Re: [videoblogging] Various types of permission forms

[Randolfe Wicker]

Adrian Miles makes some interesting points.  However, most of his arguments evolve from the assumption that most vloggers have dreams of going on to commercial distribution.   I agree with Adrain regarding serious commercial syndication.  Some things people don't realize is that you can't even sing "Happy Birthday" without paying a pretty high licensing fee.  It is "shared knowledge" among filmmakers and documentary makers that one avoids having "Happy Birthday" sung in any of their scenes.   However, I think Adrian is amiss when he says: "Without clearance your material cannot be shown in awards/festivals and cannot be broadcast. Basically you don't want to be the person that is the first one pursued for this, because the industry will not play nicely."   I have had personal experience in this regard.  There is a documentary making the rounds called "Based on a True Story".  It has even gotten an award or two at film festivals.  At the core of this documentary is the filmmakers futile effort to get the fellow who robbed the bank in "Dog Day Afternoon" to agree to be interviewed for a set price.   In the documentary, the filmmaker uses tapes of conversations regarding negotiation and a series of photos he snapped on outings with the fellow who would never sign a release.  This was good enough to get accepted and played in film festivals.  However, I am assured by people working on a documentary on a related theme that "Based on a True Story" would never pass muster for commercial broadcast by a cable or television station or even for general theatrical release.   I published links to a series of articles on copyright at DV-info.net which spells out all these chilling details.   However, the average vlogger is unlikely to ever get into trouble for stuff he/she vlogs for free.  Yes, if they wanted to, those who owned the music, etc. could perhaps seek an injunction or cease and desist order (whatever the legal mumbo jumbo is called).  However, it would be a waste of time doing so and would not be worth the cost.   I have seen (and even envied) vlogs which used the vlogger's great familiarity with music to set a mood and create continuity between scenes.   When all is said and done, I really don't think an ordinary vlogger really has to worry about this "licensing" nonsense.  That is one of the nice things about the netherworld vlogosphere that we inhabit. ----- Original Message ----- From: Adrian Miles To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 6:29 AM Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Various types of permission forms around the 5/9/05 Randolfe Wicker mentioned about Re: [videoblogging] Various types of permission forms that: >Actually a lot of vloggers use music they don't have a license for >in their vlogs.  The fact is that no one bothers "suing them" >because their using the music has virtually no real impact. > this is nonsense. I can't say that strongly enough. Get slashdotted and your music will matter. Get shown via *any* commercial media and your music will matter. People once said this about anything on the web, it is not the case now. Just because big media haven't caught on, doesn't mean that when they do, they won't play serious catch up. >Yes, vlogging could be considered to be one step up from home >movies.  With vlogging you can share what might otherwise be home >movies with friends, even the whole world if the whole world was >interested enough to drop by and watch them. absolutely not. a home movie is played to your immediate family/friends in home. It is not broadcast/distributed. A blog is a publication. In video sales if you buy a home VHS tape and show it to a school group, you've broken the law. The home VHS is for home use only. The copy you buy for schools is for showing to a group and (usually) costs approx. 10 x the domestic cost. Such things exist and are standard practice. that this might be breached every now and then, just like photocopying a whole book because you can't get your own copy, doesn't make it legal. Minor moments don't matter, when it becomes a standard practice, it does. > >Technically, you might be right insofar as "legalities" are >concerned.  However, like those labels that they used to have on >cigarette packages which said it was illegal "not" to break them, a >lot of laws are really ignored. which is what napster thought. Which is what lots of low budget film makers thought until their film can't be legally shown anywhere. There *are* stories of people who have film screened, only to receive letter from legal firm requesting tens of thousands of dollars since that is how much the rights to the lyrics/music costs. I really think videobloggers are naive if they think these rules don't apply to them. Without clearance your material cannot be shown in awards/festivals and cannot be broadcast. Basically you don't want to be the person that is the first one pursued for this, because the industry will not play nicely. -- cheers Adrian Miles hypertext.RMIT <URL:http://hypertext.rmit.edu.au/vlog> SPONSORED LINKS Individual Fireant Explains YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS  Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.