h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I'm constantly confused by copyright, and it's annoying.

Okay in a reasonably trivial sense on the web. And the way some web sites, message boards etc allow one thing, but others don't.

But more importantly to me as an artist.

I'm at present making a film I want to use music with. What if for example, I film my stereo system playing a song, is that an infringement?

I believe that, at very least, you'd have to pay the PRS.

I remember hearing Phil Redmond talking about some of the tricks he'd used to produce 'Brookside' on a budget. One was not to pay a PRS licence - it was cheaper to commission some naff pseudo-pop whenever it was necessary to have music playing from the radio. 'Coronation Street', on the other hand, do pay the PRS, so you'll occasionally hear snatches of familiar tunes.

I think the different publishers have different attitudes. I remember Gnomon recently mentioning the difficulty someone (his sister?) had using some lines from WB Yeats in a piece of music. Some would just say 'Sure! Go ahead. And thanks for asking.' But the Yeats estate required endless information about how often the piece would be performed, how much money would be made...etc.

Ach - unless you think your film will be earning megabucks, just steal what you need and hope nobody notices.

Iinidentally...I loved the interview with one of the Pirate Bay guys the other week. Some people in the filesharing world will argue that it doesn't harm profits. But the interview went like this:

'If I see some music or software or a movie I want, I just download it.'
'But isn't that illegal?'
' I don't care.'


Refreshingly honest!

I was once told that under a certain amount of time there's no issue. I'm not 100% sure but I think it might be about 30 seconds.

I believe that if you buy music in one medium it is illegal to copy it onto another medium (or so I was told by a Beeb lawyer a few years ago) but since the birth of buying mp3s I'm not entirely sure that can be true anymore, as buying online means most people are going to 'copy' it from their pc to their mp3 player.

It might be worth looking into that, because if it's true then as long as you have legally bought a copy of the music playing on the stereo then there should be no reason you can't then 'copy' it onto film!

Or just go ahead anyway, depending on who is going to view the film!

And I've just clicked - my new sony phone comes with software so I can 'copy' my entire mp3 collection from the pc to the phone. So more copying, and with the permission of a music label!

iirc you can copy things so long as they're for your use exclusively. Before buying an mp3 player (about 5 years after everyone else) I'd copy my albums onto blank CDs and use those on my Discman, rather than risk losing my original albums.

A lad I went to school with is the generic pseudo-pop guy in the international version of Hollyoaks. Channel 4 pay for the British rights, but not international ones, instead having generic pop. If there's a male vocalist, it's probably my mate.

Have just been to my YouTube site for the first time in ages to discover many of my favourites can no longer be played, because a message comes up saying, 'This video is no longer available in your country'.

Judging by this, it means they are available in some countries.

***

And no I'm not expecting to make mega bucks from any artwork I make...judging by past evidence ....but never say never

Google is currently in a copyright dispute. Various 'official' videos are not available in some European countries.

Wired.com had an interesting article the other day. It pointed out that - whatsername - the Britain's Got Talent woman has had the most popular video of all time on ewechoob. Google have, presumably, made advertising money out of her. But what's her share?

I'm in two minds about copyright. On one hand I absolutely support the intent of copyright (an artist has the right to control/profit from their art for a limited period in order to encourage the creation of art which will, eventually, enter the public domain thus enriching it) on the other I loath the way the IP laws are enforced (largely the fault of the entertainment industry who treat them entirely as a means to an end (money) and stifle both creativity and the rights of consumers). It's a classic case of liking the spirit of the law but not the letter of the law.

The Pirate Bay case is interesting because for me it's largely a case of "a plague on both your houses". I can't stand the "take what I like" mentality of a lot of pirates (and I hate that the pirate bay doesn't discriminate: small indie companies are as game for piracy as comfortable big companies who can shoulder the losses to piracy) and I hate how the entertaiment industry has played the "poor me" card on the piracy issues, exaggrating the losses it suffers and pressuring governments to persecute copyright infringement when there are real criminals to deal with.

"What if for example, I film my stereo system playing a song, is that an infringement?"

Yep.

What really needs to be done is that the IP laws need to be re-written with an emphasis on the rights of genuine consumers and a placement of obligations on copyright holders. People who own a genuine copy of a piece of work (music, games etc) should be allowed, BY LAW, to make several copies for personal use. IP holders should also be obliged to hold up their end of the bargain to ensure their work will one day be available to the public domain (there has been largescale necessary piracy of old computer software to circumvent this problem: the companies that held the IP weren't interested in preserving their own IP and so it became necessary for enthusiasts to pirate it or it would have been lost).

The issue here is derivative works. If you make an exact copy of music you have bought for your own personal use or for archival/study/critical review purposes, then it is fair dealing in most countries.

If you use it in the creation of your own original work, then you owe royalties. Hence many videos of people dancing to or playing their own rendition of commercial songs. I believe there is a certain amount of leeway if the song isn't actually an intended part of the new work, but simply happens to be there, but that probably doesn't apply to you.

Perhaps consider finding an amateur musician to partner with? There are a lot of talented people out there who might like a project or a little exposure. Alternatively, how about out of copyright works? For example, a lot of Chuck Berry's stuff has come into the public domain. Not helpful if you have your heart set on a particular piece, I know.

It will be interesting to see how copyright changes I suppose. Content providers are, broadly speaking, peddling an obsolete model at the moment. Things are very artificially priced considering that distribution is of negligible cost, and people tend to choose a higher product because they believe the effort they put in justifies that, rather than the often more rational lower price that sells in higher volume. And of course, all work is ultimately derivative.

But artists still need to be rewarded. I imagine some sort of system where they are rewarded based on some combination of person-hours spent playing/watching/listening. The technology is there, but it is difficult to see how the politics would work out. Especially since people still like to buy physical media and listen to radio-broadcasts in preference to digital distribution.

Bleh, stupid:
"Hence many videos of people dancing to or playing their own rendition of commercial songs" ... have been taken down.

I've always thought that it comes down to this:

If you're getting money, or there's a vague possibility that some money at some point could be generated by what you've created, then you need to pay for anything you've used that isn't your original work.

Good advice Quee...I just need to factor in that possibility.

Last year I had a short film shown at a thing on the Thames as part of the Mayor of London's Thames festival. As it happens it didn't contain any copyrighted music...but I noticed some of the other films did. But should I ever get something shown somewhere where they are hot on this...I'll just have to pay up or pull it.

Much thanks for all your input about my specific question. But it's certainly clear that this topic in a general sense, is in a state of flux, mostly due to the advent of the internet I think.

"The issue here is derivative works. If you make an exact copy of music you have bought for your own personal use or for archival/study/critical review purposes, then it is fair dealing in most countries."

I wouldn't say that. In the UK (where I gather the copyright laws are pretty-much the same as the rest of the EU) there was a great deal of discussion of the fact that we *didn't* have this right. As an example, when I used to buy computer software in the '90s it often had an explicit statement in the manual giving the buyer "permission" to "make a single copy for personal use". Utterly farcical, why on Earth should I need permission since I bought the software and therefore have a right to use it? But that's how our copyright laws work.

And, unfortunately, it's not really in the interests of the big companies to give us these rights. Copyright law is a good and noble thing but the entertainment industry regards it as little more than a way of squeezing money out of people and their lawyers work around the clock to find ways in which the average Joe is "withholding" money they're "entitled" too. As an example, a few years ago the record companies declared that any business playing music (ie cafes, shops etc) had to pay them royalties. This was scoffed at as outrageous presumptuousness and yet it came to pass, my local coffee shop has a sign in the window saying they've paid their dues and now have "permission" to play music they already bought.

Like I said, what we need to do is draw a line in the sand laying down consumers rights. The entertainment industry will whine and wail but if governments hold firm they'll accept it and, funnily enough, keep making money. The price of freedom is, as we all know, eternal vigilance. Take your eye off the ball and suddenly Sony et al are breathing down your neck and telling you what you can and can't do.

"But artists still need to be rewarded. I imagine some sort of system where they are rewarded based on some combination of person-hours spent playing/watching/listening. The technology is there, but it is difficult to see how the politics would work out. Especially since people still like to buy physical media and listen to radio-broadcasts in preference to digital distribution."

I wondered this myself. Spotify (which is brilliant) is a good solution to the problem of music file-sharing which allows the same freedom to listen to music whilst drawing the record companies in and giving them a cut but I've no idea how their business model works and I worry it won't persist (which will just lure people back into piracy). I'm also concerned about the decline of physical ownership of music, films and software since I can't help but think it will lead to the dreaded "on demand" system which is a bad, bad thing from the consumer point of view.

May I ask a question here?

..."Yes" Thankyou

If I wrote a non=fiction book, and copied down scientific facts, would I be in breach of copyrighr????



'g'

Copying from one source is plagiarism, copying from many is research

But the situation you describe is why the academic world has this thing called a "footnote" and a "bibliography"

So as long as I put it in my own words, there should be no problem.

That right, Mala??



'g'

So long as you don't pretend it's yours.

You can't find someone saying "My experiments prove that 80% of kettles boil when you're not watching" and just reword it as "80% of kettles boil when you're not watching, or so my experiments prove"

You'd have to say "According to Researcher XYZ, 80% of kettles..."

Or "80% of kettles boil when you're not watchingSee "Kettles and the boilingness thereof by Researcher XYZ, 1939, Kettleboil University"

depending on the formality of your book.

Generally if you use someone else's idea or research, even if you put it in your own words, it is good practice to put a reference. Aside from copyright issues, readers may also find it useful for their own research.