A good clue is "COPY"right... any time you COPY a copyrighted piece to another disk/tape/machine/player.... you are in effect, breaking the law.

That's what I thought. Thanks. I let my boss know.

Before you go running to the boss with this one, I think you should ask yourself how this will be received by him/her.

Life is full of complicated questions, especially when it comes to morals and laws. It is easy to say that you will never break any law, or violate a specific moral code, but unless you've never taken a philosophy or ethics class, you probably don't realize all the difficulties such a seemingly proper way of living entails.

In your particular case, I cannot imagine that your boss is going to say, "wow, I sure am glad you told me. That makes my day." To the contrary, you could be branded a troublemaker, a moralizer, a holier-than-thou idiot, or countless other things.

I am in no way arguing that the practice described isn't a technical violation of the copyright laws. And, I'm sure, given the heated nature of copyright debates on this forum, I'll probably tweak a few people when I suggest that a little discretion on your part might go a long way. I am sure that there is not one person readning this that has never broken the speed limit while driving -- a practice that endangers lives, burns excess fuel, increases contributions to global warming, etc. The point is, we all make our pact with the devil each and every day. My advice to you is, that if those videos are not being used outside a small party and not being used to make money, let it be.

The only exception to that advice is if you have a desire to get rid of your boss and think you can undermine him/her by sending this information to HIS/HER boss, but that's a major Machiavellian move, beyond the scope of this post or this forum. If that's your goal, I can suggest a few good books on how to get rid of your boss.

mkt dept of a Fortune 500 company......... do you really believe they dont know its a copyright violation ? come on.

John's right I think is advising not going anywhere with this... A fortune 500 is going to have more than adequate legal staff in house &/or on retainer, which makes them much less attractive to the legal hit teams the music industry uses to terrorize grandmothers and such... And looking at the vid site legal actions, presumably they could just say it was unauthorized by corp. & pull anything using the content thus avoiding further action.

OTOH, if trying to torment someone, there are *much* more creative ways... One of the more subtle I've used: raise the person's desk each day by placing a washer under each leg -- then one day remove them all. Another is to cut the handle off a screwdriver, & superglue the handle to the tire you let the air out of. A bit riskier since 9/11, simple road flares taped together look amazingly like dynamite... the list goes on and on -- & on, or try something simpler like this:
http://www.thinkgeek.com/gadgets/electronic/8c52/

Some aspects of copyright are confusing to me- for example if you simply cue up a legally purchased commercial CD and play that in the background while also putting on a slide show, does that usage need a "sync license" ? If so, it seems that doing anything but sitting motionless in a chair while listening would technically require a sync license. I'm talking about playing the CD directly, there is no copying involved. Is there a distinction between a public performance and a members-only club and a private party, and where does that line get drawn?

>>>>A fortune 500 is going to have more than adequate legal staff in house &/or on retainer, which makes them much less attractive to the legal hit teams the music industry uses to terrorize grandmothers and such<<<<

A fortune 500 company is a much more desirable target, because they can slap them with a much bigger fine. How many lawyers they have and how good they are is irrelevant. Once this is used without a license it is illegal.

Saturday Night Live got sued for playing beginning 4 notes of New York, New York ( I think it was that song ) and lost.

But, specific to this question, since it's only shown in house, I doubt anybody will ever find out about it, even though it is definitely a copyright violation.

It is an extremely common thing done by some of the biggest corporations in the US. Most just feel that as long as it is in-house, they don't worry.

Dave T2

Johnmeyer I believe has explained the problem well. I would suggest, if this is a big issue, something like, "Digital Juice has great music that one can buy royality free use** for our videos, then we make cds or post them at specific websites hassle free for our employees or friends can "view", that way we can avoid all that hassle that "my*****" users get into."

Thanks for all the comments. I haven't spoken to my boss yet (I'll ponder this over the weekend...) but I can say that, in general, my company is VERY aware of legal compliance issues. We are a high profile company and do a LOT of "CYA" in order to not get sued. Our sales staff is strictly monitored in regards to gifts/meals/entertainment to vendors and customers (unlike our smaller competition who seem to get away with it all the time and flaunt it to us through our mutual customers).
Also, I should say I have a good working relationship with my boss. I would tell him this in person (no paper trail) and then he can do with it what he wants. He's three tiers below the CEO.

Yes, indeed, loaded issue and I do respect such things. But as I once pointed out here at this forum, there is also the contradiction in the overall industry itself: record companies, TV, etc. are in close cohoots with the very neighor-industries that...

... engineer and manufacture the very instruments of copying technologies (tape recorders, CD and DVD burners, etc.) Not to mention that some do both, such as Sony itself.

"Here, yes, of course...buy this great burner --- no, you can' t do any copying of any music or anything else without license." For technically, even if you copy a polka for your grandmother to listen to = violation of copyrights.

There is also the issue of "market damage" upon the holder of the copyrights that has to be looked at:

a) Wide distribution/audience (a la SNL example or YouTube) without permission can cause "damage."

b) Daniellejolie's in-house cheerleading vids, don't.

Nor does my security coded, limited access web page at my site to share some of my work hurt ( I have one test render with a track not composed by me, and a couple of stills too. None will ever be used in a wide audience way. They are personal sketches.).

Sure, again, "technically"..... but come on.

That said, I'm overall pretty ethic compulsive, and I do feel a bit guilty of even such minor infringements, but if one takes this stuff to the limit, every home recording is technically illegal.

Hell, one could potentially sue the companies that create this yes-no/no-win paradox for tempting and providing us with the goodies on both sides of this Faustian setup in the very first place :)

(No, that kind of reality-check perspective is not a license to abuse copyrights, but reality isn't as black an white ink on law ledgers like to make us believe either.)

I say use your common sense, respect others but self-crucifixion by letter of the law over the intended spirit of the law just isn't realistic or fair.

Couldn't agree more. I just sat through a "Self Employed in the Arts" presentation by Robert Lee Morris, made for the Donna Karan Corporation. He illegally used "Sunshine of Your Love" at the start of the piece. Just for giggles, I asked him following the presentation, how he'd gotten clearance for the piece. He responded with, "I don't have permission, but since I know some of the guys in the band, I'm sure it's not a problem."
I wonder if the guys in Cream or the publishing department at Atlantic would have the same response?

>>>>I don't have permission, but since I know some of the guys in the band, I'm sure it's not a problem."<<<<

But, doesn't know them well enough to pick up the phone and ask for permission?

FWIW...

"Saturday Night Live got sued for playing beginning 4 notes of New York, New York ( I think it was that song ) and lost."

I think one difference is in accountability... Youtube and other video hosting sites plead lack of control and knowledge in a nutshell, and avoided at least some suits, even though they have huge settlement potential & suits would set precedent. In the case of a corp playing this stuff in house, not available to everyone, the potential $ in lost revenue is nill, so at the least much less reason for heavy damage awards & guaranteed higher legal costs.

"...if you simply cue up a legally purchased commercial CD and play that in the background while also putting on a slide show, does that usage need a "sync license" ? If so, it seems that doing anything but sitting motionless in a chair while listening would technically require a sync license. I'm talking about playing the CD directly, there is no copying involved. Is there a distinction between a public performance and a members-only club and a private party, and where does that line get drawn?"

The NFL stopped a church from tuning in the Superbowl at a private party because of the number of viewers & the size of the screens. It used to be fair use prevailed, meaning if you licensed a personal copy of something you were entitled to certain basic uses -- that is slowly being done away with... A teacher can no longer just make copies of a picture in a magazine or newspaper for her classes for example.

If you play the radio in a public place, you owe royalties. Stores have generic music piped in off a special paid feed from a company that handles the licensing - otherwise they would have to pay the high royalties. There are similar constraints on restaurants and bars, including I believe the size of any TV monitor.

At any rate, having the CD play probably requires special license -- which one(s) or how many I couldn't say. Use royalty-free generic or come up with original thru Acid or Cinescore, or record public domain MIDI -- I've done the latter more than a few times.

"if one takes this stuff to the limit, every home recording is technically illegal."

Yes it is -- i.e. the controversy over can you back up a DVD or CD you purchase. Adding the copyright flag to HD content (& some SD) already enforces this.

"Hell, one could potentially sue the companies that create this yes-no/no-win paradox for tempting and providing us with the goodies on both sides of this Faustian setup in the very first place :)"

Maybe, but in all fairness you pay tax to the copyright holders every time you buy blank media, so in theory the only one being hurt is you -- which corp or gov agency is going to care? Want to really have more fun take a look at the current patent situation.

In the end when it become impossible to comply with the regs, what happens?

Quite frankly the RIAA, label snyc rights legal eagles, Harry Fox et al have much bigger fish to fry. C'mon now, if they were to sue this company what would the damages be? Nothing was sold. Hardly worth the cost of litigation.

No record label in their right mind would come after your company. If you tried to clear the title/song with special markets they would either 1) laugh thier asses off and thank you for being honest 2) drag their feet and hope you go away because the money they would get wouldn't be worth the hassle of all the clearances. 3) You offer them too much money (anything above $5k for this would be too much for this application) and they gladly accept it, and then laugh their asses off!

This is petty ante stuff. If the company sold the disc or MAYBE if they gave away 1000 + copies you might get a call. Or if the artist found out and didn't like the product or service and wanted to make a point.

I think your making a mountain out of a mole hill.

Edit

I am in the music business and deal specifically with licensing. Above is just my opinion.

However I think the illegal use of music in video is a huge opportunity for the music business to stop the bleeding. Just think of all the videos on youtube with illegal musicall the family DVD's with illegal music. The problem is a matter of scale. A few seconds of a song on a nationally broadcast commercial cost a small fortune. This not my area of expertise but I have heard numbers like $10k a second for really big acts.

Anyway, I wish the RIAA and music industry as a whole wake up and develop a new b plan and make it easier and affordable for people who want to do the right thing.

Hello, and not so quick, "Fair Use Laws" may well be your salvation.
Please see, read, and understand
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

Example of Exemptions:

Presidential Speechs may not be copyrighted as it is the work of a government official.

Also "Fair Use Laws" spell out exactly how much of what copyrighted music you may use without breaking the law.

Note that you often see Keith Olbermann the host of MSNBC's 'Countdown with Keith Olbermann air clips from Bill O'Reilly of Fox News O'Reilly Factor, without problem, but note just how much he shows and the "on screen" disclaimer.

Dave Letterman many times shows clips from other late night shows, please notice just how much he shows and the disclaimer in screen.

One thing for sure, is you must "try" to get permission before air date, unless you have exausted all means of contact.

NPR told me many times, " we can't give you permission to use our product, but if you use less than 22 seconds or so of it, that would not present a problem for our legal dept. as you would fall under "Fair Use Laws".

Also please see a list of media resources on my website stormcharger.com, the link is labeled : "Media Links" a guide to film makers.

Bastards of the Party: Never use any "Saurday Night Live" clips, they prowl for DMCA issues, and do it with their very own paid people.

CBS Broadcasting, Inc. also will file against you, whenever possible. I guess they firgue if they can make it as a network they can squeeze some cash out of poor guys trying to provide content.

Certain content providers for NPR, such as "Austin City Limits", "Frontline", and NOVA will file on you in a heartbeat.

Please understand I am not proud of this knowledge, I gained this from defending myself in court over these very same issues, and it is no fun when they come in with six suits and you or I are sitting their in ripped jeans. Here 's the thing I won, so can you, the liberty you take back from these Bush empowered thugs is far greater in worth than the money you will receive, I got a bundle, because they were just palin wrong, and they have never filed another complaint!

Best Wishes,
Burton Stone

"...please see a list of media resources on my website stormcharger.com..."
Thanks

RE: the news shows, also there's the issue of news-worthiness in the fair use provisions...

........Bush empowered thugs...........
Huh ,, What
Lol,,, man that guy is at the root of all things,

Not a lawyer,, but fair use laws as I read ,, does not apply here,,

Here's the really oddball part about this.
You can legally play ANY music in many places, you just need the appropriate licence and they're not expenisve. That's how restaurants, shopping centres, clubs, music on hold etc do it. Down here it's APRA who issue these licences.
At the same time as that music is playing you can project any images that you hold the rights to, you just cannot embed the music and the vision in the same physical medium.
The vision can contain control tracks that via say AMX controls the music being played, the level etc, that music can be mixed with audio from the vision by a AMX controlled mixer.
From the viewers perpective they are seeing / hearing exactly the same thing, the only difference is that the music is coming directly from legally bought CDs.

And yes, I was very much made to feel I was a nutter for thinking this was a bit of an oddball situation. Bottom line by implication was, yes it's a technical breach of copyright law syncing music to vision for a once off performance, yes it happens a lot, but we've got better things to worry about, sir, click.

Bob.

eau contraire...
Every Donna Karan outlet in the world received a copy of this video. That's a few hundred copies there.
More than 1000 people in the room saw the video.
This guy is an ARTIST. I couldn't help but think that a guy who just spent 2 hours discussing how hard it was to develop his signature look which eventually won him his own show on QVC, could possibly be willing to blow off copyright theft.
Whether it's one copy or 1000, he stole work from someone else.
Andy Warhol was a HUGE believer in copyright. Robert Lee Morris is Andy Warhol's voice now that Warhol is gone. RLM continues to control the artistic side of Warhol's estate. Yet he's willing to illegally use music in displays of Warhol's art.
That in itself is an amazing irony.
At what point does it go from being an issue of DiMinimis to being an issue of "that's just not right?" Simply because it's too expensive to enforce doesn't mean it is no big deal.

Since this "copyright" posting has taken several twists and turns, and rather than start ANOTHER copyright posting...

Any advice on what to do if I'm going to be taping a concert of a band doing original music and they might throw in a cover song or two? Given all I'm learning about copyright via this forum, I was thinking of just adding to my initial contract that I am unable to add cover songs into the final DVD and I will have to leave it out. Watcha think? What if they say that's fine but can they have the original tapes of the videotaping itself?

Sopt I hear you. But this situation is a little different. It's in house, not public and no one is profitting from it. So it's much more of a gray area.

I found the proper paperwork for Sony/BMG here. http://www.sonybmg.com/licensing/contact/sony_bmg_lic_form.pdf

It does include "trade shows and other such gatherings".

But again when looking at the paperwork and the questions asked. I think when filled out the label would blow it off., when they see this.

Copies made - 1
Times shown -3
How many people shown to? - 100-200

I try to follow up and get an answer from a label rep.