|
|||||||
|
|
My Voice, My Choice | ||||||
 |
|||||||
|
|
I have ACID or Soundtrack, and I want to make a new recording based on parts of other songs. Is this legal? Usually not. It depends on what you took from the original songs. If it’s identifiable as coming from a particular song, it is absolutely a violation. It also may fall into the category of derivative work, which carries with it protections and benefits for both the new songwriter and the original songwriter. Ten years ago, this sort of ‘sampling’ was a mess. But the dominance of samplers and recording methods in the music industry for the past 15 years has settled this out, and there is a ton of case law and precedence to support original authors of works. In the case of Skyywalker v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., the Supreme Court found that in some cases, a sample of an original work fell into the realm of parody, as the sample did not take the heart of the original work and create a new 'heart' in a derivative work. Similar cases have not met with similar success, but this case is worth noting if you get into trouble and your lawyer needs precedent. Then again, if your lawyer needs my assistance in case law, you better get another lawyer. [an error occurred while processing this directive]I'm in a cover band, do we need to pay ASCAP or BMI fees? I've been told we do. Depends on the situation, but for the most part the law looks to the end venue benefit for licensing fees. So, if you play in a bar, the bar is required to pay ASCAP, BMI, or SESAC fees. If you perform in schools, they are not considered exempt and their license does not cover you. Even performing high school concert bands are required to have an ASCAP or BMI license. So, how do I get music into my videos after you’ve scared me with all the legal stuff? There are basically four levels that you can approach music for video. 1. Buyout or royalty free library. Some of these come with use fees, where you can listen to a track for free, and even use as temp music, but you’ll have to pay a needledrop fee for each use of the song. Quality of sound and composition varies with price. One small hint, visit www.acidplanet.com or www.soundtracklounge.com and listen to the musical works found there, ask the composer of the works to make a deal with you to use the song. There are some terrific songs up there. You might just find a great song and a willing artist. 2. Sonic Fire Pro. This is the next best thing to a buyout library. The only one designed specifically for video folks. No musical chops needed; just a video, a knowledge of the length of the song, and the ability to insert pieces of pre-recorded compositions. Musical creative ability is more limited than say, looping software, but flavorful compositions abound with this tool. Zero royalty in use of this material. Compositional quality and sound quality are very good. To my knowledge, this is the only application of it's sort. In some ways, better than a buyout, because it's a buyout with no royalty, but the ability to edit the music with ease. 3. ACID® or Soundtrack™. Sony’s ACID and Apple’s Soundtrack tools allow compositions to be created from libraries of over 2 million sounds. A small amount of musical knowledge is helpful here, such as knowledge that banjos and classical strings rarely go together, but then again, it’s creatively free. Quality of sound is beyond compare or question, but the compositional quality really depends on the user. ACID and Soundtrack are easily the most-used compositional tools in the music industry today, but don’t require a background in music to use. It’s like building a song with Lego™ blocks. A loop is like a sentence, and then sentences are formed into paragraphs. Because of the nature of the tools, all spelling, syntax, and grammatical errors are repaired for you, if I may use the simile of a word processor. Both of these tools will display full motion video during the creative process, and allow music to be synced to markers on the timeline. 4. Hired composition. Hire a musician or learn to create/compose music on your own. This is harder than it sounds, but may be cheaper, and certainly allows for greater creative expression. This will probably take longer to achieve than the other options held above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Being safe with your career, hobby, or passion is important. While fines for stealing or illegally using music rarely run above $20,000.00, the minimum fine is $500.00. Intentional misuse and/or abuse has often run over $100K. That could be a costly mistake for a dumb decision. No one can really control who hears or sees what's out on the net, on a distributed DVD, or on a broadcast project. Playing safe is the only way to assure career life, an honorable reputation, and dignity. Right now copyright laws are entangled in a morass of mess due in part to the shortsightedness of the government and Congress, due to the millions of kids stealing MP3’s and software over peer to peers, the film and recording industry terrified to lose control over their protected works, and artists who want fans to have access, but they also rightly need to be compensated for their works. Once the lid is off the box, it’s off, and there is no stuffing the losses back in. So at the moment, every involved party is proceeding in a conservative manner, and understandably so when the billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of jobs are considered. I submit that in the near future, many of these legal issues will come to rest in a favorable manner for the average Joe to be able to have access. I don’t think and don’t agree with the average Joe having access to masters such as “I Will Always Love You,” because the average Joe doesn’t have the knowledge or equipment to make a video or film presentation worthy of the class, expense, and talent that went into the making of that song. Just like no videographer would consider matching stock footage from Titanic into his DV project because the two wouldn’t match, neither would the ascribed example. There are basically two forms of liability in copyright law; Technical, which is pretty self explanatory. Did you do the deed or not... Fines are not nearly as severe or swift in a technical case. Then there is commercial liability, where the question is asked of how much damage has been done to the integrity or value of the work resulting from your technical violation. This is where the court can be really radical. From reading a couple hundred instances of case law, the bench runs the gamut from extremely conservative to extremely liberal across the States. The few Supreme Court decisions thus far, have always sided with the copyright holder. Either way, whether you agree with the law or not, the law may be clear as mud but is enforceable. Determine for yourself if the risk is worth it, determine for yourself if your integrity will allow it, and determine for yourself if you want to set an example for others, that stealing or illegally using copyrighted works is acceptable. Blaming Congress, or your friend the recording artist, doesn't excuse inexcusable behavior. Part of being a professional is being responsible for your decisions and actions. Most of what is presented here is basic common sense. If you have to ask or worry about copyright, chances are it's a violation. Regardless, I hope this small undertaking and sampling of copyright issue is of some value to you. I’m not a copyright attorney, or an attorney at all. This article was vetted by a copyright attorney, still yet I bear no responsibility for any action you may take or not undertake based on the information contained herein. Common sense dictates a disclaimer here; seek the services of a copyright attorney before acting on any of the questions or answers provided herein. This article is meant to be an informational guide, not gospel or legal advice. The information and citations you see here are worth exactly what you've paid for them.  Happy Editing! SPOT ©2003 Douglas Spotted Eagle, Sundance Media Group/VASST Instructor -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As of this writing, the 321 Studio lawsuit has not been adjudicated. 321 Studios manufactures software that allows DVD's to be copied and backed up for archival purposes. (DVDXCopy) It does contain copyright preventions, not allowing a copy of a copy to be made. Seven motion picture studios and 321 are battling this issue out in the courts of the world. 321 Studios lost their request for extension and exemption to the DCMA from the Library of Congress on October 28, 2003. They've appealed to the Librarian of Congress. Judge Susan Ilston of the Northern California District Federal Court is expected to provide a ruling shortly on the civil suit filed in California courts on August 29, 2003. When decided, this will be a landmark and precedent-setting case either for greater copyright protections or lesser copyright protections. Either way, anytime anyone attempts to 'sell' you a 'backup' copy of something they copied under Fair Use, be aware you are buying stolen goods. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Microsoft's Longhorn/Palladium OS/project will also bear a lot of scrutiny; it is a DRM (Digital Rights Management) tool among other services, that may well prevent artists from even having access to copy their own works. An extension of the .Net platform, this data-management service has DRM written all over it. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The DGA vs Cleanflix/Familyflix (and many subsidiaries and similar businesses) is also still up for judgement; This company edits out curse words, nude scenes, graphic violence, etc from feature films and sells them to consumers as edited movies. Even 'R' rated movies become 'G' rated movies with their editing. The Directors Guild of America stand firm that this is a violation of their copyrights, as the works are clearly derivative works. Interesting that the DGA is also having to face down independent filmmakers such as notable Keith Merrill, who takes the position of families being able to control what is seen in a video in the home. The DGA position is basically, if you don't want to see violence in a film like Braveheart then don't rent or buy it. To interject personal opinion, I can't agree with any artistic work being edited for content by anyone other than the artist. Look at what happened when it was determined that Bernini's works were vulgar nearly 1,500 years ago. We're still wondering what his intentions were, artistically speaking, and the burning of the Alexandria Library set our world back by several centuries. The Constitution guarantees a copy right to the author of a film but does not guarantee a prevention of visual violence in your home contained in a movie you sought out and purchased. It's always been a human understanding that you don't go to the bad side of town after dark. It seems that the extension of the understanding is that you don't invite part of the bad side of town into your home. At any time. My personal hope is that the DGA wipes the floor with these guys. Otherwise, we're back to the burning of books that was so popular for a few weeks in the 1950's. And 1920's, and 1890's, and so on clear back to AD391. Haven't we learned yet, to be frightened of this sort of censorship? Is history to repeat itself in the digital age? *The use of any artists name in this article is not to suggest any knowledge of real or imagined circumstance. The names are used only for illustrative purposes and bear no resemblance to reality. Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [an error occurred while processing this directive] 
|
|
|||||
