Yes I see your point and I agree with you 100 percent....the artist
i used was Creed and they are no longer together as a group....
so I dunno what that means....but anyway...
I agree with everything you just said (sorry its been a long day!)
Crystal
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jen Simmons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Jan 19, 2006, at 7:35 AM, Crystal wrote:
>
> > Okay but how about Music? If I publish lets say stillshots with
> > background music of my favorite artist that goes along with the
> > pictures...and I have the CD so its not like I stole it off the
net.
> > Republish on the net...so every "can" see it. But yet its
mainly for
> > Friends and Family....
> >
> > is that breaking any laws?
> >
> > I mean its my CD so why can't i put MY pictures to music and
share
> > it with people??
>
> The answer: no one knows yet.
> The laws regarding use of copyrighted works were written to be
> intentionally vague. The plan was for the law to have a large grey
area
> so a judge could decide on a case-by-case basis what's right and
what's
> not. The world has changed a lot, very quickly, however, and this
new
> world we live in is, well, new! What does it mean for a ''regular
> person" to make a movie using protected work and put it on the
internet
> for a handful people to see?? I don't think a case like that has
ever
> come before a court for a decision, and since the laws passed by
> legislators and previous court cases don't deal with this issue,
then
> there is no law about it yet.
>
> Meanwhile not only has the internet changed broadcasting, and
computers
> have broken-down barriers to entry to creating films and media...
but
> also corporations have taken over more and more, buying up the
rights
> to more and more.
>
> Really I think there are two issues here:
> what is legal, and
> what is respectful.
>
> I see no need to respect the copyright on "Happy Birthday" (which
was
> owned by AOL/Time Warner... who's got it now?) If you are making a
> feature film to distribute in theaters, you have to buy the rights
to
> use the song -- and it's incredibly expensive. The song was
written in
> 1893 by Mildred and Patty Hill, with different words, and so the
> artists are long gone. AOL Time Warner is just using the legal
system
> and their power to make as much money as possible without regard
to
> what the song means to us as a culture. So... if I get together
with
> friends and sing happy birthday in a restaurant, I'm not going to
worry
> about paying a fee for a public performance of a song. That's
totally
> ridiculous. If we videotape the moment, and I post it to my
videoblog,
> I am also not going to worry about it. Of course, I don't want the
> wrath of AOL Time Warner lawyers upon me... I make less than $20k
a
> year, how in the world could I afford to defend myself in a
lawsuit....
> BUT A HA! I am not alone. I'm sure if I got a seizt and desist
letter
> from AOL, I could contact American University and all these non-
profits
> working on fair use and they would jump on the case, donating
their
> services and taking care of the thing for me. It would be a great
case
> to see happen, and could mean breaking the hold of these
ridiculous
> money-grabbers!!
>
> Meanwhile, at the same time, there are many examples where it's
grey as
> to whether or not I "have to" get permission to use someone else's
> work, but I decide I want to, because it's the right thing to do --
> it's the respectful thing to do. I can use my own judgment, and
not
> worry about "the law". If a local band is selling their first
album,
> it's great exposure for them if I use their song in my videoblog.
I'd
> make sure I credit them, and link to their band website where
people
> can find out where they are playing and buy their album. If I knew
> them, I'd probably let them know / ask them if it's okay. But for
me,
> if I didn't know them and didn't have time / felt too shy to find
them,
> I'd use their music anyway. It is great exposure for them -- if
Good
> Morning America wanted to do a spot on them, crediting them, but
> without paying them, I'm sure they'd be thrilled!!!
>
> If however, I had some project going where I was going to make
money --
> like I'm selling videos, and I take their music, and especially
don't
> credit them, but rather take advantage of a situation and even try
to
> pass off their art as my own -- well then I'm doing something
wrong. I
> say if it feels like stealing, then don't do it!! Even if you
could
> fight off a lawsuit and win. It's still wrong.
>
> But to your original question -- does every home-movie maker who
wants
> to use a mainstream song off a CD for their photo slide show or
movie
> of their kids have to worry about copyright violation?? I say no.
Apply
> created iPhoto and iMovie to let people do this very easily, and
did
> demonstrations of this very kind of project, and no one said, "hey
you
> have to get Madonna's permission to use her song with those
pictures of
> your dog". I think publishing the movie to the web is just a step
> further... and still should be allowed.
>
> Again, there is no law drawing the line in the digital sand. And
every
> record label (all 5 of them) will probably have a different policy
> about what to do about this. There may be some band or some label
that
> eventually decides to do something about this and sue. But I say,
bring
> it on -- what happened to freedom?? We have to defend our rights
if we
> have any hope of keeping any.
>
> jen
>
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/
