fair use, copyright, license, sync here’s a note from another thread that got started. Thought it might be good to post it here as well. There are discussions within fair use for educational and documentary use in specific circumstances that you can use 10% or 30 seconds.
“Use 10% of a song, not to exceed 30 seconds, and do not show the finished video out of the classroom. Do not duplicate,distribute, broadcast, webcast or sell it. Proper attribution must be given when using copyrighted materials. i.e. “I Am Your Child” written by Barry Manilow/Martin Panzer. BMG Music/Swannee Bravo Music. The opening screen of the project must include a notice that “certain materials are included under the fair use exemption and have been used according to the multimedia fair use guidelines”. Your fair use of material ends when the project creator (student or teacher) loses control of the project’s use: e.g. when it is distributed, copied or broadcast”
But this is a very specific use. NOT for a commercial project.
If you are manufacturing and distributing copies of a song which you did not write, and you have not already reached an agreement with the song’s publisher, you need to obtain a mechanical license. This is required under U.S. Copyright Law, regardless of whether or not you are selling the copies that you made. You do not need a mechanical license if you are recording and distributing a song you wrote yourself, or if the song is in the public domain.
Also for Film/broadcast/new media ( anything locked to picture) you need a Sync license from one of the following
U.S. Copyright Office
A music synchronization license – or sync license, for short – is a music license that allows the license holder to “sync” music to some kind of media output. Often sync licenses are used for TV shows and movies, but any kind of visual paired with sound requires a sync license. A sync license gives you the right to use a song and sync it with a visual in that when you hold a sync license, you are allowed tore-record that song for use in your project. If you want to use a specific version of the song by a specific artist, you also need to get a master recording license. Typically, a sync license is obtained from a music publisher while the master recording license is obtained by from the record label or owner of the master. A sync license covers a specific period of time, and the license will stipulate how the song can be used. There is one flat fee involved in obtaining a sync license, and once the license is in place, the song can be used as stipulated as many times within the license period as the license holder likes. In other words, if you obtain a sync license and use the song in a film, you do not have to pay a fee on the sync every time the film is viewed.
Also, Master use rights are required for previously recorded material that you do not own or control.
A sample is typically the use of an excerpt of a sound recording embodying a copyrighted composition inserted in another sound recording. This process is often referred to as digital sampling and requires licenses for the use of the portion of the composition and the sound recording that was re-used in the new sound recording. In some instances, artists re-record the portion of the composition used in the new recording and, therefore, only need to obtain a license for the use of the sampled composition.
There are occasions where FAIR USE comes into play for Documentary and educational films… here’s a PDF of some fair use issues. Lots of good fair use details here: Fair Use& Copyright: — Center for Social Media at American University
btw even Weird Al gets permissions for his parody material.
And what happens when you want to write music that is itself a form of criticism? What if you want to make a literal quotation but the copyright holder does not want to be a party to such criticism? Should such criticism be possible only with textual products and not musical ones? Or should music, too, be a viable basis of cultural criticism?
Here the courts said that there is fair use when quoting music, despite the protestations of Yoko Ono over the use of Imagine.
If we must, by default, seek maximal permission for our musical creations and enterprises, then we should expect “dangerous” music to go underground, and only “safe” music to be mainstream. I cannot think of a more insidious way to destroy the cultural value of music.
the court ruled on this based on the movie being a social commentary about intelligent design. ( therefore a documentary/news/educational piece if you will… ) The ruling has nothing to do with the tune or music unto itself what-so-ever… safe , dangerous or otherwise….
It’s all about how something was used and with what. not the something itself. the whole fight could have been over a picture, or a poem, or a video, or a document, any copyrightable widget…. it’s got nothing to do directly with the song.
ms georgia hilton mpse cas