Audio in youtube videos

#1
I have bookmarked a WSS video some time ago. When I did so, it had sound. Then I got on youtube several months later, decided to watch my bookmarks again, and the sound in that one video was disabled because of some copyright issues, apparently. Does this mean that all dance videos on youtube are in danger of losing their sound?

I've uploaded a competition video recently because I needed to show someone interested in buying my dress what it looked like when it was used for american smooth, and when it finished processing, it ended up with a note "potential matching copyrighted material detected (music compilation). No action on your part is required. If you believe this notice is an error, you may dispute it" (not quite exact wording, but that's the gist of it). So now what?
 
#3
Here's what the notice said:

"Your video, ****** , may include content that is owned or administered by these entities:

* Entity: Music Publishing Rights Collecting Society Content Type: Musical Composition

What should I do?

No action is required on your part. Your video is still available worldwide. In some cases ads may appear next to your video.

What can I do about my video's status?

Please note that the video's status can change, if the policies chosen by the content owners change. You may want to check back periodically to see if you have new options available to you.

Under certain circumstances, you may dispute this copyright claim. These are:

* if the content is mistakenly identified and is actually completely your original creation;
* if you believe your use does not infringe copyright (e.g. it is fair use under US law);
* if you are actually licensed by the owner to use this content."
 
#4
I think YouTube automatically ran audio ID check on your video and thinks audio (music) is copyrighted. I found a short overview of this process here (remove spaces):

w w w.youtube.com/t/contentid

I don't think you are in any "trouble" because of copyright violation. I've seen other ballroom videos in which audio was removed. Kind of weird watching without audio. I'd say music in any YouTube (dance) videos are subject to this action if automated audio ID check thinks it's copyrighted.
 

ctdev

New Member
#5
I've been filing a dispute with YouTube whenever that happens with my videos of practice sessions or competitions (simply explaining that it's backround music & probably owned by whoever was playing it), & YouTube removed the message
 
#6
I've been filing a dispute with YouTube whenever that happens with my videos of practice sessions or competitions (simply explaining that it's backround music & probably owned by whoever was playing it), & YouTube removed the message
But does the license held by the studio or competition include rights to broadcast the music on YouTube?
 
#7
I recently uploaded one dance video with music to YouTube and got the same warning messages that TTD did, but the sound is still there. It's been about a month and nothing has happened to remove audio, although it probably could be removed at any time. I also uploaded a 2nd dance video with music, got the warning message again and audio was immediately removed by YouTube. It showed a different set of copyright owners for 2nd video. So apparently depends on who owns music and what their policy is whether audio is immediately removed. Btw, I removed the 2nd video from YouTube. Didn't want to have a silent dance video.
 

Warren J. Dew

Well-Known Member
#8
But does the license held by the studio or competition include rights to broadcast the music on YouTube?
The hotel or studio should have the rights to have the music played at their events. There is an old district court ruling that suggests it's okay to broadcast audiovisual recordings of public events, which may apply to some youtube videos.
 
#9
I recently uploaded one dance video with music to YouTube and got the same warning messages that TTD did, but the sound is still there. It's been about a month and nothing has happened to remove audio, although it probably could be removed at any time. I also uploaded a 2nd dance video with music, got the warning message again and audio was immediately removed by YouTube. It showed a different set of copyright owners for 2nd video. So apparently depends on who owns music and what their policy is whether audio is immediately removed. Btw, I removed the 2nd video from YouTube. Didn't want to have a silent dance video.
Just out of curiousity, what was the offending song and who owned it, if you remember?
 
#10
This is a huge grey area and no-one can give you a concrete answer not even the record companies
I don't think it's a gray area...I sure the record companies would not include the upload of videos as within any form of copywrite allowance without specific payment for the intended use...the only allowance that would not be a gray area, but included extended use would be for a broadcast company, film company, internet company that would acquire music for say a TV show like Dancing with the Stars, where the use would include rebroadcast for other outlets such as internet... promotion, ect. but that would be part of the agreement for the use of the music...i.e. scope of usage

But does the license held by the studio or competition include rights to broadcast the music on YouTube?
No, it doesn't...the right to use music for other purposes wouldn't be included...the contract is specific for the use that the studio agreed to in order to obtain the music and the agreement encompasses what scope or latitude that use includes which wouldn't include other forms of broadcast

many of the issues for YouTube are the same as A&M Records, Inc. V. Napster...Napster tried to use a fair use file sharing argument which was completely rejected by the court...YouTube wouldn't have any additional protections (beyond those arguments that Napster used) simply because they include video with audio...record companies may allow certain uses for business purposes or other reasons for allowance (to sell downloads via Amazon as an example), but that would be the decision of the record company that owns the rights as to how they allow that usage or if YouTube has specific agreements with those (record) companies that own the rights
 
#11
The hotel or studio should have the rights to have the music played at their events. There is an old district court ruling that suggests it's okay to broadcast audiovisual recordings of public events, which may apply to some youtube videos.
This doesn't make any sense...'an old district court ruling' wouldn't apply or be upheld in right uses on YouTube...the most relevant ruling would be A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster...it's obvious from the post that YouTube is upholding current law with regard to rights usage...recording a public event might allow you to use the recording on personal basis, but I can't imagine that such a ruling would offer wide latitude rebroadcast...if it did, it already has been rendered invalid by a higher court or later rulings...nor have you seen anyone rebroadcasting without rights by using a 'public events' exemption (if this were standing law everyone would be claiming this exemption)
 
#12
further example

It recently appeared on the forum an issue regarding Championship Ballroom Dancing or American's Ballroom Challenge on PBS...as to why it was not available on video (for sale by PBS), and the reason was given by the show's producers (and I already know this as well) that they do not own the rights for the music use at OSB for VHS or DVD distribution. Every year PBS purchases rights for music from the major companies that contract rights usage such as ASCAP etc. The reason PBS can broadcast the music at the Ohio Star Ball is because they (PBS) purchase those rights for broadcast, but the show cannot afford to purchase rights for VHS or DVD distribution under a separate agreement...that's why there has never been a DVD or VHS available. The purchase of the rights to use the music includes the scope under which the rights may be used...i.e. for broadcast only not for alternative distribution such as DVD sales. That would require another agreement and terms under which rights holders would be paid for usage.
 
#13
Just out of curiousity, what was the offending song and who owned it, if you remember?
For the YouTube clip that they didn't remove audio (yet), I'm not sure which song it was, because there was more than one song in video clip. Video clip is about 30 years old. I could have broken up video clip and resubmited to determine which song(s), but didn't want to because I thought would mess up overall video.

Remove space in www below.

w w w.youtube.com/watch?v=aeG2Jlp_FvI

Here's what they said about owners:

Entity: Music Publishing Rights Collecting Society Content Type: Musical Composition
Entity: EMI Publishing and Warner Chappell Content Type: Musical Composition

I don't remember about other video clip in which audio was removed, but it was another 30 year old dance video clip.
 

Warren J. Dew

Well-Known Member
#14
This doesn't make any sense...'an old district court ruling' wouldn't apply or be upheld in right uses on YouTube...the most relevant ruling would be A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster...it's obvious from the post that YouTube is upholding current law with regard to rights usage...recording a public event might allow you to use the recording on personal basis, but I can't imagine that such a ruling would offer wide latitude rebroadcast...if it did, it already has been rendered invalid by a higher court or later rulings...nor have you seen anyone rebroadcasting without rights by using a 'public events' exemption (if this were standing law everyone would be claiming this exemption)
The case is Italian Book Corporation v. American Broadcast Companies, Inc.. The fact that it's a district court ruling means it doesn't have strict precedential value outside the relevant court district, however it was not appealed and has never been challenged, and there are few enough cases in this area that many law school textbooks cite the case as relevant case law.

The case was one in which ABC broadcast, on a news program, an audiovisual recording of a public performance of a song whose copyright was owned by Italian Book Corporation. ABC won based on the broadcast being fair use. Some relevant issues making it fair use were:

- The song was "incidental" to the broadcast, which was reporting on the festival in which the performance occurred.

- ABC had no control over what songs would be played at the festival and inclusion of the song was not intended to circumvent copyright.

- The broadcast did not compete economically with the market for the song.

None of those issues apply to the Napster case; songs on Napster were the primary work being distributed, downloaders had control over which songs they wanted to download, and the downloading competed directly with sales of the copyrighted works.

In addition, the Napster situation would also be covered by new provisions in the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, which governs the making of copies digitally; "music videos" that often appear on Youtube would probably also be covered by the DMCA. In contrast, the Italian Book situation involved sound waves recorded from the air, not digital copying, and that's also true for the videos we're talking about here, so those cases would not be covered by those provisions of the DMCA.

To me it seems like the Italian Book case is more like the situation where one posts videos of one's own competition performances. I suspect Youtube agrees, and that's why they remove the warnings when ctdev tells them the music is "background music".
 
#15
At issue is what constitutes Fair Use?

You didn't include the name of the case before...

The case is Italian Book Corporation v. American Broadcast Companies, Inc.. The fact that it's a district court ruling means it doesn't have strict precedential value outside the relevant court district, however it was not appealed and has never been challenged, and there are few enough cases in this area that many law school textbooks cite the case as relevant case law.
What I could find about the case has a major flaw in your argument

(Italian Book Corp, v. American Broadcasting Co., 458 F. Supp. 65 (S.D. N.Y. 1978).) The judge ruled that this was fair use because only a small part of the song was used, the song was relevant to the news event, and the broadcast did not damage the composer or the market for the work.
There was only a small part of the song used...the reason it didn't damage the market for the work was because a small part of the song was used...you can't say I listened to ten seconds of song X on news broadcast therefore that satisfied my desire for wanting to here song X therefore I don't have to purchase it

I didn't know what case you were talking about...why would this be challenged as you say this has no relevance to YouTube issue at hand...the case makes perfect sense

News outlets couldn't pay for every partial use of song that might be incidentally recorded at a news event

When you say it's background music your still violating the ownership rights of the creator...you are trying to subvert the ownership of the creator

Why are some music tracks removed? You say they got away with it because they claimed it is background music, but that doesn't always work

Saying something is background music constitutes 'Fair use'...so you main riding distinction between what was a very limited case Italian Book Corporation v. ... and the A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster is at the heart of the issue which is what constitutes fair use...

Fair Use Defense

In order for Napster to be liable for contributory infringement, the users of the service had to be infringing directly. The issue presented to the Ninth Circuit was whether the Napster's users were engaged in fair use. When considering an affirmative defense of fair use in the United States, a court must consider the following four factors outlined in the fair use section of the United States Code, 17 U.S.C. §107: (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The court first considered these four factors on an abstract level of the system itself. They agreed with the District Court's finding that downloading an MP3 is not transformative under the purpose and nature of use factor, and that even though Napster didn't directly benefit financially from users' downloads (i.e., charge for the service), "repeated and exploitative copying of copyrighted works, even if the copies are not offered for sale" could be considered a commercial use. The court also affirmed the district court's finding that creative works, such as the songs in question, are "closer to the core" of intended copyright protection" than non-creative works, thus favoring the plaintiffs on the second factor. They considered the potential that in some cases, wholesale copying of a work may be protected, noting time-shifting as an example. Finally, the Ninth Circuit agreed with the district court's finding that widespread wholesale transfer of plaintiff's music negatively affected the market for CD sales and that it also jeopardizes the record industry's future in digital markets.
The court then turned to the three uses Napster identified as fair use in the conduct of its users:

  1. sampling, where users make temporary copies of a work to sample it before purchase, which the District Court found to be a commercial use even if a user purchases the work at a later time. Sampling was deemed to not be a fair use, because the "samples" were in fact permanent and complete copies of the desired media.
  2. space shifting, where users access a sound recording through the Napster system that they already own in audio CD format; here the District Court found that neither of the shifting analyses used in the Sony or RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia cases applied in this case because the "shifting" in neither case included or enabled distribution. The space-shifting argument did not succeed because, while the shift to a digital format may have been a personal storage use, it was accompanied by making the file available to the rest of the system's users.
  3. permissive distribution of recordings by both new and established artists who have authorized their music to be disseminated in the Napster system, which the District Court ruled was not an infringing use and could continue, along with chat rooms and other non-distributory features of Napster.
By contrast, the court found that the owners of Napster could control the infringing behavior of users, and therefore had a duty to do so. The Ninth Circuit affirmed this analysis, finding that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in proving that Napster did not have a valid fair use defense.
The case of A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster centered on the very issue at hand...What constitutes fair use? And rejected a number of arguments (not identical) but similar to yours...the fact it not a direct digital copy......among those rejected:

very similar tactics to claim a fraudulent fair use

sampling and space shifting...

the only allowable use was in cases where the author or performers gave direct rights to use the material...

I don't see how use as you defined it and quite dissimilar from the Italians Book Corporation case would uphold fair use by the excuse that it not a direct digital transference therefor it becomes fair use especially when the court found the other methods of circumvention for "fair use"...sampling and space shifting were fraudulent attempts to circumvent the owners right to their work

As I said if the Italian Book Corporation case were a broad latitude to claim fair use because it's background music people would be using the exemption all the time...nobody other than the very narrow exemption in the case is used i.e. a news outlet who uses a small piece of song as distant background noise (people talking over it, etc.), what's to challenge?

Example revisited- If PBS wants to release a DVD or VHS of Americas Ballroom Challenge or Championship Ballroom Dancing why don't they do it they could claim it just was background music recorded on a microphone (...and additionally whether your paying for the DVD or they give it away for free would be immaterial to the copyright violation)

I'm sure Aida Morena (the EP) and WGBH in Boston (the show's distributor) know what the law is

If you posting songs on YouTube even if [1] you including video and [2] it is recorded on a microphone instead of 'direct download' or 'digital transfer'...you getting enjoyment of the use from the creators work and it is still a copyright violation

Additionally, in Napster another important issue at hand...the fact that they didn't financial benefit from the downloading, which was immaterial to whether a copyright violation occurred

irregardless of the Italian Book Corporation case and its narrow reading...courts have upheld that recording by microphone and distribution is still a copyright violation...method of transference was not an issue in the Italian Book Corporation case like the space shifting example from A&M Records, Inc v. Napster...further reproduction of a work by method other than digital reproduction still constitutes a copyright violation this has been upheld over and over (try taping a movie in movie theater and then distributing over the web for free...not a copyright violation?)

also, we haven't even touched on whether such uses of videos on YouTube of dances with music are 'public events'
 

Warren J. Dew

Well-Known Member
#16
There was only a small part of the song used...the reason it didn't damage the market for the work was because a small part of the song was used...you can't say I listened to ten seconds of song X on news broadcast therefore that satisfied my desire for wanting to here song X therefore I don't have to purchase it
If you read the actual opinion, you'll see that your source misrepresents it. The actual opinion doesn't say "a small part", though it does say "portions"; its reasoning turns on the fact that the use of the song was "incidental" to the purpose of the newscast, not on how much was used. Case law generally indicates that the limit is the minimum amount of the material that is needed to fulfill the transformative purpose. If your purpose is to film an entire dance, that includes however much of the song is danced to, even if it's the whole song - but you can't, for example, use any of the song where you could paste a different song instead without changing the value of the work.

Copyright law isn't as simple as you make out - as Chris says, it's one huge grey area.
 
#17
Youtube isn't Napster. Songs put out to Napster and similar were specifically meant to be downloaded by others, and they contained nothing else but the song itself. Soundtrack in youtube videos is often a background audio, and in case of dance videos it might not even be the entire song (like if it's a competition, you'd have the first 75-90 seconds of it, and the competitions play music they're licensed to play, so the copyright holders already got their $$ once through that license). We are not talking about music videos here, either, where you would watch the video just for the sake of its music, our forums are about dancing and related stuff (like videos of dancers dancing to music).

An example. Pino's WSS waltz is done to Kenny Rogers "If I were a painting". That audio has been disabled by youtube. And frankly, I think this is doing the music artist a disservice. I have, in the past, bought some of the songs in the dance videos from iTunes because I liked the song. With a disabled audio, I am not going to hear the song, and obviously am not going to buy it.
 
#18
As alreasy discussed these are not 'Fair Use' arguments

Youtube isn't Napster. Songs put out to Napster and similar were specifically meant to be downloaded by others, and they contained nothing else but the song itself. Soundtrack in youtube videos is often a background audio, and in case of dance videos it might not even be the entire song (like if it's a competition, you'd have the first 75-90 seconds of it, and the competitions play music they're licensed to play, so the copyright holders already got their $$ once through that license). We are not talking about music videos here, either, where you would watch the video just for the sake of its music, our forums are about dancing and related stuff (like videos of dancers dancing to music).

An example. Pino's WSS waltz is done to Kenny Rogers "If I were a painting". That audio has been disabled by youtube. And frankly, I think this is doing the music artist a disservice. I have, in the past, bought some of the songs in the dance videos from iTunes because I liked the song. With a disabled audio, I am not going to hear the song, and obviously am not going to buy it.
This is an odd post because it seems you didn’t read any of the previous post which contained elements of copyright law and very pertinent cases which set forth what constitutes fair use…your arguments do not make legal sense nor can you site legal opinions that would validate your claims…

Copyright protected material is owned by the person that created it or someone (or entity) who purchased the rights, your taking and using someone else's property regardless of personal opinions that your making to justify usage…I can’t say because it’s my opinion that I would like to joy ride in Ferrari then I can jump in a Ferrari at my local Ferrari dealership and joy ride around in it for 2 hours simply because I want to

Fair Use arguments from Stanford Copyright and Fair Use Stanford University Libraries

Most fair use analysis falls into two categories: commentary and criticism; or parody.

1. Comment and Criticism


If you are commenting upon or critiquing a copyrighted work--for instance, writing a book review -- fair use principles allow you to reproduce some of the work to achieve your purposes. Some examples of commentary and criticism include:

  • quoting a few lines from a Bob Dylan song in a music review
  • summarizing and quoting from a medical article on prostate cancer in a news report
  • copying a few paragraphs from a news article for use by a teacher or student in a lesson, or
  • copying a portion of a Sports Illustrated magazine article for use in a related court case.

The underlying rationale of this rule is that the public benefits from your review, which is enhanced by including some of the copyrighted material. Additional examples of commentary or criticism are provided in the examples of fair use cases.

2. Parody


A parody is a work that ridicules another, usually well-known work, by imitating it in a comic way. Judges understand that by its nature, parody demands some taking from the original work being parodied. Unlike other forms of fair use, a fairly extensive use of the original work is permitted in a parody in order to "conjure up" the original.
Youtube isn't Napster. Songs put out to Napster and similar were specifically meant to be downloaded by others, and they contained nothing else but the song itself. Soundtrack in youtube videos is often a background audio, and in case of dance videos it might not even be the entire song (like if it's a competition, you'd have the first 75-90 seconds of it
[1] The Napster ruling is an important ruling because it is reiterating what is U.S. Copyright law is and what ‘fair use’ standards are…saying the Napster case is completely different is not the correct way to read the case…unlike the case Mr. Dew is citing it is a landmark case and is pertinent to the issue at hand…you still reproducing the work of the copyright owner…you say it background, but its not…most of the sound you can hear fine and I don’t hear anyone talking over them (most of them)…simply because you want to use the music for dance purposes that doesn’t constitute ‘fair use’…I can’t make my own documentary film post on YouTube and use a track from say Kayne West without permission or royalty payment and say I can freely use it because it background music…dancing isn’t distinctly different from other uses, you can’t say before the court we’re showing dancing with the music so copyright law doesn’t apply to us (the world of ballroom dancers is exempt from copyright law) ??? this doesn’t make any sense

Soundtrack in youtube videos is often a background audio, and in case of dance videos it might not even be the entire song (like if it's a competition, you'd have the first 75-90 seconds of it
[2] Using a piece of music instead of the whole tract – absolutely means nothing in regard to the law – another non-legal argument

I don’t understand this argument – it seems like opinion rather than a legal argument – you can’t say “I’m only using part of it so I can steal the copyrighted material” even if you only using 75-90 second you could be using more than half or two thirds of the song ….incidentally I already stated the ‘fair use’ argument which was restated in Napster which rejected sampling (only using part of a song)

Additionally, under “sampling” from Patent, Copyright and Trademark Stim, Richard (2009) 10th ed. p. 294
“the most recent ruling from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the use of two second sample was an infringement of the sound recording copyright. The court went even further, stating that when it came to sound recording there was no permissible minimum sanctioned under copyright law.” (Bridgeport Music v. Dimension Films)…
further it stated that some very limited sampling may be allowed (citing a 2002 case were a flute sample was used lasting 6 seconds was used, however, it also stated that “in order to avoid claims of infringement, popular artists seek sample clearance from copyright owners.”

….I will address Mr. Dew’s assertion in a later post because he is confusing the issue on the transformative purpose...

and the competitions play music they're licensed to play, so the copyright holders already got their $$ once through that license
[3] Another argument I don’t understand as it has no basis in the law…I can summarize what Patent, Copyright, and Trademark law says for a grant to use a right (material that is copyright protected)
“…can involve the entire copyright or only a portion of it, since a copyright consists of a bundle of rights that can be divided. For example, a grant of rights may be limited by time, geography, or media” Patent Copyright and Trademark desk reference Stim, Richard 10th P. 301.
A right to use a song at a competition includes only those rights in the contract – this is a legal contract that discusses the scope of the use for payment (this constitutes an economic rent), the amount of the charges and contract dictate how that copyright may be used. You can’t say I paid for it once now I can broadcast the song around the world on YouTube…if your contract didn’t state the scope for that intended use – then it’s not allowed, the music is still owned by the right’s owner and they can determine its’ use.

Finally, YouTube removed the audio tract because it was copyright protected…the decision to allow the usage would constitute a business decision for the right's owner to say if we allow this then we might sell more downloads (as you pointed out this is allowed by the right's owners on some other songs on YouTube), but this is the business decision of the right's owner to allow. When and how they might allow usage is still a decision for the right's owner as it is their property.


I don’t understand your argument on the last point because it doesn’t hang together with the other points, because your not making a legal argument, but saying it would be a good a business decision, but that would invalidate your other arguments for ‘fair use,’ because you would be acquiescing on the rights ownership…i.e. saying said the rights holder had the right to the copyright and your arguments for claims of 'fair use' were invalid (or that they should just allow it anyway, but if it's 'fair use' then you don't have to worry about them allowing usage or not allowing usage)

Finally we haven’t even covered all the aspects of ownership: that a song constitutes many pieces (lyric, melody, and performance) and all the elements must be compensated for usage

Additionally, when someone posted the WSS Waltz of William Pino they violated more than the musical copyright they also violating the rights of the World Superstars Dance Festival, because they own the production, they legal acquired the rights to music for distribution and paid the performers, set up the venue, and recorded at great expense the production for which they also make DVD’s available…so a WSS posting unless it’s by the organizers (owners) of the production themselves is a further copyright infringement (another thing that was not even covered)

....and could also be a violation of the dancer's rights as well, because the contract that was signed with WSS may not include other forms of distribution beyond DVD sales or promotional materials
 
#19
transformative purpose???

Case law generally indicates that the limit is the minimum amount of the material that is needed to fulfill the transformative purpose. If your purpose is to film an entire dance, that includes however much of the song is danced to, even if it's the whole song
This doesn't make any sense you justifying using copyrighted material by saying any use for a song along with some other activity is transformative....just adding a dance to song is not a legitimate transformative use...transformative use applies to amending the work for legitimate critical purpose not using copyrighted material for some other reason and then adding some factor and claiming that it is transformative

Once again from Stanford Copyright and Fair Use, Stanford University Libraries

1. The Transformative Factor: The Purpose and Character of Your Use
In a 1994 case, the Supreme Court emphasized this first factor as being a primary indicator of fair use. At issue is whether the material has been used to help create something new, or merely copied verbatim into another work. When taking portions of copyrighted work, ask yourself the following questions:

  • Has the material you have taken from the original work been transformed by adding new expression or meaning?
  • Was value added to the original by creating new information, new aesthetics, new insights and understandings?

    In a parody, for example, the parodist transforms the original by holding it up to ridicule. Purposes such as scholarship, research or education may also qualify as transformative uses because the work is the subject of review or commentary.
Any use of copyrighted material could have some added factor and this would supposedly allow 'Fair Use,' no court has ever found that

Transformative purpose means that the work was changed in some meaningful way under other U.S. Copyright law which states specific 'Fair use' exemptions

It is not a catch all to say I can add something...dancing to copyright audio track and then I can claim some tranformative purpose

If your stating a 'fair use' exemption under dancing to music being transformative, allowing the use of whole songs as long as choreography is used during the entire song...then I could produce a movie using say 15 dances and then use whatever 15 songs I wanted (by John Williams, Andrea Boccelli, Shakira, Kayne West, etc. etc.) and distribute the movie around the world (or the U.S. if other courts don't buy the 'transformative argument') and not pay one dime for rights payments to any of the right's holders: (for musical author or performer) and all I would have to do is claim that it a transformative purpose and that would apply under a 'fair use' exemption?

WHAT??????????????????????????????????????????
 
#20
I'm not going to go down the road of trying to comment on the detail of this. My personal hope is that this area of law is itself undergoing evolution and transformation.

I will say that any corporate entity will have the most conservative view of existing law and case law in order to protect their (possibly deep) pockets. The university I work for certainly does. So citing material which appears to constitute interpretations and opinions from some officials at Stanford is likely to color the picture to the more conservative end of the interpretive spectrum. Stanford doesn't want to be sued.

I'm just trying to say that given enough legal expertise in attendance, this discussion could go on for a long time ;-)

My personal opinion is that the owner of something should have the sole right as to how it's used. Nobody else should be able to decide for me whether I give away my music/photos/videos/whatever, except for me.

Also, it's "track", not tract.

-wc
 

Dance Ads