Question concerning 'fair use' (1 Viewer)

[Yee-Ming]

I'm not a US lawyer, but as far as I can see, actually it would be infringing. Having said that, if screen caps are taken and used in a review, for instance, then it would fall under fair use (I assume you lot have a journalistic review fair-use exception, if we do surely you do as well).

As for the Home Recording act, I'd caution against reading any single paragraph out of context of the rest of the Act (I'm obviously not familiar with it so can't comment right now). Again, as far as I can see, the quoted paragraph merely says that you can't use any particular provision in that Act to bring an action against a consumer using digital devices to make home recordings for non-commercial use. It doesn't appear to give carte-blanche and override anything else, in particular your copyright act (Title 107? I forget which one it is).

 

[Erik.Ha]

I agree with what yee-ming said.

(FYI- Copyright is title 17 USC. $107 is the fair use clause of 17 USC.)


Glenn- Artist to Film producer is a symbiotic relationship... The artist gets paid a big hunk o cash to use his song... In exchange he makes the film better. People see the film... love his song, and go out and buy the CD (Artist makes MORE money) or soundtrack (artist AND producer make more money) EVERYBODY IS HAPPY. As far as it being "greedy", thats not a word that has much purpose in a discusion like this. Greed is what drives a capitalist economy. If it weren't for greed (and groupies), there would be no artists making music in the first place.

 

[Rob Gardiner]

Then why have I not been asked to change my signature in the 2+ years I've been a member here? Is Jack Briggs breaking the law with his 2001 screen cap sig?

I find this entire thread incredibly amusing.

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

This one is easy. A show producer uses an artist's work because they feel it increases its artistic value somehow and enhances the ability to market thier show. The producer negotiates a royalty rate based on the intended use of the song - to accompany a broadcast TV show. They do not pay for the right to use it in other TV shows, in sneaker advertisements, at weddings, or for sale to the public. When the producer decides they want to exploit their show in a different way, ie sell copies on a home video format, they have to get the right to do so, and if they haven't negotiated for the rights up front, they need to do so before releasing. Obviously, if you, the songwriter/publisher, know that the value of your work has increased due to popularity, you would be foolish to take less than you can get for the right use your song in a home video format, especially when the entire point of the producer releasing in such a format is to generate additional income for the producer. Nobody is having it both ways, since the producer never paid for the new intended use of the song.

As for screen caps, yes they are copyright violations, but as long as they aren't for sale, they would be considered fair use, since (as arguments in the fair use test) they are not being used for the infringer's commercial gain, they are only using a very tiny fraction of the entire work, and they are being used for illustrative purposes, and they do not pose a threat to the marketability of the licensed product. Posting a screen cap for review purposes is a far cry from ripping an entire song to avoid paying for the legitimate CD, thereby creating a commercial gain for the infringer.

 

[Yee-Ming]

Jeff suggests that your (Rob's) screen cap may be fair use. It might well be, since there's no commercial use by you, and it's just an itty-bitty screencap on a discussion forum. Likewise Jack Briggs. As the US lawyers have already pointed out, only a jury in a trial can make the definitive determination whether or not your screen cap in this particular case is a fair use: lawyers can at best give you their opinion as to whether or not it is likely to be found to be fair use.

The fact that no one has asked you to change it is not the point; best analogy I can think of is, if you drive at 60mph in a 55mph zone, are you breaking the law? Yes, but if there are no cops around at the time, no one is going to tell you to slow down, or worse give you a ticket. Similarly, given the sheer amount of stuff out on the internet, copyright holders don't have time/resources to catch each and every instance of infringement.

Also, it can be counterproductive: fansites technically breach copyright when they dress it up with all the logos and music of the movie/TV show (leaving aside whether or not fair use applies), but if there's no commercial use, producers often leave it alone, since it serves as a free advertisement for their product anyway. Remember the hoo-ha when Lucasfilm cracked down a bit too hard on some Star Wars fansites?

 

[Thomas Newton]

Erik says:

There are no such "agreements" on any of the DVD-Video or CD-Audio discs that I have seen. Some of the CDs have printed words on the CD itself claiming that unauthorized lending is prohibited. This prohibition runs counter to public policy and carries no weight. (Unauthorized commercial rental of phonorecords is legally prohibited, but only because Congress carved out a special-case exemption in the First Sale Doctrine.)

 

[Erik.Ha]

Thomas:

1. Your Supreme Court quote is so COMPLETELY out of context as to be laughable. We both know that refers to reformatting copyrighted materials (such as books) into new formats (such as Braille or spoken word audio recordings for the blind), so that sight deprived people may be access the work... There is nothing that makes a DVD any more "convenient" for a blind person by ripping one of the songs off it. A blind person can just as easily go buy the soundtrack album if he likes the song... Knock it off.

2. Off the back of my Harry Potter and the chamber of secrets disk (the first one I happened to grab, but I guarantee something similar appears on the rest)

"Not Authorized for sale or rental outside the USA and Canada. This copyrighted product has been manufactured and distributed by Warner Home Video an AOL TW CO. and is authorized for sale or rental for private home use in the USA and canada ONLY (emphasis original). The sale or rental of this product outside the USA and Canada has NOT (emphasis original) been authorized by Warner, and is in direct violation of its written terms of trade. Federal law provides severe civil and criminal penalties for the unauthorized distribution, reproduction or exhibition of copyrighted motion pictures, videotapes or videodiscs."

Last frame of the end crawl-

"All materials protected by copyright laws of the United States, and all countries throughout the world. All rights reserved... Any unauthorized exhibition, distribution, or copying of this film or any part thereof (INCLUDING SOUNDTRACK) [emphasis added] is an infringment of the relevent copyright and will subject the infringer to severe civil and criminal penalties. "

Something like this appears on every film released... How do I know??? BECAUSE, I'm the guy (or one of them at least) who writes this stuff!

Off my Cure "Wish" CD (ditto reason above)-

"A Time Warner Co. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. UNAUTHORIZED DUPLICATION IS A VIOLATION OF APPLICABLE LAWS."

I have never seen the term "unauthorized lending" used anyplace. I have seen prohibitions against unauthorized "reproduction and duplication" which is again, what we're talking about... Where you got the idea that "unauthorized lending" had anything to do with this discussion is beyond me. You can lend your DVDs to anybody you like... You can sell them at a garage sale... What you CAN'T do, EVER, is sell, rent or lend the unauthorized copies you make!

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

You are also not legally entitled to keep any "backup" copies should you sell the original, since you have forfeited your right to use the content by transfering the ownership.

 

[Erik.Ha]

Jeff- I didn't know that... I knew you could make a "backup copy" for security purposes (mostly this is computer software, which I know NOTHING about) but I didn't know you had to throw them away when you got rid of the original... makes sense...