Fair use is an un resolvable problem for the following reasons.

1) The laws regarding fair use are based upon principles rather than specific cases in point. This means that it will be the interpretation of the law rather than the law itself that will ultimately prevail in court.

2) All rights will be perceived by those who own protected property, those who license protected property and those who use protected property in a perspective that is overly broad and overly narrow as fits their own best interest.

I have several relatives who are legal representatives of fortune 500 companies including a brother in law who was a vice president of legal affairs for a fortune 500 company very involved in media productions. I have found discussing issues with them both enlightening and frustrating.

For example:

(A) When visiting the web sites of CCLI and CVLI or other licensing representatives, I have noticed that issues of fair use are addressed by them in terms that are left so vague as to be arguably deliberately misleading at the level of implicature. Why would they do that? First their biggest bill is for royalties and second their only resource for obtaining money to pay those royalties is through the permissions they grant in exchange for money. It is in their best interest to sell as many as they can. The more they can keep potential clients in a muddy understanding about fair use, the more likely it is they will obtain paying clients.

(B) When talking to a lawyer, you will find a proclivity toward complications that require a lawyer to clarify even when they know damn well that the issue is consistently interpreted by Courts according to well established and long standing precedents. The lawyer is not interested in clarifying issues sufficiently for us to no longer require their services.

(C) The owner of protected media wants to be paid for every use of their property. They have no interest in understanding the way the law might limit their rights.

(D) The creators of new works that rely upon the fair use of other protected works do not want their creativity to be restrained, they will look for any perspective that may appear to be in the law to justify their freedoms.

***************
The bottom line when it comes to fair use is that it is fair to do anything with anything so long as the fairness of it will be the opinion that can prevail when a court of law weighs the various opinions of the parties referred to above. You can protect your property from being used in ways you do not want to permit, so long as your opinion can prevail upon potential users or in a court of law. Etc, etc. But in the end, fair use will always remain muddy and will often be overstepped by both owners and users as we continue in our never ending disputes over what specific examples constitute fair use.

There will also be rediculous situations where teenagers are blamed for lost sales rather than the producing of garbage for music releases. Artists will have restictions upon derivitive works of their own creations becuase of who owns what. I mean how rediculous is it that CCR writer John Fogerty temporarily lost the right to tour and perform his own music!

This issue will remain muddy and occasionally be visited with outrageous circumstances.

These comments (c) 2005 by Bob Greaves. Permission to quote in whole or in part is hereby subject to fair use. <g>

I agree somewhat - and because we have been talking about CVLI here is a nice example of how they can confuse someone. Now keep in mind for most of us this will make "logical" sense - but you will see how it could be confusing.
==============
What You Can Do With this license:
1. Pastors can use portions of movies to illustrate sermon points.

[SNIP]

What You Can't Do

This license does not cover materials that have been copied from another source or recorded from television.

[SNIP]

You cannot in any way edit any video or television clips. They must me shown in their original format from their original format. No editing is allowed in any form.
============

See what I mean? To me any time you do not show something in full you have edited it. It clearly says that one can use "portions of movies" however it also clearly says one can not, in *any way* edit the video. Now it also says it does not cover material "copied from another source or recorded from television" however it goes on to point out that you can not edit "television clips". Why would that even be an issue if you are not allowed to record and show anything recorded from television? And as someone pointed out many people are digitizing material to be able to have certian clips cued up - legally that would mean if you use that tpye of thing you would *not* be covered because it would fall under the "copied from another source" heading.

As I say - most of us here would understand the real point is that you can not "Edit" - or re-edit/re-cut/load into Vegas and do your thing - anything but it is just vauge enough that they tell you you can by showing any sort of "clip". Based on these terms one could show, in sequence and from the original source, a series of clips and perhaps call the sermon "The 10 most demonic scenes in current films" and it would be covered, and legal. However if you took the same 10 scenes and "Edited" them together with an opening title card that said "The 10 most demonic scenes in current films" than you would be in violation and could face legal action. This is one of those legal thin red lines. "Well yes your honor I could line up 10 DVD players and cue each one up and just hit play after each clip but there are several factors involved - we don't have a 10 input switcher, we don't have the audio inputs, we don't even *have* 10 DVD players. Most people would agree that simply digitiging the same 10 clips onto one laptop and letting them play out in the same order is more efficent." "Sir, many people might agree that being able to do what they wanted despite the law is more efficent however this is a nation of laws and you sir have broken the law."

For me this is a simple example of the issue many of us complain about with the "law" and exaclty what is covered and not covered in some of these agreements. And it come sup again and again - where does one draw the line - I mean *really* draw the line?

Some recent court news FYIW:

The Shepards v. Rosie O’Donnell. Ex-talk show host allegedly used courtroom sketches from her 2003 breach of contract case in a piece of art without the permission of the sketch artists. New copyright filing December 2004 in NY

Criss v. UMG Recordings. The ex-wife of KISS drummer Peter Criss has sued for the alleged unathorized use of photos she took of the band throughout the 1970s. New copyright filing December 2004 in NY

Irwin v. ZDF Enterprises. A composer has sued foreign and domestic cable channels for using his score for a 1929 film in several TV programs. New filing December 2004 in NY

House of Fun Music v. Mary J. Blige, et al. Music publisher claims Mary Blige song “Not Today” copied elements from its song, “Holiday.” New filing December 2004 in NY

And an oldie but a goodie - a ruling from September 2000:

Worldwide Church of God v. Philadelphia Church of God. Splinter church's printing of verbatim copies of original church founder Herbert Armstrong's magnum opus is not fair use.

(Complete ruling)

Well, here's what I'm doing. I'm going to report everyone in this city everytime they use copyrighted materials. Then, when everyone else has been sued into bankruptcy or submission, the playing field will be fair for me, as I will not and do not break the law. I stand to monopolize the market here. Who do I report these things to? ( I assume that it goes beyond the local police station? )

- seems to me that this is the only fair thing to do because they are breaking the law and I want to make an HONEST buck, but won't be able to as long as there are people who are willing to break it.

D

Filmy,
But of course you can print it out. You can also show them the (likely) FBI warning at the front of the DVD too, that specificly prohibits the film being shown in a public venue, and no, churches are not exempt regardless of what most would believe. Ask any IP attorney, they'll tell you that. And heaven help if they do it for a fundraiser.

Reading all this is a bit frustrating. I just did a wedding where the wedding march was a popular copyrighted song. If I have to dub over their wedding march, they're gonna get pretty mad...in cases like that, should I just dub over everything copyrighted and risk losing the job, or should I just have it somewhere in my service contract that any copyrighted material filmed is the legal obligation of the contract signer to seek out and attain a license and that I'm not responsible?

Red96TA - Reading this thread will tell you what is and what is not legal in the strict eyes of the law.

If you are unsure of what YOU should do in a specific situation, I would consult with a copyright attorney and/or decide for yourself what you are willing to live with. I bet a lot of us have had to do that from time to time, I know I have and do.

<edit>
I wonder if this thread is going to hit 100 posts?

show who? And just so that you know, I haven't used movies. Everything I've shown, I've shot or the footage/pictures were permissable. It's just the audio that I used (on rare occasion - it wasn't royalty free music) and now that I know that the lisence stuff is iffy on it, I'm gonna check into it before I do anymore.

I am not doing anything that is illegal, nor am I trying to "get away with" anything, and if this is the way the law is, I find that it's only fair if they(my competition I.E. those shooting weddings and corporate video in the local area) have to own up (so to speak) to the same law that I am bound to operate by. It's the only way that the playing field can be level.

(BTW)I find that this sounds like a lowest common denominator type of situation making me sound like a no talent hack that wants everyone else to be required to suck as much as I do. This is not the case. I simply won't be able to make any money doing what I love to do, unless those that are my competition are made to compete on a fair playing field.

Who do I report this to, does anyone know? would it be under the RIAA? most of what I see them doing is internet stuff, I don't know that they would be interested in non-filesharing etc...

Well, here's what I'm doing. I'm going to report everyone on this city everytime they use copyrighted materials.
Now THERE is an interesting position. Believe me, I've considered it, particularly against a specific company that I've gotten demo reels from. I talked to both of our attorneys about it, and both immediately informed me that if I did, I could be liable for tortious interference with the operation of a business.

Scenario:
You have a business.
Someone else has a business or related endeavor that may or may not be profitable. (We'll call them competitor, even though they may not be a competitor.)
Third party (in this case the RIAA)
You go to Third Party and report bad activity or illegal activity on the part of Competitor.
What if Competitor's losses to business exceed the damages of their copyright violation?
You are held out for tortious interference of the operation of the business, and will likely be found liable, according to the precedents cited by our attorneys.
I recently had a situation like this, where someone went to some our partners and made allegations that weren't true, and even had they been true, it wasn't related to our dealings with our partners. We're still in the process of deciding whether to pursue the issue.

In short, that too, is a scary position to take, because it then exposes you to potentially huge liability. I know you're joking (more or less) but it's a very valid point.

I'm NOT joking (it's a little far fetched, but I'm somewhat serious here) - I can be sued for making everyone play fair?!?!?! THIS IS SUCH CRAP!!! If they are breaking the law, then they should be held accountable, and an annonymous tip should remain annonymous and I should be able to place one if no-one else is doing it. I have to abide by these laws, so does every other wedding shooter out there. But they can sue me for pointing out that they are breaking the law. What if I send a notice to them stating that if they don't cease and desist that I will report them to the appropriate authorities as it takes away from my potential business and keeps me from getting work legally?

I'd talk to a lawyer. See what he says. Ask him specifically about Lanamat laws, Section 11-17.
In our case, the person that we're going after falls into the Trade Disparagement section. It doesn't matter whether your complaint offers a prospective economic advantage or not, you can be zapped based on what I've been told.
But a lawyer will know the correct answers. However, anyone can sue anyone for anything. But tortious interference is a common case, and apparently they are often settled very quickly, both with punitive and actual damages being awarded.
Talk to a lawyer. Buy him lunch. That usually works for me. :-)

I seem to recall working for a facility many years back that had a "hold harmless" (or similar) clause in its work-for-hire agreements that clients would sign before commencing work. Covered the facility and the operators. One of the statements in the contract was that the client warranted that all rights had been properly procured, etc. It was very small print in the contract which most clients never bothered to read, and 'm sure there are holes all over it, but it clarified that we were only taking orders from the client, whatever the rights situation.

Here is the specific law on Fair Use:
TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 1 > § 107 Prev | Next

§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

what about this? - does it seem feesable to sue them for operating illegally? I assume that I would have to show proof of what they are doing, as well as showing proof of it causing money loss (I.E. customers that say I'm going to the other guys cuz he'll give me what I want or something of the sort). This would take more money and make me seem like more of a bad guy - but it might be an overall safer way (though I'm sure there's the opportunity for a counter suit too, but I'm going to look into this)

Hope I don't tick some of you guys off because I want to operate legally, but I've got to pay the bills and if I'm doing it, it's got to be legal. BTW, I'm also curious if the music in the ceremony can be covered in some way?

Here we go....(and I'm not even a confrontational guy.....)

FrigidNDEditing - Are you going to sue your client too? The ones who played the song during the wedding that you taped.
How about the church? Suing them for allowing the song to be played?
How about a large percentage of the users on this very forum? Are you going to sue them for shooting a wedding and using commercial music?

Since we're just discussing here, point #4 of the copyright law in Spot's post is interesting..

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

I read that to mean the wedding dvd I made really didn't affect sales of the Guns & Roses song I used ("I Used to Love Her But I Had To Kill Her"). In other words, the 10 copies I made for the client did not result in 10 fewer GnR CD's being sold.

Or, another way to interpret it is that I made 10 dvd's for the family and even though it is a World Class Wedding video, no other copies are likely to be made or sold - not a big market for it.

Deep Breath....which brings me to the apathy displayed by some of the copyright holders - Yes, it is illegal but we're not going to fool with it one way or another, and we don't care.

<edit>
What I should've said is:

Yes it is illegal but we're not going to fool with it one way or another. We're going to ignore your request, thereby not granting permission. We really do not care, unless you appear to be making substantial money. Then we are going to kick your a$$.

no, no, of course I'm not going to sue my customers or churches (the churches have the ccli liscences and have to keep track of songs done in their sanctuary and either pay for it have it covered in a blanket coverage, as far as I've been told). But what you say is a good point about the seeming position that if it doesn't make them loose money, that it's not a problem. however it still doesn't take care of the sync requirements I don't think, it only means that they didn't lose money because you used the song. (however if they would have charged you for your ability to use it, then they did lose money, and you are liable - or so it seems)

I realize that I'm probably not going to make any friends here by what I've been saying, but how do you expect me to operate my business legally? (you probably want me to break the law, but I won't. It is not unjust, it's just not written with anyone but the moneymakers/artists in mind for the most part [and they did what was needed to get them that right, it's the name of the game]). However unfair it is, it's still the LAW, and I either, can't make money for my talents because of others "enhancing" their talents beyond what I could ever do by means of unauthorized material, or have to break the law myself (I won't do that).

I'd say you're stuck between a rock and a hard place. There is no way that you're going to make/force everyone to play by the existing rules - just go to a WEVA convention and see for yourself.

You're right - if you want to play by the rules, you can't stay in business. I guess you've got a choice to make.

--Scott

I think this thread has had quite enough of the sanctimonious hand-wringing from those that pretend to be pious devout 100% law abiding zealots that can't see beyond the end of their up pointed nose.

For everyone that's said they would never violate copyright law can they also say they ALWAYS stayed below the posted speed limit? Will they claim they ALWAYS put on their seat belt even when just driving down to the corner 7-11? Can they claim they never gave their under age kids a sip of beer or wine? Will you put your hand on the bible and swear you faithfully reported every last penny of income to IRS, including bets from card games, golf games with the neighbors, the time you won something in the super bowl pool at work? Did you list the proceeds from those instant win lottery tickets? You get my point.

EVERYBODY breaks some laws.

In effect many times you decide which laws to follow and which to break, then you may offer up some justification for doing it. While I'm not encourging anyone to break any law, I've also been around the block a few times and know everyone breaks some laws, sometimes, somtimes even without knowing it.

There are times when its worth going to war over some issues and there are times when it time to pause and realize how crazy you sound defending the undefendable.

No artist ever starved because some Joe Average didn't get permission to use his work when making a half a dozen DVD's of some wedding or some such event.

The copyright laws weren't written for those situations because when the core elements of such laws were written decades ago the current state of the technology where any Joe Blow could copy/edit/produce audio and video CD's DVD's didn't even exist.

You can try to shoehorn some law and tell youself it applies, but you can't force the general public to follow such laws that can't be enforced across the board. So you can if you want follow every copyright law to the letter, just as long as you know for everyone of you that does another 100 guys haven't and won't because as I said before unenforceable laws haven't been, can't be and won't be enforced and sooner or later that get fixed or simply discarded. The country's history is full of examples of bad law and copyright laws are no exception. They are long overdue for a major change and total rewriting.

The bottom line is no amount of pontificating will change that. So getting all hot and bothered over such a issue in a forum such as this is counterproductive and far beyond the bounds of what this forum was set up for. I for one am sick and tired of the same handful of windbags hijacking threads to blather their personal hang-ups which always gets out of bounds and distrupts an otherwise peaceful and friendsly forum.

Memo to Sony:

Play closer attention and kill the far off threads when they start. They do nothing buy divide, cause hard feelling and allow a few to hijack the forum to climb up on their soapbox and shout their narrow viewpoint.

I'd be willing to bet that if anyone on these forums had produced a video and they found out it was being pirated or used without permission that they would go after whoever was using it in full force.
I know I would!
Funny how the tables would turn if you were on the other side.

For everyone that's said they would never violate copyright law can they also say they ALWAYS stayed below the posted speed limit?
- I slow down when I see that I'm speeding (I don't knowingly do it)

Will they claim they ALWAYS put on their seat belt even when just driving down to the corner 7-11?
- ALWAYS ... yep

Can they claim they never gave their under age kids a sip of beer or wine?
- Don't drink, never have, never will (same with smoking)

Will you put your hand on the bible and swear you faithfully reported every last penny of income to IRS, including bets from card games, golf games with the neighbors, the time you won something in the super bowl pool at work?
- reported EVERYTHING (no bets won - don't bet because of the outcome just stated :-) )

Did you list the proceeds from those instant win lottery tickets?
- N/A

You get my point.

Yep I do. (this is hopefully taken as funny, I'm not trying to come across as a super pious blowhard or anything, and I have done nothing to try and make you, or anyone else, feel bad. I'm sorry if I did.)

Dave

No that isn't true. Many years ago I wrote a book and put together a collection of custom software. I sold the book and soon came out with a audio tape version. Down the road I also developed a CD that was a clever advertising tool. It was on a non video topic and I decided to self-publish. It went into a second and then third priinting. I sold it throught a network of dealers and resellers which I developed. Up front I passed on all resale and distribution rights to my dealers. I earned a percentage. All I asked was that they not remove my copyright notice from my materials (so I'd get credit) and replace it with their own. Soon I discovered some were replacing my copyright notice with their own.

Judging by comments here, many would have freaked and immediately tried to sue the handful of offenders. I having a good business sense having started several other businesses, all profitable. I simply ignored the few cheaters and just went on to grow my business. I started the first while I was still an auditor. Soon I was earned more from the business and gave up my first career. I went on to sell my materials world wide, made $$$$$$$$ and went on to start my second and third business. So the moral of the story is don't be foolish chasing have a few lost dollars when instead you could use the time to do what you're good at...making more money.

Mad? Heck no, but I think you're the exception. <wink>

What do you do for fun?

My hobby is eating.

Ok, What the heck - I'll play with my bud BillyBoy - master Vegas colorist ;)

ALWAYS stayed below the posted speed limit?

"always" - probably not, however thanks to cruise control I stay damn close to it. But before cruise control I did very well thank you very much. In another life I tour managed and also drove - been back and forth across country many times and never gotten any speeding ticket.

Will they claim they ALWAYS put on their seat belt even when just driving down to the corner 7-11?

We don't have any corner 7-11. But when I was in LA I walked to the corner 7-11 / AM/PM and if I wasn't walking (Depsite the song people do walk in LA) I was in a car or van driving and yes, always had a seat belt on. Something I was doing as a kid long before I ever drove and long before it was ever a state law. Now I have a 6 year old and I don't move until she is buckled up - and frankly I get a bit nervous and upset that the bus driver asks the kids to *not* buckle up because it is a "safety" concern if they do.

Can they claim they never gave their under age kids a sip of beer or wine?

Give a 6 year old booze? What are you insane? What are you BillyBoy, French?

Will you put your hand on the bible and swear you faithfully reported every last penny of income to IRS, including bets from card games, golf games with the neighbors, the time you won something in the super bowl pool at work?

Yes because I don't gamble, or play, enough too care. Let me explain - I don't much care for sports - Superbowl? Who cares. Seriously - never did. (The tech side of it is kind of intresting however) Don't play cards games - well, crazy eights, hearts and UNO now with my daughter but not for money. Never played poker or bridge - wouldn't know how if someone asked me right now. Never played any golf other than miniture golf. Lottery tickets - very rare that I get them. Even more rare that I win. But to be fare - I don't deduct any "gambling losses" either - because I don't even come close to meeting the requirements for getting a deduction. I mean how does one figure less than $10.00 a year for gambling losses?

Did you list the proceeds from those instant win lottery tickets?

See above.

Do I get slapped with a wet noodle now Billy?

being serious for a moment - I don't get the impression that anyone who has posted inthis thread had *never* done anything wrong. What I always get is that someone asks a serious question and when people who deal with it try to answer others get into it and it becomes a long thread. This thread has been pretty decent compared to other threads, most of us have kept their cool. Most have kept a sense of humor. You know I always have to throw out some weird, but does/could happen, scenerio - like the Wizard of Oz / Pink Floyd question. By the letter of the law anyone who has done this, and that includes me, has most like violated the copyright law. But I don't really know of anyone who has ever been taken to court over doing it. But ya gotta ask the tough questions in these parts.