Doug -

The "All Violation" concerns me - At what point are you not allowed to even display snippets of text in a presentation? Would that apply to song, movie or performer names as well?

For example - If in a presentation I were being paid to make, I were to provide a list of CD's on screen (just CD & Performer names) that represent one particular aspect that would fit in to my presentation, would I be in violation? If I took a single lyric line from a song and projected that onto a screen, which was then videotaped and distributed is that too a violation? Is quoting someone now disallowed if that quote is from a song or movie?

I am not trying to be abstruse or difficult here - It's just that I will be making more and more video presentations for my company and will need to know where that line is so I can try not to cross it.

Thanks,
Bruce

Remember I'm not a lawyer. :>)
If you are making a paid presentation, and merely referring to titles and cover art, and the foundation of your presentation isn't about that cover art, you'd likely be legal. Titles can't be copyrighted, so that's not a concern.
If your motivation was profit-oriented, and you were pointing to CD cover art and song titles for purposes of making them look bad, you could also run afoul.
Quoting lyrics, as long as kept short and not as part of the foundation of the presentation, would likely fall into violation, but it would also be potentially arguable as being both DiMinimis and Fair Use.
Quoting from a song or movie, as long as the quote is attributed, is not a violation in most instances, as I understand that portion of the law. Now...if you're doing this for a corporate venture/presentation, there are additional laws that come into play, and I'd be asking your corporate counsel for some advice.
Stanford offers free research on the subject; be prepared for VERY slow answers, but they're well researched, and free. Just google Stanford, copyright, and you'll get there.

Here's an oddity someone told me, there's no copyright on commercials. The music etc is sure copyright but not the commercial as a complete work. This must explain how competitors get away with using parts of others commercials in their ads.
This wasn't from a nobody, he makes TVCs for a living.
Bob.

I put copyright notices on commercials everyday. No one else can use that commercial or a portion of it, withou violating the copyright. Same as you copyright a movie.

If someone is using part of a commercial for another commercial, that is wrong.

Dave T2

There might be some sort of time limit and/or different law in the US verses the other side of the pond where farss lives.

I know there have been many "Public Domain" compilations put out over the years that contain commercials so either they were never copyrighted or no one cares.

The issue that was put to me was that a commercial by design is an instrument to induce a sale and therefore is not a "work of art" under the definition. Individual elements such as the music used in the commercial though are clearly copyright, it's just the complete work that falls outside the definition.
Bob.

Wouldn't it be nice if there was a "rule"book on this mess, one everyone could read and understand. Oh, then lawyers may lose a few billion.
Nevermind, stupid suggestion

There is one. There are two. There are three....and more. Unfortunately, because of the law starting when it started, and being amended added to, subtracted from, merged, separated, etc so many times plus the additions of so many new things, ie; DMCA, Bono Act, TEACH, UCITA, modification after modification....to stay on top is darn near impossible for IP attorneys, let alone anyone else.
This is why we produced the "Understanding Copyright" video, and even that only gets one started in the general topic overall.
It's a toughie no matter where you are, and this is a good reason to be on a first name basis with a semi-trustworthy/knowledgeable IP attorney. Take him to lunch every other month or something, just to keep friendly. :-)

DSE said:
" If she's making money for these seminars..."

How is that different from a teacher? They get paid, too. So how is a paid seminar instructor different from a paid school teacher as far as fair use of materials is concerned?

Steve

"So how is a paid seminar instructor different from a paid school teacher as far as fair use of materials is concerned?"

Probably because "they" say their different :)

Dave

...................and this is a good reason to be on a first name basis with a semi-trustworthy/knowledgeable IP attorney. Take him to lunch every other month or something, just to keep friendly. :-)


Exactly

I understand what you are saying, and honestly I don't know for a fact what the law is, but:

A technical manual is not a work of art, but can be copyrighted. Same as a textbook, architectural drawing etc. I don't think work of art is the defining point.

It might depend, here again, in the context that it is used. Heck, even news footage can be copyrighted.

Dave T2

"If she's commenting on the movies, music, or lyrics themselves, it clearly falls into Fair Use. In other words, if for instance...she's doing a seminar on morals in media and uses media to demonstrate her position on either side, she has the legal right to show the media that she is commenting on. If she's making money for these seminars, all of that goes out the window. No protection, all violation."

She is commenting on the fact that a lot of lyrics and music out there are pretty nasty, so she's definitely not putting any of the music or movies in a good light. She's not promoting them in any way. The only money she would make would be the sales of the DVDs that we would make of the seminar. I guess that would be the illegal part right? But, as far as the live seminar goes, she can show anything she wants, right? ...as long as she's not selling tickets.

Since we would be making money off the DVDs, is there still a way around the law by saying that the use of the music, lyrics, videos, etc. is for educational and demonstrational use only?

Since we would be making money off the DVDs, is there still a way around the law by saying that the use of the music, lyrics, videos, etc. is for educational and demonstrational use only?

Not that I'm aware of. Since you're making money from the sale of DVDs, at no point can Fair Use come into play, and Fair Use is what allows her to make commentary and play the media/music back without fear of being in violation of copyright. But the moment you distribute it, you're in violation. And likely, no one is going to give you a license to distribute anything that contains negative references to their product/copyrighted work. Otherwise, I'd be making DVDs on the ridiculousness of some of Mapplethorpe's works or something like that.

Technically, she could even sell tickets to the event, if the ticket price were to cover the costs of the educational session. There was once a suit about this, but I can't recall the specifics.

I rarely disagree with DSE, but in this case, I think that he is wrong.

Money or the lack of it has absolutely nothing to do with copyright violation. A church that uses popular music without permission in their DVD distributions are violating copyright, even though no one received a penny of compensation for it.

The original question was regarding using parts of popular music for educational purposes. This is clearly within "fair use" guidelines. As I said before, how does a paid lecturer differ from a paid teacher?

Fair use is deliberately vague, and the definition of fair use is what the judge says it is. The guidelines are just guidelines, and it's what keeps IP lawyers rich.

So you're suggesting that a church or in this case, a lecturer can use popular music on a distributed DVD and not be in violation? Maybe I'm wrong, but I think we're saying the same thing.

A paid lecturer is different than a paid-for DVD in that the lecturer is a single use, single display of copyrighted works, with social commentary. No different than a paid teacher.
A paid-for DVD is a copy of copyrighted masters belonging to someone else. In addition, it also violates sync license because it's part of a video.

Fair Use laws are indeed exceptionally ambivalent, I don't know that they are vague, as you must meet the four tests. However, you're absolutely right that Fair Use keeps IP attorneys very busy and keeps the money rolling in.

Actually, now that I think about it...she doesn't want the music to be heard...just the lyrics seen. So, that passes as good I think. However, she does want a few video clips from movies. Such as Star Wars....is permission needed even if its a 30 second clip and not the whole movie?

DSE - I generally consider you the unwashed expert on copyright since you have experienced both sides of the coin. But, can we agree that profit has no bearing on whether violation has occurred?

You're right that the lecturer is no different from a teacher in a classroom as far as fair use goes. But, can the teaching materials also be shielded by fair use? For example, handouts including a copy of a page of sheet music, a CD with copies of the subject lyrics from popular music, a DVD with copies of the subject scenes from movies.

One could argue that the DVD of the seminar are training materials, thus if it qualifies for fair use in the lecture hall as fair use, then it shouldn't it similarly qualify for fair use on the DVD?

BTW - I did some legal document scanning work for a few of the San Francisco area law firms back in the previous century. The most opulent, the most lavish, dripping with money firms were the ones who specialized in IP law.

Xjerx - On the Star Wars clip: Yes, if permission is required and fair use as determined by your IP lawyer doesn't apply, then ANY recognizable piece of the copyrighted work needs permissions. (I can name that tune in three notes). The real question, and only an IP lawyer can answer it, is - Does this work qualify as educational material thus likely shielded by fair use?

I generally consider you the unwashed expert on copyright since you have experienced both sides of the coin. But, can we agree that profit has no bearing on whether violation has occurred?
Absolutely, you're correct. If I implied otherwise, it's in error.
The point being, the DVD, paid or not paid, it's a violation. The lecturer however, can be paid or not paid, and if it's for educational, parody, social commentary, news...and a few very narrow other options, it generally falls into Fair Use. Here's an interesting twist...if the lyrics are printed in one of the above categories as part of a presented program, it's not illegal. However, if you print the lyrics on a DVD, you could, and would likely be, in violation. Consult an IP attorney. In SFO, there are LOTS of good ones. We've had really good experiences with Schnader in SFO.