Video editors do you use copy righted music from commercial artist

[TheCaptain 2]

After reading this August edition of Parachutist, "Camera Corner, Copyright on th Drop Zone", it got me thinking about the videos edited (for profit) for tandems and others using commercial artist music. Now with youtube.com and other sources these videos are now being boadcast on the web, I wonder how many video editors have thought about this, and what their conclusions were?

Kirk
He's dead Jim

[padu 0]

That's a really good question...

I read the article yesterday, and seeing that the record industry is going after lyrics websites, it got me concerned.

Where I used to work as a videoman, people would bring their own soundtracks (usually some van halen song), which under my understanding, doesn't free you from the copyright liability.

Una volta che avrete imparato a Volare, camminerete sulla terra guardando il cielo perchè è là che siete stati ed è là che vorrete tornare.

[TheCaptain 2]

After reading the article, I went on the web and started searching for royalty free music. Some of the sites are rather expensive $99 per song and they really were not that good, I did find this royalty free that was more reasonable $47 per song and I found some that I thought were not too bad.

Hey if other people have a better site to get royalty free music, could you post it.

Kirk
He's dead Jim

[padu 0]

Or it could be a good opportunity to learn how to make your own music

Una volta che avrete imparato a Volare, camminerete sulla terra guardando il cielo perchè è là che siete stati ed è là che vorrete tornare.

[yarak 0]

Its my understanding that its perfectly legal to use others music in something like a tandem video. First of all you arent mass producing this product and selling it in stores. So i doubt anyone will ever care. It wouldnt be worth sueing you for. Also, the copyright laws are full of "grey" area. I read one that states as long as the copyrighted material wasnt the primary content that it was legal to use. So basically as long you arent marketing it as a "van Halen music video" you would be in the clear.

I think it falls under something called public domain.
ITs been a long time since I looked into it. I dont feel like spending another 2 days of my life trying to learn copyright law. I do know I talked to alot of people in the communications and production business. The consensus was "dont worry about it"

I'll huff and I'll puff and I'll burn your fucking packing tent down.

[stratostar 5]

www.studioland.com/IMPACTCompilationSamples.htm

Try something like these guys so you don't pay so much, can be found on ebay too.

you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

[PhreeZone 20]

Wow.. i can't even begin to describe how wrong you are in the legal aspect of that opinion.

For starters look up Sync Licencing This type of licence is needed any time you are linking one piece of work to another. In this case it would be the copywritten music to the tandem video. There is no grey area in this matter, if you want to have Van Halen linked to your video this is the type of licence you would need to buy. Public Domain is basically somethhing that no one can hold the copyright on it anymore. Examples are classical music pieces from the 1600's, no one can own the copyright on the music but they can own it on the recordings. No music being used on tandem videos is Public Domain/

For your average tandem video you would need master rights from the record company for the song just be be able to play the song. Then you'd need Sync Licensing since its matched up to a second piece of work also. If you edited the music (fades, cuts, shortended it, etc) you would need permission to edit the master. You would also need public performance rights if it's being "broadcast" on YouTube. And lastly, you would need to pay a mechanical royalty for every download of the video from YouTube.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[padu 0]

That's right.

The point is not being outlaw or not (thing that we have been already for many many years), but if the youtube phenomenon will increase our fear of being prosecuted to the point we change our way of doing stuff...


Personal view: if it's only me, the video guy and the tandem passenger, I'd play whatever song I or the passenger likes....

but if I were the DZO and video was offered by my company, I'd definitely be more concerned.

Una volta che avrete imparato a Volare, camminerete sulla terra guardando il cielo perchè è là che siete stati ed è là che vorrete tornare.

[PhreeZone 20]

As a video editor you've got concerns also since it is now a felony at more then like 10 copyright violations so that means jail time plus the civil judgement at around $1000 per violation. In a given tandem video you could have 2-3 violations, multiply that out over all the tandem videos you shoot in a year and it might be 300-600 violations easy, more if you mix up your music all the time or have leaders/trailers on the videos that have music on them too.

The RIAA is already going after nightclubs and places that run jukeboxes for copyright infringements, its only a matter of time before they work their way down to smaller fish to fry. YouTube is doing things like blanket licencing for certian labels to prevent lawsuits since they have already been filed.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[DSE 5]

Quote

Its my understanding that its perfectly legal to use others music in something like a tandem video. First of all you arent mass producing this product and selling it in stores. So i doubt anyone will ever care. It wouldnt be worth sueing you for. Also, the copyright laws are full of "grey" area. I read one that states as long as the copyrighted material wasnt the primary content that it was legal to use. So basically as long you arent marketing it as a "van Halen music video" you would be in the clear.

I think it falls under something called public domain.
ITs been a long time since I looked into it. I dont feel like spending another 2 days of my life trying to learn copyright law. I do know I talked to alot of people in the communications and production business. The consensus was "dont worry about it"

Copyright laws as relate to what most of the people in this community do aren't "grey" at all. There is zero ambiguity. If you see ambiguity, it's because you intentionally seek it, and wish to seek loopholes in rules.
Copyright violation is now criminal *and* civil action, and the DZ is equally culpable as you, the editor are for copyright violations.
Having the tandem student bring you a CD doesn't absolve you. Believing the song has been "around for 20 years" doesn't absolve you. Thinking that a song is worthless doesn't absolve you.

It's good to have this discussion, however from the perspective of a moderator, I'm hopeful folks can keep it civil, productive, and intelligent. We're not going to debate the merits of copyright law, there are other communities for that. Please keep the discussion related to how you intend or already are, managing copyright issues.

Incidentally, there are HUNDREDS of free-use copyright libraries online, plus loads of free creative tools. At our DZ, we use a combination of my own products (TrackPacks) royalty free music, and music I've specifically written using Sony ACID and Cakewalk SONAR.

[BMFin 0]

At our DZ we use royalty free music.

We have been thinking of using copyrighted music and paying the royalties. Why dont you have that option in the poll ?

[VectorBoy 0]

Incidentally, there are HUNDREDS of free-use copyright libraries online, plus loads of free creative tools. At our DZ, we use a combination of my own products (TrackPacks) royalty free music, and music I've specifically written using Sony ACID and Cakewalk SONAR.

[DSE 5]

yeah, well...using software from the Commodore Club won't put your DZ in jeopardy of a large lawsuit, and won't put you at personal risk, either.
For some, it's a matter of being legal. As a musician with several hundred copyrighted works, it's a matter of ethics and respecting the rights of others.
Norman Kent is a dear friend; so is Laszlo. I'd never consider using one of their photographs without their express permission. I have several photos Laszlo took of me; you've never seen em' on the web because I haven't ever asked his permission. Same with Scotty Burns and others.
I respect their work, and expect others to respect mine.

[HSPScott 0]

DSE,

Can you point us in the direction of some good royalty free sites?

[DSE 5]

http://www.vasst.com/?V=royalty_free.htm
not complete by any means, and hasn't been updated in over a year...
it's also in the sticky.

[frost 1]

Quote

Can you point us in the direction of some good royalty free sites?

yes! It's called Google.com

To OP and others: With all these probably valid concerns and legal issues, are you sure there's been an actual case against a skydiving video editor on a copyright infringement? Any other similar venture "small time" video editors and private video makers? I went through the listing of leading legal cases in copyright law in the US (other countries are available too) and didnt find one.

I am not saying you need to wait for a tandem video dude to get prosecuted to have these concerns about using copyrighted music answered...

[kefran 0]

i am just wondering : let's say i use a song from a known band on a personal skydive video (not tandem ...) If i write the band an e:mail providing a link to my video (not public yet) and they say it's okay to use the song ... am I okay with the copyrights stuff ?
(keeping in mind that i won't sale the video ...)

--------------------------------------------------
I never used 2 rocks to start a fire ... this is called evolution !

[DSE 5]

Quote

i am just wondering : let's say i use a song from a known band on a personal skydive video (not tandem ...) If i write the band an e:mail providing a link to my video (not public yet) and they say it's okay to use the song ... am I okay with the copyrights stuff ?
(keeping in mind that i won't sale the video ...)

Usually the answer is 'NO."
Bands rarely, if ever, entirely own their publishing. Usually publishing is shared between the record label, band, and publisher. Sometime the band is their own publisher, sometimes the label has a publishing arm, and sometimes it's a third party. But in most events, permission from two of the three is required to publish/license.
The guys in Nickelback are friends. They gave me verbal and emailed permission to use a piece of their music. I jokingly mentioned this to my publisher (same as theirs) and she freaked. I explained the use, and she calmed down a 'little.' It's more the merit and instance they're worried about than the actual prosecution.

Not one skydiving editor/dropzone/videographer has been nailed yet. Without web-video and UGC sites, it's unlikely no one ever would/will be prosecuted. That all changed with song spiders, youtube, yadayada. No one had ever been zapped for uploading songs until the first one, either. Ask the Captain how/why that one went down. I believe the first person to suffer a judgement was chosen carefully to make a hard point, while giving some leeway as to how it would be managed to be compensated.

There is always a first. Our industry (on the whole) is generally only a few bills above solvent. is it really worth the risk to find out if you're going to be the first. aside from any other reasoning?

[The111 1]

Quote

No one had ever been zapped for uploading songs until the first one, either. Ask the Captain how/why that one went down. I believe the first person to suffer a judgement was chosen carefully to make a hard point, while giving some leeway as to how it would be managed to be compensated.

What does this mean? Who's the Captain? Who was first?

Quote

Our industry (on the whole) is generally only a few bills above solvent.

And this?

www.WingsuitPhotos.com

[DSE 5]

The Captain is an attorney involved in a precedent-setting copyright case in the US.
Dropzones aren't massive profit centers. OK, maybe a couple are, but most are eeking by...It won't take much of a legal action to close any average dropzone. In other words, "not much above solvent."

[NickDG 23]

Don't think on a DZ to DZ basis . . .

Think back to the 90s. Then think USA wide. How many tandem vids were sold with "Freefalling" on them. A hundred thousand? Five hundred thousand? A million?

That represents a major theft and loss of revenue to old Tommy and the Heartbreakers.

I always thought sooner or later USPA would get sued over this as it's their members doing the stealing.

Might still happen someday . . .

Do Rappers sue?

NickD

[stratostar 5]

Quote

Do Rappers sue?

Some shoot, some sue. The ones with real money sue and the ones without real money shoot.

you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

[padu 0]

Una volta che avrete imparato a Volare, camminerete sulla terra guardando il cielo perchè è là che siete stati ed è là che vorrete tornare.

[CrazyL 0]

Poor old Tommy and the Heartbreakers are having to go out on tour to make a buck. Was just working with some of ol' Tommy's tour gear today, duplicating parts of his set. Getting him set up for 2 back to back shows. Shows are so close together and so far apart, he's going big! Tommy's working hard for his money. I could send him a message to see if he's ready to do some 'freefall'n' on his day off and see what music he'd choose for a tandem video! Think he'd choose 'freefalln' performed by yours truly, or 'jump' by Van Halen? Check out his tour dates and go give him some support! 12 tour stops left! Irvine show on the 22nd of August. Soon

[The111 1]

Quote

The Captain is an attorney involved in a precedent-setting copyright case in the US.

Who took the photo of William Shatner in his avatar? And what's the copyright status of the youtube video his sig links to? No offense Cap, just stirrin' the pot.
Would genuinely be interested in hearing more about the case Spot mentions.

www.WingsuitPhotos.com