copyright question...is this infringement?

prairiedogpics wrote on 3/2/2007, 7:01 AM

I've been meaning to ask this:
The rah-rah marketing dept. of my company often makes videos for employee-only meetings, sort of as a cheerleading presentation. You know, photos and video of employees at company picnics, at work, etc. You know the type.
But I notice they use songs from famous musicians/bands (e.g. U2) as the background music.
They ONLY show these in-house to employees. Is there any kind of copyright infringement here?
We are a Fortune 500 company.

Back to post

Comments

totally lost wrote on 3/2/2007, 2:30 PM

CC club,

Let say the band plays Johnny B Goode. The publishing company would need to get paid, which is Arc music. You would need to contact them and make arrangements.

The key to negotiation is to say " I am thinking about puttting out a DVD where xyz band plays Johnny B Goode". vs " I have put out a DVD where xyz band plays JBG." The second example they have you over a barrel.

The first example leaves you room to walk away and give them nothing if you don't use it. 5 years ago I did some clearences for DVD music projects for a buddy and the rate was something like $0.15 a song multiplied by the amount of discs you sell, which typically you give them a quarterly statement.

CClub wrote on 3/2/2007, 2:41 PM

Nooo, noo, noo. Sorry to make the last couple responders write so much; I guess I wasn't clear. I DEFINITELY DO NOT want to put the cover song into the final DVD, which they are paying me to edit for them and they are distributing on their own. I want to make clear I am cutting it out when I am editing due to the above listed headaches. I was just brainstorming the best way to make this clear, as in the past I have taped concerts where cover songs were done, I didn't think over all the copyright issues that I'm now seeing, and I just want to make sure that I don't run into this in the future. I think I'll just add a paragraph into the contract I go over with a band prior to taping, and explain that if they do any cover songs, I can't put it into the final edit.

burtonstone wrote on 3/2/2007, 2:49 PM

Sure, Bush has made the DMCA possible, by not holding a fair forum to resolve issues without litigation. Please understand I went to court over these issues, and it really was terrible, I am no lawyer, and could not afford to hire one, so I learned by going to the Stanford Law School and asking questions. www.law.stanford.edu/program/degrees/jd/
The answers I received were startling in the number of complaints filed against guys like me by thugs in the broadcasting industry. Antway I can't make a horse drink, but if you do not stand up for your rights, soon you will have none to stand up for.
Best Wishes,
Burton Stone

totally lost wrote on 3/2/2007, 3:01 PM

CClub,

I think you are over reacting. If you are not the content owner, I am pretty sure you are free of liability. I really didn't get one posters comment that states if you edit the project you are somehow liable, but if you just shoot it you not.

I really think this is a matter of scale. Let's say band xyz does go through all the proper channels and sells 2000 units. So 2000 x $0.15 = $300. Are you getting my point? Not a huge deal here and hardly worth litigation. If the band wants to use a cover tune there is absolutely no reason they shouldn't go through a little trouble to do it right. A good negotiator would make the call, offer to pay up front, showing good faith and also not making them wait for tiny quartely checks of $25 and send a check for $150-$250 for the projected sales and be done with it. It would be found money and by paying up front you are making it easy for them. $$$ vs hassle ratio is an important factor. Make it easy and fair an slide right on through.

winrockpost wrote on 3/2/2007, 3:25 PM

...........Sure, Bush has made the DMCA possible, by not holding a fair forum to resolve issues without litigation..........

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)1 was signed into law by
President Clinton on October 28, 1998

sorry

Spot|DSE wrote on 3/2/2007, 3:40 PM

Would you mind citing the name of the court case in which you prevailed, {edit] and the District Court in which this case is filed?

filmy wrote on 3/2/2007, 5:26 PM

>>>I really didn't get one posters comment that states if you edit the project you are somehow liable, but if you just shoot it you not.<<<

I think that was my post you are talking about. The idea is very easy - take stock footage as an example of this. I could go and shoot an artist at an event, say something like "Live Aid", and I could sell that footage as stock footage. However I would have to make it clear that what I was offering for sale were the visuals - not the audio, and that any audio use might have to be cleared/licensed in order to use. However if I shot this footage and then edited it and than offered the finished project, with orginal audio (remeber we are talking about music) for sale or turned over as the "finale, completed version" I would be liable. Make sense?

So to use the orginal quesiton here about the cover tune and how to handle this - CClub not only shot but also edited a project and it sounds like CClub will be turning over a "finished, completed version". In this case there would be a certian liablitly on CClub's part if the band is expecting to get a final product that all they have to do is sell or turn over to a distributor to sell. While CClub would not have to worry about the publishing/royalites there would be sync licenses to worry about.

In my case when I cut something that the client expects will be a "finished, completed version", this would include final mixed audio as well. The "clent" takes that and offers it to distributors. For my part I have to provide all paperwork that involves the audio - music releases/sync licenses and publishing info/cue sheets to be specific. Things like release forms for talent comes from the original production company. And, again, in CClub's case the band, if they were acting as the "production company" should have all the needed release forms - which includes talent releases on themselves. So thusly my comment about shooting vs editing and how royalties/publishing comes into play.

Ok - on reading what I wrote someone will ask why the need for talent releases when I mention stock footage as an example. It is a mtter of a public event vs something set up. A public event like "Live Aid" or even an event in a small club, visually, can be handled fairly easy. More so if the artist, their label or publicist and/or the venue have invited you to shoot. If I went into a rehersal studio and shoot someone and tried to sell it that may be another whole issue - unless it was a set up media day chances are I would need to get release forms signed.