cannot and do not issue sync licenses. Unless the music being danced to is Work For Hire composition, you cannot make reproductions of the dance recital, period, without a sync license issued by the copyright holder or their representatives. (A hint; find the tempo/beat of the music, and using ACID, Soundtrack, or a non-linear editor that allows for beat marking, and insert a music library song instead. Then both you and the dance instructor should be happy that you have a copyrightable product that does not violate the copyrights of others) A student in the music class I teach plays in a band, and he has a song I want to use in my video. He told me to go ahead and use it, that it's not copyrighted, the band released their own private CD. Does the CD list more writers than just the student in your music class? If so, the student can't actually give you permission. The music is copyrighted the moment it's been used in a recording or other tangible form, and if he didn't write the entire song himself, you could potentially be in trouble from other band members. While they haven't registered copyright, it still is existent. The question then becomes whether the band suffered any financial damages, and since the answer relating to a local group of school children is 'probably little damage,' then they can force you to cease and desist, but likely wouldn't be able to recover damages. Artists have too many rights. I should be able to make copies of their works for my car, home, personal device, and for a few friends too, since we get together and enjoy music. The way the laws are currently written, I feel like I need to get permission just to change a frame around my paintings. I bought the CD, I should be able to sync it, or do whatever I want to with it. The artist got paid. Plus he gets paid for it being on the air. It’s not right that he gets paid more than once for use of the song. Too many rights? For something they thought up and created? OK, first remove the term “intellectual” from intellectual properties. Replace it with “tangible.” So, you have a car, and your neighbor wants to borrow it. So, you give him permission once, does that mean that he can come over anytime he feels, take the car without permission, and drive it to wherever he chooses, perhaps denting or damaging the vehicle in the process? Without putting gas in it, or any other form of maintenance? Intellectual properties seem to be devalued simply because of the ease of access. You can sit in your home and download MP3’s all night long, and no one will catch you. But the moment you walk into 7-11 and start loading your pants with candy bars, you go to jail. There is no difference, except that one is a crime in your own home, the other is a crime in public. Artists deserve to be paid each time their work is used for something different than it’s original intent, or for each time it’s enjoyed in a public setting. Think of it as a rental. Because of radio, people have forgotten that someone has to pay for the music that’s played on the air. Revenue for radio stations is determined by advertising, from which a portion of the profits are split out to a performance rights group, and the artist is paid. While this paragraph delves into the world of opinion rather than fact or law it’s sensible and just. Are you willing to give up control over your tangibles simply because you gave the neighbor permission once? Finally, and most importantly in the case of those that would compare framed paintings to copyrights; a framed painting cannot be duplicated without reducing the integrity and power or scope of the work. It's a one-shot, singular existence of an artistic expression. A CD, video, or other electronically reproduced artistic work, may be duplicated without loss to the original integrity of the work. This is where artists rights come into play in a big way, because their works are licensed to be reproduced by others, and restricted for copying to the general public. By the way, if the frame is an integral part of the painting, it is indeed a violation of the artists copyright if you remove, destroy, or damage the frame or any other portion of the painting. The courts have upheld artist claims of copyright violation when a well-known artist (Chagall) has created a frame as part of the artistic expression. Just because you bought the painting does not mean you have the right to alter it.
Not at all. The song itself might be potentially public domain, but the singer(s) of the song that you recorded or ripped the music from have their own copyright to the performance. This is a common myth and one that's gotten more than a few studios, including the Big Three studios in trouble. Like the Bach piece mentioned earlier in this article, the melody might be public domain, but the recording, performance, arrangement, and orchestration, if any, are all copyrighted to the person(s) performing the work. For instance, some Native American reserves require that you stop in their tribal offices and get a permit to even take tourist photos or record video for personal use at a ceremonial event. Make sure you get a release, and make sure that the performer has the right to provide a release. Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next [an error occurred while processing this directive] 
|
|
|||||
