>|> >>I hope this short sequence does not violate any copyright laws,
>|> >
>|> >How could it *not* violate copyright laws? I know you can quote short passages
>|> >from a book for review or academic purposes. Is there an equivalent law for
>|> >cinema?
>|>
>|> Yes, there is an equivalent law. It all falls under the copyright
>|> law. It makes no difference whether the thing protected by copyright
>|> is a book or movie. This use, if short, not produced for profit,
>|> and especially if used for educational purposes (i.e. used by those
>|> testing/writing MPEG players) would probably fall under the fair
>|> use doctrine. Note that's just my understanding of the law, and
>|> I know that there is a fairly rigorous test for 'fair use' but I don't
>|> have it in front of me at the moment.
It is true that the so-called fair use doctrine applies to all media, as
far as I know, but the "rigorous test" for fair use is one that has been
proposed but, as far as I know, has not yet been tested in court. Among
the criteria are: it is for educational use only, AND only an excerpt
that is no more than (as I remember) 10% of the original is used, AND
the excerpt doesn't otherwise form a whole (such as a story from a col-
lection) which could be used for other purposes.
Aside from fair use, film and video typically are special cases in
copyright because of special licensing restrictions that the owners of
the copyright typically place on their use. You will often see this
on tapes from your local video store. They say something like "This record-
ing is licensed for home use only..." What that means is that, by buying or
renting the movie, you agree to restrictions that the copyright holder
has placed on your use of their intellectual property. You can't show
it in your bar to attract customers, for example. Nor can you invite
more than a reasonable amount of friends over to your house to watch
it. I don't know if the courts have defined "a reasonable amount of
friends" yet, but, as in fair use, there is a working definition. These
licensing restrictions are especially worrisome for libraries who have
videos in their collection. A strict reading of the law would find them
in violation whenever someone views a video tape in the library.
Quote:>Actually, as I remember the latest version of the copyright law, there is a
>distinction between a few types of works and the entire rest of the sphere of
>copyrightable works. The exceptions included "dramatic musical works" (I
>believe), and was the basis, I think, of some legal proceedings against some
>United Methodist churches in the late 1980s. (The music to "Edelweiss"--from
>"The Sound of Music"--was used as a benediction, with words which differed from
>the original; I'd have thought that this might have been covered under the
>derivative works clauses...)
>Anyway, since "Jungle Book" is essentially an animated musical, it probably
>would have the same exceptions accorded it that any "dramatic musical work" would
>have. Better ask a lawyer's opinion, or look up the relevant US Code.
I haven't heard of the Methodist church case, but the only distinction be-
tween the copyrights of different types of works are "works for hire" and
other works. In the USA, virtually all film, television, and commercial
music is done on a "work for hire" basis. In this case, the filmmaker owns
the copyright outright; the composer sells his or her copyright. This fact
doesn't change the rights of the copyright holder, just who owns it.
You may be thinking of the distinctions of performance rights (live con-
cert or radio performance), mechanical rights (recording), synchronization
rights (film and television), and grand rights (theatrical performance)
in music. Basically, if you use recorded or live music in your restaurant,
for example, you have to pay fees to performance rights organizations
(such as ASCAP and BMI) for the right to use that composer's music. The
performance rights organization then distributes collected fees to the
composers. However, synchronization are typically sold outright when the
composer agrees to do a work for hire. (The USA is one of the only coun-
tries where this is true, and it is a direct legacy of the political clout
of the movie studios in the 1950's.) The movie studio then owns it and
controls all rights to further distribution and use.
Thus the only "exception" that dramatic musical works have (at least those
from films) is that they are probably owned by the studios, and not the
composers. All other restrictions associated with copyright remain. In
my opinion, digitizing part of a Disney film and putting on the net is
definitely a copyright violation. And, I might point out, Disney is one
of the most aggressive companies in the industry in seeking out and
prosecuting copyright and trademark violations.
Bill Alves
by