VJ events and VPL

[Anyone]

OK i'm starting a new thread here,

this one is dedicated to copyright issues regarding
VJ events, visuals used in public spaces, and the like.

recently ***** phoned up AKA bar,
to tell them that they could get in trouble with VPL
for staging Vectors, because of the copyright issues
related to sampled material used by VJs at Vectors.

if you'd like to discuss copyright issues,
please do it here.

if you'd like to discuss weither *****'s attitude was
out of order or not, please go to the thread entitled
"misbehavings"

NE1

[Anyone]

right, this is the situation up to now.
did my homework,

I've spoken to several experts in the field of copyrighting and VJing,
and Vectors has nothing to worry about VPL.

I've spoken to a member of Nesta, who organised the "VJ" event
at Ocean, in which vjs were showing samples of scooby-doo and Walt Disney animations.

I've also spoken to someone from Addictive TV, who are working with major music labels in the UK and the US, selling and distributing VJ Mixes on DVD.

both have delt with VPL directly concerning VJ performances,
and in both cases it turns out they did not even need a license
from VPL.

Turns out,
AKA has tried many times in the past year
to check with VPL about getting a license from them
for events containing VJing in their venue
(Vectors being only one of many staged there)
and VPL hasnt even bothered returning their calls
probably because this whole matter is trivial to them,
compared to serious cases of enfringment.

:alien: :alien: :cool: :alien: :alien:
(*****, living amongst extra-terrestrials)

[bigloose]

here in Lausanne one vj got in trouble for using video that where created for an event sponsored by philip morris. They didn't like to see the video again one month later. but I don't really know what is really possible to do without getting in trouble (that's why I'm creating pretty much everything I use). Anybody heard about people who got in trouble from using video under copyright?

maybe switzerland has special law about ? :D .... there is a law about everything here... :eek:

b!gl00z3:D

[MoRpH]

OK well as per ***** saying that the VPL ppl are monitoring our board.....

PLEASE STEP IN AND INFORM US OF OUR obligations, if you want the revenue. I don't want second hand info from *****.... if you are out there tell us now what we are supposed to do as I'm sure most ppl here inspite of having PRO-COPYLEFT opinions, still want to stay with in the law and would just like to know what to do.

Also if possible could you tell us or give us the names/websites/etc... about organizations similar to yours that cover other countries (I'm sure you must have the contacts), so those of us else where can be good law-abidding VJs too :)

If we don't get a responce from a VPL person on this then I guess you either aren;t really watching or just don't want us to know the rules (which is pointless for all of us)

[unjulation]

thought id move my last thoughts on copyright to hear seems a better home for it

right now haveing said that let's talk about the copyright isue, which is going to be a very important point, now to me due to the nature of the medium that we are now working within and the way in the early 21stC that we are starting to comunicate-it has now become standerd to use p2p programs etc to share information, which is basicly makeing the copyright isue an ilrelivance to the indervidual on the street
how much of the software, music, data etc is perchesed?

so the way it looks to me is that the social use of things that dictates what is acepted as the "norm" wether the dinosors of the past can keep up with it or not has no efect to me unless there is direct involvement by anouther

i mean the clasic is when napstar starting doing there thing all the companys complaind and there was a rise in album sales, agian the tape recorder and home recording was seen as a nail in the cofin of the music industriy, yet hear we are 30 years leater and it's still going strong and it has become acecpted to tape an album and pass it on to a mate

leading from this is the idea that there will always be a % of people who will buy a "product" and a % of people who will share this "product" with outhers, now this might mean a loss in the "fat cats profits" but to be honest they can take the dent, so lets not fool our selves hear who is loseing out hear? is it the consumer or the corprations i

now the hard part of the equation it is perfectlty equatabile to make sure that inderviduals copyrights are protected and that you can still use copyrighted material within your set

[eXhale]

Originally posted by bigloose
here in Lausanne one vj got in trouble for using video that where created for an event sponsored by philip morris. They didn't like to see the video again one month later. but I don't really know what is really possible to do without getting in trouble (that's why I'm creating pretty much everything I use). Anybody heard about people who got in trouble from using video under copyright?if philip morris wasn't happy it's because their logo was used in the mix, without permission. it was also mixed with plenty of other logos. protecting brands is MUCH more important for corportations than protection copyrights. so yeah, it was really stupid to mix a serie of logos in a mix, not to mention people already see enough logos in their life.

anyone, good to see there's apparently nothing to worry about regarding VPL. and IF they are here (which is not sure), they should definitely come and post, we're all trying to get by the laws but the copyrights laws are blurry for us at the moment, that's the least we can say. we have nothing to hide anyway.

[wellREDman]

something that keeps going thru my mind in all of this....

VPL is girlie code for ....
Visible Panty Line

:nod:

[eXhale]

Originally posted by Anyone
right, this is the situation up to now.
did my homework,

I've spoken to several experts in the field of copyrighting and VJing,
and Vectors has nothing to worry about VPL.

I've spoken to a member of Nesta, who organised the "VJ" event
at Ocean, in which vjs were showing samples of scooby-doo and Walt Disney animations.

I've also spoken to someone from Addictive TV, who organise regular VJ events containing pop promos from emerging film makers. Addictive is also working with major music labels in the UK and the US, selling and distributing VJ Mixes on DVD.

both have delt with VPL directly concerning their events,
and in both cases it turns out they did not even need a license
from VPL.

Turns out,
AKA has tried many times in the past year
to check with VPL about getting a license from them
for events containing VJing in their venue
(Vectors being only one of many staged there)
and VPL hasnt even bothered returning their calls
probably because this whole matter is trivial to them,
compared to serious cases of enfringment.

:alien: :alien: :cool: :alien: :alien:
(*****, living amongst extra-terrestrials)

considering that, according to the post above, the VPL usually doesn't care at all about us little VJs, how come that according to *****, they have been monitoring this forum for months and been trying to get down on any UK event? (including AVIT, according to a PM sent to me today) i think this is kind of a proof that someone contacted them. *****, any logical explaination??

[MoRpH]

Originally posted by wellREDman
something that keeps going thru my mind in all of this....

VPL is girlie code for ....
Visible Panty Line

:nod:

BWAHAHAHAHAHA you crack me up RED :D

[KillingFrenzy]

I think the Phillip Morris example is more of an example of someone expecting content to be exclusive to an event.

This is a situation I've dealt with more often then the copyright issue.

Example 1)
Custom content for a party.
I paid someone to use a 3d character from a video game he was working on as a custom visual for a party. In this case, he modified the character (sort of a morphed dragonfly with hands) into a more normalishly looking dragonfly. He was fine with the use of the character for that one event, but basically we agreed that that was the last time I'd use it. So I did. Worked out well.

Example 2)
I did a collaborative mix at the Phoenix Festival, and worked with Spook and some others. He has some beautiful 3d work that is his own (which he didn't seem as concerned about) but also some work from a friend that basically specified that it was for his use only. We recorded the set for the night, but instead of it ever getting used anywhere, it just is sort of an archive to look back on. Easy enough rules to work with.

Example 3)
I recorded a photo shoot with some friends, with full understanding that I would mix with it. Later, I mentioned that I'd used a bit of it at a club. One girl got all weird about it (she was dressed as a waitress, so this isn't some sort of thing where she was scantily clad or anything), and asked why I hadn't called her to let her know I'd be playing it. I went over it with her, and basically told her that I'd laid it out that this would be played publically. Anyway, I've started getting explicit permission after that, even if it means walking up to people at a public event... talking to them, and giving them my card. Kind of annoying, but in a small scene just playing what seems like random dancer footage from a club night could mean the same random dancer comes up three weeks later and gets all pissed at you for not getting their permission.

So, interestingly, my issues have been more with custom content and keeping people happy with that. I've never had anybody complain about copyright commercial stuff, other than to ask what it is, and where they can get it. I can honestly say that I've bought more videos than I ever would have, and caused more people to go out and buy/seek out the ones I show.

[eXhale]

Originally posted by KillingFrenzy
I recorded a photo shoot with some friends, with full understanding that I would mix with it. Later, I mentioned that I'd used a bit of it at a club. One girl got all weird about it (she was dressed as a waitress, so this isn't some sort of thing where she was scantily clad or anything), and asked why I hadn't called her to let her know I'd be playing it. I went over it with her, and basically told her that I'd laid it out that this would be played publically. Anyway, I've started getting explicit permission after that, even if it means walking up to people at a public event... talking to them, and giving them my card. Kind of annoying, but in a small scene just playing what seems like random dancer footage from a club night could mean the same random dancer comes up three weeks later and gets all pissed at you for not getting their permission.
this has more to do with privacy than copyrights, and it's actually another "touchy" topic. for clubs infopocalypse said that he asked the club to tell punters that anyone who entered had to agree his/her image to be recorded and eventually projected (i guess all clubs must have some kind of TOS?!?). but this works because clubs are a private space & it would be impossible on the street, which is a public space. i think it's quite sad because while it's true i wouldn't want someone to "abuse" me by using video of me, art should be about capturing life and that includes people in their normal activity (better IMO than hiring models to do this).

[elbows]

In the UK the recording of people by CCTV comes under the data protection act, I am unsure if live video feed from cameras in clubs would be the same, but I would not be surprised. However, at say a concert or festival TV cameras may be recording the crowd, and putting it on big screens, showing it on TV and releasing it on video. I dont know how the law covers that.

As for copyrighted clips I dont intend to use any in my shows, because the legal stuff is a nightmare to me there are so many different people responsible. I think the best thing to do is go by historical precedent. This was a big discussion at the VJS event in London, and I hope some people can bring the knowledge from that event to this forum to help all our brains :)

At this stage I am leaning towards the idea that from what I know so far, aa VPL license would be a total and utter waste of money if you are not using existing registered music video content in your shows, but as I am no legal brain I cannot be sure.

If VPL are reading this somehow, please sort your website out so that we have no excuse to be ignorant about these issues.

[Rovastar]

To me if you use any copyrighted material in your sets without express permission you CAN get in trouble.

Remember no matter what you people think here it is the copyright holders prerogative if they want to cause you grief.

[PilotX]

originally posted by elbows
However, at say a concert or festival TV cameras may be recording the crowd, and putting it on big screens, showing it on TV and releasing it on video. I dont know how the law covers that
If you look on the back of the tickets (particularly for festivals) you'll probably find that you have given permission for the recording etc. of your image. This is usually one of the terms and conditions agreed to on purchase of a ticket.
The same legal agreement could, presumably, be done for a door entry event by displaying the condition on the door, in the same way that a search might be a requirement for entry.

[KillingFrenzy]

Hmm, by the terms of the VPL, I wouldn't really semantically fit under their specifications.
I generate video, but I don't generate audio. I don't play video which has audio generated from it.
I'm kind of confused here, because it seems like what they refer to is almost specifically the use of "music videos." This would imply to me the playing of a paired music and video combination from their library of registered items of this sort. I'm not playing paired music and video from a library, I'm generating a mish-mosh that changes every time I gig.
I realize if I play copyrighted material, then I'm dealing with copyright owners rights to that public performance. But here, I just don't see where the VPL comes into my sort of video only production setup, under their own description. If I'm spewing out feedback off the audience to the screen, where do they come in?

When you talk about registering, *****, are you talking about your individual content you use, or completed mixes that you document?
I am interested, because I might actually come visit the UK at some point.

Which get labeled?
Here's an example set of items:

VHS Tape of the Seattle Evening News

VHS Tape of my Mix set last friday night with no Sound feed.

VHS Tape of my Mix set last Saturday night with sound feed.

DV tape of edited down Disney Movie dance numbers

DV tape of edited down parodies of Disney Movie dance numbers with myself dancing in a Little Mermaid outfit.

DV tape of crowd members dancing at the club.

DV Tape of my own plugin based visualizations.

Laptop Directory of clips of Disney Movie dance numbers.

Laptop Directory of clips of parodies of Disney movie dance numbers with myself dancing in a Pocahontas outfit

Laptop Directory of my own plugin based visualizations.

That's sort of a long list, but I tried to get most of the variations on here to see what people would think.

and nobody better p-mail me asking to trade for any of the above :D

[sleepytom]

as far as i can tell the VPL are similar to the PPL and have NOTHING to do with vjing.

the PPL are an organisation that charges venues a licensing fee to allow the playback of recorded music - this money is then distributed to there members (the artists and record labels that have chosen to take part) the PPL have no interest in live music - even if that live music includes the manipulation of copyrighted works (by use of a sampler or by a scratch artist performing as part of a band) - there only interested in the playback of recorded music.

The VPL as i understand it are ONLY interested in the playback of recorded video via TV, video jukebox or other means. a VJ would be seen as similar to a band - the vj is performing works of there own and as such it is not necessary for a venue to have a VPL license if the only video shown is the performance of work by a vj (if they want to play MTV in the afternoon then they need a VPL license though).

it is the responsibility of the vj to ensure that his/ her work doesn't break any copyright laws - the one to worry about is mechanical copying (ie sampling) - if you copy (you don't need to show it to anyone simply to make a copy is enough) any piece of work that you don't have permission of the mechanical copyright owner to copy then you have broken the law (each time your mum tapes something off the telly she is breaking the law!)

heres where it starts to get very murky - its very unlikely that anyone will care that you have broken the law - if they don't notice (as you've added so many effects as to make it impossible to spot the original sample) or if you aren't making any money from it (realistically that means selling a load of tapes or dvds or whatever or getting huge well paid high profile gigs)
however the fact that nobody cares does not make it legal.

with audio sampling there have been a number of test cases that have set legal precedent about fair usage and royalty rates - also the music industry has accepted the principal of audio sampling and has a framework for working out royalty payments to the original artists.

there is no such frame work for video sampling and one will not appear until someone gets taken to court for it.

however there are a few things that we can clearly state now:-

Having a VPL license (as a VJ) does not give you the right to sample video and use it in your work. (much as the same as a music producer can't get a PPL license and then get away with sampling James brown for free)

playing in a venue which holds a VPL licence does not allow you to use copyrighted samples (you have still broken the mechanical copyright laws when you made the sample)

sampling video is illegal - you could end up in court (but you probably wont unless your very famous and or making a load of cash from it)

the only way to be truly copyright legal is to make all your own footage or to use only generated visuals(its probably a good idea to have written permission from anyone who is filmed in your footage too although this is not really a copyright issue)

having said all that i still use copyrighted material in all most every gig i do and as such i am breaking the law but personally this doesn't bother me - who knows one day i might end up in court but again this is very unlikely and at the end of the day its a risk that i am willing to take

[eXhale]

Cheers for the info tom, that's useful to know. :) This VPL thing is on the UK but I'm sure there are equivalent on other countries.

[elbows]

I found this from the VJ article Exhale linked to on another thread to be quite interesting....

"eP: Given the rabid stance of film and music industry groups on copyright issues as of late, do you worry that you?ll ever get sued for using someone else?s material?
ML: You definitely have to be careful. It?s easy to take material from TV and film and integrate it into what you?re doing. It starts to become problematic when you start selling DVDs, which more VJs and electronic music companies (like Moonshine, the nation?s largest electronic music distributor) are starting to do.

Then, of course, you?ve got to run down licenses and make sure everyone?s cool with it. For live performances, it?s not as much of a problem. We try to create our own material as much as possible and check if there?s going to be a major issue, which is only the case when money?s involved. "

[michaelheap]

whell from the VJS representative; we asked the vpl to come and talk, but in real words they couldnt be bothered, basicly it would cost them a shed load of cash to sort this issue out, its a questionable point in the law, no precidents, and no one can be bothered to sort it out, onlyones to make any mony out of this entire thing will be the lawyers & burocrats, the only people who are likley to prosecute are people with images that are trade marks, eg, Mikky mouse, donald duck, ti fighter, george lucas, ie if the parent company is a bastard, then you may get into trouble,

the fine line is--> a company has to want to take you to court and be pretty sure they can recoup their costs, in this case a pretty high fee, as precidents need to be set.

moral of the story,

1)protect yourself with a limited company,
2) dont show disney porn!

m

[unjulation]

lol
m, i havent laughd so much since this thred originated, me, have a sense of humor like homer, no never!:p

[unjulation]

its nearly as good as visabl panty lines

[KillingFrenzy]

Interestingly enough, the Washington State Liquor board is the one I have to watch out for with club owners. Because of their draconian strip-club laws, technically you can't show certain types of nudity in an establishment that serves booze. So, if I show a little muff, the bar could lose their liquor license. How's that for silly? Pretty stupid when showing "At Play in the Fields of the Lord" can get a bar shut down.