Permissions Required to Use Sampled Political Speech from TV/Radio Broadcasts?

[BenOne]

Hi everyone,

 

I'm thinking of doing a solo CD project that would have a lot of short soundbites of public figures and celebrities captured from web-archived radio/TV newscasts and talk shows.

 

If I completed this project for my own private/personal use, I realize I wouldn't have to get any permissions or pay royalties.

 

But, if I wanted to sell such a CD on CDBaby or at local performances, I'm guessing I'd have to pay royalties/get permissions for all the samples.

 

Is this correct? In practice, is it very difficult/expensive to get permissions from journalistic organizations and television/radio production companies for using such soundbites? Can anyone suggest any strategies for making this as easy/headache-free as possible?

 

Thanks!

 

Ben

[lowbasslowbass]

Very interesting question. I would like to know more, too. Lets hope someone offers some information.

[Anderton]

Well I don't know for sure, but my understanding is that what the politician says is public domain, and can be used. BUT if it appears over, say, NBC, then NBC owns the rights to the broadcast.

 

Practically speaking, I have no idea how NBC would know that you used a sample from their broadcast...

 

Any lawyers out there have a definitive answer?

[BenOne]

Great, thanks! I'm imagining that things are made more difficult by the recent court ruling declaring that even very short samples must be licensed:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5964507/

 

..and it seems that even multi-millionaire artists are discouraged by the current situation -- see Samplers on Sampling at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_(music)

 

And I remember reading somewhere that news organizations don't necessarily have to grant rights for soundbites on their programs upon request, even if they are a statement from a public figure.

 

Still, any additional insights are eagerly welcomed!

 

--Ben

[BenOne]

Craig,

 

Thanks for the feedback. I can't find it on the web, but I seem to remember some story of a person who tried to get the okay to use a sample of public speech captured from a program like "Meet the Press" and being denied the permission on a rather capricious basis. I may have completely misremembered the story, so this may not be completely accurate.

 

The problem is, of course, that most recorded public speech is only available via copyrighted news programs. I don't know of a public domain source that records such speech for free use, but maybe there should be!

 

After the "Dean scream" there were tons of people who incorporated it into musical pieces, but I think that this was okay because the pieces of course were not being sold.

 

So maybe one solution would be to make my hypothesized album freely available on the web, as a kind of freeware music project.

 

Ben

[lowbasslowbass]

Very interesting thread.

Look what I found in google:

Bush public domain archive

[BenOne]

Very interesting indeed. I know that the US government does not protect its work by copyright--for example, an image from the US Geological Survey is public domain, and a speech on whitehouse.gov would not be copyrighted either.

 

But in the neat Bush archive that you pointed to, I wonder where they got the audio for the Bush vs. Gore debate--even a media outlet like National Public Radio places a copyright on its broadcasts. I'm guessing that some media outlet received a direct feed of the debate and declared it public domain.

 

To tell you the truth, while the official presidential speeches will prove to be a fruitful source, I would love to be able to use the many interesting soundbites that have come from debates or interviews conducted on radio or TV programs.

 

Thanks again for these replies!

 

Ben

[Ani]

I don't really have much time right now, but Circ 92 under Title 17 of th Copyright Law of the USA goes into strict detail of what is and what is not acceptable for retransmission of copyrighted works.

 

Section 105 briefly addresses U.S. Government works. Without digging up more, IIRC, certain government publications are automatically public domain due to public servant liabilities to the tax paying citizens of the USA......... I'm thinking, without research to verify, that there are provisions that protect these items against exclusivity and make them available to the general public under the Constitution or another similar law. However, debates or other political speeches that are publicly broadcast on TV, Radio Stations, and etc. are subject to the copyright protection of those agencies transmitting the event.

 

Section 114, particularly, addresses sound recordings but also cross references other sections that apply.

 

In short, anything (non-government) that was recorded and publicly broadcast "AFTER" 1978 is automatically protected under the newer copyright laws. If the works do not qualify for "Fair Use" then you need to seek permissions. Commercial release for sale would automatically disqualify the works from any protection by the "Fair Use" limitations or exemptions.

 

Copyright Law of the United States of America - Circular 92

 

Here's a site that provides some info.... but keep in mind that this is a university that is writing the article and education is one of the areas that qualify for certain "Fair Use" privileges.

 

http://internet.ggu.edu/university_library/ggucopyright.html

 

 

Oh yeah, and BTW, I AM NOT AN ATTORNEY....

[Ani]

Also, in reading your question again, some news reporting agencies are very reluctant to grant permission and may even be under contractural obligations by those politicians to maintain exclusive rights in the broadcast.

[MorePaul]

Commercial use doesn't automatically disqualify claims of fair use(this was affirmed in Suntrust Bank v. Houghton Mifflin Company 01-12200 "THe Wind Done Gone" case in the 11th circuit )

[MorePaul]

 

Originally posted by BenOne Great, thanks! I'm imagining that things are made more difficult by the recent court ruling declaring that even very short samples must be licensed: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5964507/

 

 

It gets even murker

 

The 9th circuit upheld deminimis use in Netwon v Diamond (beastie boys) 02-55983

[BenOne]

Ani, Thanks for all the info, including the link on fair use, and Paul, thanks for mentioning the Beastie Boys case--there's more info on it at http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/packets/vol_1_no_5/001734.shtml

 

As you say, it does make the situation more complicated, because now we have two recent rulings that go in different directions on the sampling issue.

 

Ben

[MorePaul]

It's not uncommon for different regions to have different rulings

 

(you can look up the actual decision right on the various courts' websites -- I find that to be wise as you get the courts' words themselves)

 

 

 

The license v purchase interpretation for software, for instance, seems to have regional bias too

 

 

With a lot of this, there isn't just a single cut-an-dry answer (which is why we have legal interpretation)

 

so there can be a lot more to your question than first appears

[BenOne]

Yes, that's definitely true. I'll have to apply it to my individual case. I wonder if short snippets of political dialogue from a talk show would constitute fair use for my CD project...

 

Maybe one clue could come from determining how political groups are able to air video, audio, and still images of rival candidates and their quotes for attack ads...Do they do it through fair use (though that would be an ironic twist of the term) or do they have to get licensing from the original TV program/radio show/newspaper where the content appeared?

 

Ben

[MorePaul]

Your use is going to be somewhat different than those as they are using the material for direct political comment/critique, so the intent and nature is different from yours

(a quotation itself isn't covered - it's the particular expression in a fixed medium -- ie the recording. So in terms of just a quotation - that's the information, not the expression - artistic expression, as opposed to say political, can get a little more dicey as to how far something has to go to be considered a "Work" and how much of it you use...that goes back to one of the fair use test parameters)

 

[BenOne]

Thanks--that's very true, the political ads often just use quotes (though they often reference the newspaper/tv show in which the quote appeared!)

 

Well, if you'll indulge me, my first demo with political soundbites is already done--it's here.

Some of the soundbites came directly from presidential speeches, others from NPR broadcasts of political debates, and another one from a commencement address (and I don't know who taped it).

 

In your opinion (which I'll just take as one opinion), would it be safest for me to do a whole CD like this and (a) sell a few copies via CD Baby and at shows, (b) make it available for free, or © not even make a CD of songs like these publicly available without trying to get appropriate rights. In case you do not wish to venture an opinion, I'd completely understand, but I'm really interested in hearing your thoughts. For my part, I realize I have to ponder the fair use thing much more deeply and consider every soundbite as an individual case!

 

Ben

[MorePaul]

citation of a source (and it may not be the only source) doesn't necesarilly acknowledge copyright, but allows verification, shows dilligence in research, etc

 

 

I'll sure take a listen as I hope others do and maybe we can at least give you a 2 cents

[techristian]

It is funny that you should ask this question now. I just finished watching an old videotape of U2 on ZOO TV. At the beginning of the broadcast there was some video of George Bush Sr. spliced together so that he was saying "We will we will rock you.",over and over. I'm fairly sure that political stuff is public domain.

 

Dan

http://musicinit.com/pvideos.html

[lowbasslowbass]

This thread is really interesting!

 

 

Well, U2 can probably afford expensive lawyers. But what about "everyday" musicians?

[Prog]

 

Originally posted by BenOne would it be safest for me to do a whole CD like this and (a) sell a few copies via CD Baby and at shows, (b) make it available for free, or (c) not even make a CD of songs like these publicly available without trying to get appropriate rights.

 

 

d) Contact the source of the audio. Tell them you are going to pay them and ask where you can send them the audio bites of the useage along with the payment.

 

"You can't cheat an honest man". They'd be more than happy to direct you to the correct person(s).

[BenOne]

Thanks for all these great replies. That's interesting about the U2 sound montage; I bet Bono wouldn't do that today, now that he sees these leaders regularly at Davos!

 

Option (d) is certainly clever; it might be fun to try, as long as the answer isn't too expensive! I seem to remember that licensing fees are usually based on the number of CDs that are produced, which in my case wouldn't be too many! Please keep your thoughts/ideas coming.

Ben

[MorePaul]

 

Originally posted by techristian It is funny that you should ask this question now. I just finished watching an old videotape of U2 on ZOO TV. At the beginning of the broadcast there was some video of George Bush Sr. spliced together so that he was saying "We will we will rock you.",over and over. I'm fairly sure that political stuff is public domain. Dan http://musicinit.com/pvideos.html

 

 

The artists/band that U2 "outsourced" to for the Zoo TV stuff is EBN - Emergency Broadcast Network

 

Their work consisted (they are broken up now) almost entirely of sampled sound/images

 

It's kinda cool stuff, though it's all pretty frenetic and will bore into your head after a while

 

If you get a chance, check out "Commercial Entertainment Product" - it contains, "we will Rock you / Behavior Modification" in its full length and mariah Carey and Harrison Ford doing "Jungle Boogie"

 

(sorry for the tangent, I just think they are kinda cool and worth checking out -- back to our originally scheduled program)

[Ani]

MorePaul,

 

While there are some cases that have prevailed in cases involving the use of soundbits in commercial broadcasts without permissions acquired first; they are very few and far between. Because a few RARE cases have been decided contrary to the NORM; it does not mean that the laws are void that were put in place to protect intellectual property rights. It just means that "some" people can afford to hire damned good attorneys... and that they might even have a judge or two in their hip pocket.

 

 

 

BenOne,

 

Here is an excellent article that covers a bit on the use of samples in multimedia productions. Note the location of the site that is hosting this article. cyber.law.harvard.edu

 

Multimedia Licensing

[Rabid]

So, if recorded media is more tightly protected than transcripts of speeches, can you just hire a good impressionist and fake the voices?

 

Robert

[Ani]

Here is another site that covers pre-exisisting works and securing clearance rights

 

Clearing Rights for Multimedia Works