And as a matter of fact, that example constituted Fair Use.
That case is actually pretty famous as I recently learned, and it
wasn't because the right necessarily needed to be cleared, but that
distributors often require that works be over-cleared. This is because
their insurance providers demand it.
-josh
On 3/16/06, hpbatman7 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I became numb reading the comic.it was very good stuff and
it really does highlight what is wrong with the current copyright
situation..$10,000 for a 4 1/2 second clip of the Simpson's
playing in the background in a documentary...that is just
freakin stupid.I am left speechless, I really am..
Heath - Batman Geek
http://batmangeek7.blogspot.com
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Andy Carvin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hi everyone,
Sorry if this has been posted already (man, it's hard to keep up
with
you guys), but I just wanted to post a note about a must-read
comic book
on copyright and fair use.
The Center for the Study of the Public Domain, in an effort to
educate
content producers about the realities of copyright, have published
an
amazing comic book called Tales from the Public Domain: Bound by
Law?
(http://www.law.duke.edu/cspd/comics/) The comic book, available
in
various digital formats as well as on paper, is an entertaining,
highly
informative about the often-confusing world of copyright law.
The book follows the story of a documentary maker putting together
a
film about life in New York City. (Trapped by a STRUGGLE she
didn't
understand By day a FILM MAKER... By night she fought for FAIR
USE!) As she's gone around and captured scenes for her film,
she's also
picked up incidental uses of other people's work - a saxophonist
playing
a song, a sign in the background with a company logo, public TV
screens
showing images of Bart Simpson. These scenes are a reality of
modern
life, yet they're a nightmare for documentary producers. As the
comic
book notes, one producer was forced to remove footage that
featured
someone whose mobile phone ringtone happened to be the theme to
the
movie Rocky because they couldn't afford to pay the song's
publisher
$10,000 for including it. In other cases, important works like the
civil
rights documentary Eyes on the Prize get locked away for years
because
the producers couldn't afford to pay for the clearance rights of
incidental music. (Thankfully, Eyes on the Prize will finally air
again
on PBS this fall, after years of fundraising to pay for clearance
fees.)
The question is, who's in the right? When does the incorporation
of
someone else's creative work into a new work constitute fair use,
and
when does it cross the line?
Page after page, the comic goes through examples of producers
who've
found themselves in difficult circumstances because they allowed
themselves to get pushed around by big-media lawyers - even when
their
use of someone else's content is justifiably fair use. It's
intended to
give producers confidence when it comes to using someone's content
in a
fair use context, explaining when the law is on their side and
when it
isn't.
Read more here:
http://www.andycarvin.com/
permalink:
http://www.andycarvin.com/archives/2006/03/fighting_copyright_i.html
--
--
Andy Carvin
acarvin (at) edc . org
andycarvin (at) yahoo . com
http://www.digitaldivide.net
http://www.andycarvin.com
--
Yahoo! Groups Links
Yahoo! Groups Links
* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/
* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
