|
|
Posted by PTravel on 10/22/07 16:05
"Rick Merrill" <rick0.merrill@NOSPAM.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:WZ6dnd_NHLdbCIbanZ2dnUVZ_tajnZ2d@comcast.com...
> Krazy Kanuck wrote:
>> I've been approached to do videos of dance recital shows for a local
>> dance group....The people attending the shows are mainly the familys of
>> those who are performing in them....up to about 50 or so performers,
>> who'd be dancing to around 20 different pieces of music.....There would
>> be approx. a number <50 copies of DVDs that would be sold for a nominal
>> fee to people who were in the show and maybe their moms etc.
>> My concern is that the music used is under copyright.....
>> Is it unlikely that anything would come of this because of the minimal
>> sales/profit on such a thing or should I just decline the job?
>> ....I think I could demonstrate that I'd really not be making anything
>> off this if I considered the cost of my equipment, time etc.....if I was
>> making a DVD at about $15per.....but I of course understand that that
>> doesn't make any legal difference....
>> any thoughts? or work-arounds to this?
>> Len
> Did an officer of the dance group approach you? You could work for them
> for $1, and assuming they have (1) a license to perform the music and (2)
> insurance, that would take most of the risk away from you.
Whether or not it is an officer is irrelevant.
Whether you charge $1, $100,000 or nothing is irrelevant.
Whether they have a license to perform the music is irrelevant.
It's still copyright infringement for which you could be held liable.
Most CGL these days excludes coverage for copyright infringement. Even if
insurance does cover copyright infringement, all insurance excludes
intentional infringement.
>
> You could also record just a few minutes of each show (i.e. not the whole
> thing) and make a product that might come under "fair use."
This is not fair use.
>
> Avoid advertising beyond word-of-mouth.
>
> These points are of course debatable, so the bottom line is, it's up to
> you.
Sorry, but they're not debatable. They're wrong.
[Back to original message]
|