|
|
Posted by Bill on 08/02/07 13:22
I think Larry's response was good -- the law does allow for "fair use"
for criticism and comment. In that respect, I believe you can even play
snippets of the actual recordings, for this purpose.
I read anything I see in the news on copyright issues -- I've never seen
anyone get into trouble for what you are describing, but, while making a
documentary ("Mad Hot Ballroom"), some film-makers picked up a ring-tone
on a cellphone that happened to be the theme from Rocky. The
documentary film-makers decided they didn't have to get permission
because, after all, it was a documentary. But the distributors of the
film decided to get a lawyer's advice, and he told them to play it safe
and ask for permission. The owners of the theme from Rocky asked them
for $10,000! For a six-second ring tone! Okay-- we should use the word
"demanded". The distributors paid it because they wanted to stay safe.
I personally thought the film-makers were right and should have stuck to
their guns and not paid a cent.
And I think you should be safe because what you are working on, as you
described it, sounds like "comment" and "criticism" and "educational" in
purpose.
jacobjames wrote:
> On Aug 1, 8:59 am, Bill <tr...@chromehorse.net> wrote:
>
>>Those amazing lawyers! The "substantiality" of the portion.... That
>>is truly a bizarre line. You could sit on a mountain top for three
>>years and think about what a "substantiality" of "I am the Walrus" is.
>>
>>And then the guy on the next mountain top would have a different opinion.
>>
>>And they could each get lawyers and sue each other.
>>
>>Just to show I'm not entirely cynical, I could suggest, as an
>>alternative: "size matters".
>>
>>Larry in AZ wrote:
>>
>>ure of the copyrighted work;
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the
>>>copyrighted work as a whole; and- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>- Show quoted text -
>
>
> Bill,
>
> I totally agree, the wording of the law leaves much room for
> interpretation and I am no legal expert by any means. I suppose all of
> this really translates down to the realization that someone with deep
> pockets has the privilege of challenging any supposed infringement, be
> it actual or otherwise.
>
> If I understand all of this 'size matters' wording correctly then does
> that mean that I can talk about just portions of songs, and not an
> entire song?. For example, I have derived a unique interpretation of
> the song Penny Lane. I would like to present my interpretation of the
> song by going through the song on a line-by-line basis while providing
> an explanation of each line. I can do this, right?
>
> Thanks for taking the time on this. It is really appreciated.
>
> Jacob
>
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|