> This cartoon is a bit misleading; not all of these things are violations.
> There are two types of copyrights, the copyright of the song and the > copyright of the recording. > Actually, they could be. The only absolute voice on whether they are violations or not is the judge presiding over an infringement lawsuit. Copyright law only provides the template for what might fit as legal or not. As you say, most of the ASCAP/BMI covered situations are probably safe. The playing a radio in your car or whatever. But play that same radio while working a lemonade booth, and you could be sued for inlicensed public performance. Same with whistling/singing. If, as a customer, you sing Happy Birthday at a party in a resturaunt you're probably okay. But if it's the employees coming out to sing it, then the company could be sued for conducting a public performance. > Happy Birthday is old enough to be in public domain and is exempt from > any such fees. Nope. It's covered under the recent extension of copyright. http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/birthday.htm > I'm not sure how singing Christmas Carols (not in public domain) door to > door plays out since you are not in a specific venue. I would assume that > this would fall under fair use. Nope, that's not fair use. That's a performance, and it doesn't need a venue. Fair use pretty much only covers the need to comment and criticize. That allows for educators and people to use something for educational purposes to exemplify a point, and for satirists to rip on. And then determining Fair Use also breaks down into questions like how much of the original was used. The more of it, the more likely it's a violation. The lack of a venue probably also opens you up to municiple laws regarding public performance without a permit. It reminds me of the kid's lemonade stand that the city had to shut down because of no permit. > Making a single mix CD for friends or lovers is perfectly acceptable This is one of the points being debated by the RIAA. We know that mix tapes were permitted and that there's even a surcharge on the media to cover this. But with exact bit-copies, the RIAA contends that it's a different situation. A coworker had an opportunity to talk first-hand with a MPAA lawer about DVD copying and Fair Use for educators. The lawyer's position was that copying the DVD was illegal, but he would permit an educator that wanted to use the footage for a Fair Use example in class using a video camera to tape what was displayed on the TV. That was, in his view, the most legal option because it still presented the content but the loss of quality ensured that it wasn't of value. -Kevin ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm
