video copyrights

[millka]

I would like to have another question.It is about video Copyright Laws.------>Can I be charged for makeing video loops from movies???:alien:

[krokodril]

in theory or for real?

btw see legal issues

[millka]

I ment for real.I have read somewhere that you can use about 20 seconds long part of some movie and it is not afflictable(in theory).

[LEVLHED]

the real-world-rule-of-thumb is:
In a live performance, anything goes.
If you are making a DVD or something to sell as your own, you cannot use ANY copyrighted footage without permision.

[TechnoLust]

Yah, that's been my impression, too. We can legally sample all kinds of works during a performance, as long as each sample is relatively brief and obviously does not do any harm to the original work. I see a lot of value in sampling culturally-familiar video and putting them together in new combinations. The presentation of familiar images in unfamiliar combinations can bring wonderful reactions in the audience.

I would suppose that a recording of a live performance that you use as a demo tape would be on the fine line. It's not something you're giving out for sale, but it is additional copies of a work containing samples of other copyrighted works.

-TL

[sleepytom]

Originally posted by TechnoLust
Y...We can legally sample all kinds of works during a performance, as long as each sample is relatively brief and obviously does not do any harm to the original work. ...

no this isn't true - you cannot legaly sample full stop

you need the copywrite owners permission or your breaking the law

the law is stupid though so i wouldn't be overly concerned with following it.

[LEVLHED]

thats what I meant by real-world rule of thumb.
Technically, it is always illegal to sample copyrighted works without consent, but in reality use of such material in a live performance setting is generally over-looked.

[Gilly]

Do it when no one's looking!

I think tom is right though.:D

[Irios]

roughly translated from the Norwegian copyright laws / intellectual property rights:
"The author (of the copyrighted material) can not oppose other people using his intellectual achievement in a way which results in the creation/production of new and independent creations. "

Our copyright law also specifies that copyrighted material can be included in newspapers, magazines (or other publications), film/cinematic showings, and broadcasting - as long as the copyrighted material has a subordinate/secondary role (or is part of background events/activities) of the main event

The members of my crew regard themselves as VJ artists - and when doing a live show, we create video art: We are an artisitc enterprise.
As long as we dont deviate or diverge from that way of thinking and it's mentality, we can do pretty much as we feel like.

The DJ (or live artist performing live onstage) is the main attraction, and the VJs and lighting technicians are contributing (or actually part of) his/hers performance - but only as a supplement to the wholeness of the event/performance.
So, per definition we are regarded as artists ... this definition is even established by law; performing artists dont have income tax when doing gigs :D


copyright laws and intellectual property rights are pretty much the same in most countries .. or at least the basics are the same. I would expect many countries have identical regulations of copyrighted material if you want to use it in a live video show.



Originally posted by LEVLHED
Technically, it is always illegal to sample copyrighted works without consent, but in reality use of such material in a live performance setting is generally over-looked.

Using copyrighted music - both sampling of, and performing someone else's music - is illegal if you don't pay your royalty fees to the PRS.
And the reason it's illegal? Simply because of the existence of the PRS. The have ensured that musical works have tons of extra regulations and rules defining what's legal and illegal.
When your creation/work is being played 5 times a day on every single European radio station, you need these laws to make sure you get paid every time someone uses your work in a way that only benefits them (and not you).

Video, on the other hand, does not need these extra regulations/laws. If you want to show video/film in public, you have to purchase a special licence that grants you a permission to do so.
And because of this, there is no special organization similar to the PRS - and so there are no extra fancy set of rules - you've "only" got the copyright law regulating use of video.
And I would expect that many countries have similar laws as here in Norway if you want to use parts/excerpts from copyrighted video material.

Well, at least this is my own comprehension of the difference between music and video/film copyrights. Things might not be like this at all, so please correct me if I got it all wrong.

[syzygy]

Wow!

I wish UK copyright law was as forward thinking as that in Norway...

Dan.

[vjrei]

If you are performing in a club use what ever you want if you are dealing with general public.

If you are performing for "Apple" in a big event use your own material or material from your sponsor.

If you are performing in TV the same thing, your own stuff.

Lawsuit comes if you are making lots of money from some one material, if you are using material from Steven Spilberg in a club I do not think some one is gonna suit you.

Just use your common sense: Who are gonna suit some one who is making less than $500 a night?

DJ's plays music, they make money from it and they do not pay royalties, as simple as that. We are VJs :D

[Rovastar]

Rei

That is a dangerous stance.
The amount to you paid has nothing to do with if you are in breach of teh copyright or not.

If the copyright holder wants to make an example of you then they could do.

If you play some of my work copyrighted work for free and I dd not want you too I could do you for it. In the UK at least.

For the record I am happy with the copyright laws over here nad wish they were enforced properly. :) It encourages ppl creating new stuff and would help reduce the bottom feeders out there. :)

[bluntfaktory]

i've heard about that 20 second rule before , i've also heard that if an image is more than 30 years old it can't be copy righted , but i don't know if it true . on the flip side of that , i've never heard of VJ ever being sued , for anything , ever , and until one does i think the law is really unwirten in regards to what we do , within reason of course . even then , there is no international task force with it's sights set in the international VJ community . at least not yet . :scared: maybe that's the question to ask is , without taking the stance of whether or not it's right or wrong for a second , has anybody out there ever been sued , personaly , or successfully sued , in court , someone else for some kind of VJ related copy right issue ?????????

[vjrei]

I would say, if you are workinmg in a corporate event, then use your own material.

If you are in a club just do not pay attention to that. People are gonna sued you when you are making lots of money from their material and they can make lots of money from you. To hire a lawyer and spend the time writing a document is gonna cost more and it is not worth the time. That is the way I see.

Now, that doesn't mean that you are gonna abuse and use clips from movies all the time, it is good and fun (when there is the money) to create your own stuff.

[littlecatalyst]

Originally posted by vjrei
DJ's plays music, they make money from it and they do not pay royalties, as simple as that. We are VJs :D

......actually the clubs (at least up here in North America) pay the royalties

[littlecatalyst]

Originally posted by bluntfaktory
has anybody out there ever been sued , personaly , or successfully sued , in court , someone else for some kind of VJ related copy right issue ?????????

i got a threatened lawsuit....
i used to make these (what i call) scratch-documentaries, VJ'd mixes of interviews and any footage i could get my grubby little hands on.
I had one time where a filmaker told me i could use some of his footage (it was ironically a clip with footage that he stole under the fair use laws)it always seemd righty to me to ask for permission (especially from indy filmakers and other artists... it's a little harder to get a sypmathetic ear from a hollywood machine-- just steal that stuff)... well, as it would happen someone passed a copy on to this guys distributor. he totally freaked out and called me a whole bunch of namesi don't think i can repeat here, told me that neither he nor the filmaker gave me permission, some stuff about my mother, and that i would be hearing from his lawyers (this was a documantaru about climate change and how the planet is going into another Ice Age... kinda inmportant stuff)
i got him to call the lawyers off only because i got in touch with the filmaker again, and reminded him of the conversation and he told the distributor to back down. was pretty close....

[holly]

Kinda confirms what we've been saying. It's not the artists who have a problem with copyright, it's the ones (lawyers, distributers) who make money but actually have no talent of their own who will make trouble.;)

[bluntfaktory]

hum , all though that's a kind of a one in a million situation , that's a really good point , and i have to say i never thought about looking at it like that . well i'm glade you worked your way out of it . it sucks that their are people and places in the world that are that shitty . :(

[littlecatalyst]

well, here's a totally different story..... a nice one ( :yep: ) a few years ago i was totally into using this old 70's optical printer film (on video) with my old band GodSpeedYouBalckEmperor... i stole it from art school library and had no idea who made it. but it rocked hard.
about a year ago, i find the email address of this great-- trippy trippy trippy 1970's artfilmaker-- so i write to him, gushing ((if it weren't for his films i would never have graduated--= not that that is such a big thing)) and asking for permnission to mix+scratch his stuff. he fires back with a thanks for the compliments and yes 100% use whatever i want in live, and if something ever goes to a mix dvd, please talk and figure out what/how to pay.... so that was cool. then on his site i see that he made that video that i was mixing in the band... so i told him that, and this is a band that now sells out Wembly in the UK. huge band (i don't play with them anymore, they tour too much, i like being my own little catalyst..) so i wrote him back to tell him this, and i guess if he wanted to be all mean about it he could have sued, the band makes mucho dinero now, but he was so flattered. it was a happy happy thing.
just so you knwo, like Holly said, most artrist will be honoured that thier stuff is being appreciated.

still when i cut my dvd there's no way i'm gonna ask Fox for permission. ha ha ha ha ha

[Amukidi]

Hey littlecatalyst - I saw Godspeed last year and they were using some amazing old grainy 16mm onto creased sheets! The effect was perfect for the music (which, IMHO re-defines the word "dynamics"!!) Was this the stuff you're talking about? Ashamed to say I can't remember too much about thecontent, but memories of gothic imagery etc (too munted :-))

[littlecatalyst]

Originally posted by jaffa808
Hey littlecatalyst - I saw Godspeed last year and they were using some amazing old grainy 16mm onto creased sheets! The effect was perfect for the music (which, IMHO re-defines the word "dynamics"!!) Was this the stuff you're talking about? Ashamed to say I can't remember too much about thecontent, but memories of gothic imagery etc (too munted :-))

no, these days the boys (and girls) are into old grainy film loops, when i was playing (93-98) we were using mx50 and twin barkos, now it's film loops that everyone in the collective collects. this year's tour is totally minimal, train loops, very little abstract, and some scratched words on black (and sadly no longer beat matched, as you can imagine when GSYBE! peaks, rapid fire cutting with multiple sources is total as you say- dynamic- bliss

[vortex]

Motion Pictures

Motion pictures are audiovisual works consisting of a series of related images that, when shown in succession, impart an impression of motion, together with any accompanying sounds. They are typically embodied in film, videotape, or videodisk.

Copyright in a motion picture is automatically secured when the work is created and ?fixed? in a copy. Only the expression (camera work, dialogue, sounds, etc.) fixed in a motion picture is protectible under copyright. Copyright does not cover the idea or concept behind the work or any characters portrayed in the work.

Works that do not constitute a fixation of a motion picture include:

a live telecast that is not fixed in a copy
a screenplay or treatment of a future motion picture





found on us copyright office so if we use trailers is it free?

[littlecatalyst]

Originally posted by vortex
Copyright in a motion picture is automatically secured when the work is created and ?fixed? in a copy. Only the expression (camera work, dialogue, sounds, etc.) fixed in a motion picture ........... < >..........so if we use trailers is it free?

sorry vortex i think they would conside the trailer as an expression fixed in copy. then again i'm no lawyer...

[holly]

Live Telecast?! Isn't that what we do? A wired telecast that isn't taped? Doesn't that cover VJing?

[vortex]

if a DJ can play copyrighted music or mix this music, the club here in luxembourg has to pay the SASEM(or how ever they are called in other countries) so if a VJ mix and play copyrighted films is it the same thing? are the rights payed also for vjing at this moment? i am trying to find it out. if i am right with this reflection take what you can an put it on the sreens. in any case it is the owner of the club or the organisator how have to pay the SASEM that is sure not the VJ. or did a DJ pay some thing! so have we the same rights as a DJ or not?

in any case there are not 100 solutions to find it out the first free time i have i will run to the SASEM to ask them and you all chould do so to resolve this problems about the copyright it is borowing me to have no correct anwer about this problem.

it take me somuch time to create footage an i am not payed for it it is my motivation to have a diffred show every time but we are 3 in ower VJ'z group working fully independently so it is not so hard.

whatever take this:
http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/viewrecord?21611

[littlecatalyst]

Originally posted by holly
Live Telecast?! Isn't that what we do?

that's creepy holly! does that mean that the slimy clubowners who secretly record vjs work have legal rights (unless of course its my stuff and then theyd only have a legal right to 1/3 of it)? ick

[littlecatalyst]

Originally posted by littlecatalyst
(unless of course its my stuff and then theyd only have a legal right to 1/3 of it)

....and even then they'd have to cut out all the tom cruise parts
:evil: :evil:

[littlecatalyst]

Originally posted by vortex
if a DJ can play copyrighted music or mix this music, the club here in luxembourg has to pay the SASEM(or how ever they are called in other countries) so if a VJ mix and play copyrighted films is it the same thing? ............ so have we the same rights as a DJ or not?

sorry vortex :sad: sad to say but the legalities have not been worked out in the same way as for djs hiphop and electronic music.....

on top of that if ever we get to that point; if a clubowner has to choose between paying a vj who uses original material or a vj who he has to pay, and then pay for the rights, he'll probably choose the latter....

so its probably a good idea to play with both found and made images....

[unjulation]

but there is always that bit within one's self that go's "ahhh f**k it, might as well just do it"
within a copyright frame work of corse

[vortex]

in any case in this forum no very clear answer has been writen and it seams to be difficult to find an correct answer to the copyright problem. as some one says the job is to new and nobody of leagal organisation has folow the evolution of this new art and thats for we are betwen creation and steeling some footage here and there. i could not undestand that a film like metropolis, charlie chaplin frankenstein still have coprights for me it is history. i agree that you can not seel this footage as a respect for this artists and masters. but using and recolor a master peice like metroplois and playing on the beat the film will be fantastic. or alien on a hardcore techno. what do you think? every body have seen this film and i think not that those films still are a runner in a shop.

so the definalty question: is it 50 or 20 jears the copyright of a film
or can you take 3 to 20sec of a film what is tolered

a vj do not sell this tape he sell a performence of his direct creation or mix

i just beginn to turn mad that i have not the answers to all this and my nightmare is hunting films with no copyright an creat my ones

[Amukidi]

"i could not undestand that a film like metropolis, charlie chaplin frankenstein still have coprights for me it is history".

That's a painfully simple one to answer - the copyrights are handed down to the families or estates of the original owners or set in trust funds etc. Just because you die, it doesn't mean any old tosser can move into your house does it? Get over it and buy a camera.

[vortex]

i think you have given the best answer i agreee you thanks

[vortex]

recolored metropolis

the pepoles just chouting fliping and lisend to the music a big screen the bigest club in luxembourg the vj'z best work

we used parts of metropolis Fritz Lang the master but i am shure i did not hurt a copyright it is an respect to an idol

[holly]

that's creepy holly! does that mean that the slimy clubowners who secretly record vjs work have legal rights
I did a gig last week where halfway through my set I found out it was being taped. What the fuck...?! Honestly, it was not a very professional situation and I was more like "Uh, Hello! Ask first!" then I was all "You're stealing my shit!!!" And I know this girl who was taping it (her point: there should be a record of what we create here... very hippy-dippy, not Taiwan pirate vcd market or anything) and thirdly, the reason I figured it out was because the tape jammed or something so one of the monitors was showing something I did earlier but all mistracked and destroyed....:rolleyes: So I didn't get upset, but I was wondering what I should say/think/do.

Long story short, for those of us interested in copyrighting our own video performances, do I have to record onto tape with date/time stamp on EVERY time I perform...? I have an old 8mm Cam that I could do this with.... Archive every performance (or maybe suspicious ones)? Isn't owning the original componants (loops, foregrounds, backgrounds) enough? Or are these componants not the actual "telecast" and an unscrupulous promotor could get the copyright?

[vortex]

i tape every gig not nescesserly to get a copyright but to check how good or how bad i was.

so in this case i have the copyright of my work but it is just for archives.

to me, a club owner tryed to steal a tape :mad: or it has moved with ghost hands, i did not know, i just took it back where i found it and said nothing, just was sure that ghosts do not exist.

i am shocked about some peoples sometimes they get all the money of the drinks and have problems to pay the minimun i ask for my work. i just thing that some club owners do not kown howmuch work it is to make a good gig. a vj works the hole night.

the more incredible is they want to get my taps for free thinking that the tape is included in the price.

i do not steal work of others i pay my licence to the software developper, my group is clean. in this concept i can speak freely on this forum.

one thing is sure we take somuch care about the CD and tapes when we are playing that every time one of the group is taking care about it. and just chosen friends help us for transporting ower equipement and we check the cables from the mixer to the screens. if realy some one steals my work he will pay for if.

[vortex]

the europeen econonique conunity seam to have a free phoneline nr. for copyright information on there master website i still not found it at the moment but help me to find it out. so i think that they could gave a sirious answer about copyrights.

an other thing is the videoteck municipal of luxembourg it belongs to ministere de la culture they just brinig old films and i thing they are copyright free because the price is so low to watch a film.

i will take contact with them to see what they says.

so fight for your rights

[psychodude]

Originally posted by jaffa808
"i could not undestand that a film like metropolis, charlie chaplin frankenstein still have coprights for me it is history".

That's a painfully simple one to answer - the copyrights are handed down to the families or estates of the original owners or set in trust funds etc. Just because you die, it doesn't mean any old tosser can move into your house does it? Get over it and buy a camera.

First of all I would like to say I am not a law-specialist, but how I thought the copyright isue (for Belgium) worked was :There are Intellectual rights and copyrights The creator holds the INTELLECTUAL rights of his / hers work at all time. One is allowed to use creations with permission of the creator. The creator can sell the copyrights but never the intellectual rights of his creation.

If one uses a creation and alters it to ones own creation, one is allowed (in how far one must alter depends on the judge), and one becomes a "new" creator. As the first creator still owns the intellectual rights of the original creation he can always oppose to the new creation. (eg. TinTin)

Copyrights, when not renewed, only last for a certain amount of time (I tought 20 years)

As for Frintz Langs "Metropolis" we are taking about the copy of the copy of the master . THERE IS NO MASTER. Because of this little detail there are at least 4 different copys to be found. There is a fast version of 45min and a mellow of about 90min. Some French guy in the beginning of the 80's made a coloured version with New-Age music, and the East-German version has a good old communist chorus. (wrote a paper on the subject BTW ). So it is copywrited but not by Mr. Lang, I suppose by the editor then.

[vortex]

the intelectual rights can be solled this have to be possible (advertising companies) for example a logo. the owner of the logo need to have the right to change modifie without the agreement of the creators this important identety mark hase to belong his at 100%.

Copyrights, when not renewed, only last for a certain amount of time in fance about 70 jears and this is an 100% good information from my loyer but no law-specialist in copyrights but this he seems to remember it as a test in shool.

for the intelectual proprety you are perfectly right but if you paint a copy of leonardo da vinci like mannpower logo and you use it commecialy is only because no famili can be identified witsh belongs the intelectual proprety?

all about the OPI organisation de la propri?t? int?lectuel can be found in the Memorial at www.legilux.lu the laws was modifid i thk 2 years ago if i remember good, but you have a seach engin but in any case you speak french i think if you are belge every thing is in frence languide

The conditions are vote in Genf Swuitzerland and just the countrys just sing and accepte the law of this organisation so i thik that there are werry less diffrents betven the laws inside of the EU.

Back to metropolis
so if a guy use the film but not the sound and not the colored , realy did the intelectual proprety belong to some one?
and the copyright is only for the modified film of an other artist.
and you do not record the life performance so did you are leagual or not?

This question is still not anwert.:confused: