Projection effect copyright question

[ddeerreekk]

I vaguely remember this or something similar being asked before but I couldn't find it. We were thinking of having a projector project some moving images onto us but I'm not sure what the deal would be with copyright. It would be for small live shows only, and the video wouldn't be very recognizable anyways.

 

I'm thinking clips from movies or even video games that mesh with the songs - is this legal?

[Michael Blue]

Let's put it this way...

 

If you're having a lock-in at a church, and one of the MANY things going on happens to be a DVD playing "in case anyone wants to watch movies" you can (and will - I've seen it first hand) be fined $10K PER person watching.

 

...Same for Superbowl parties.

 

I can't imagine how hard they'd tear you apart for running something on screen during a live gig...

 

Moral? Make your OWN background videos.

[ddeerreekk]

 

Let's put it this way... If you're having a lock-in at a church, and one of the MANY things going on happens to be a DVD playing "in case anyone wants to watch movies" you can (and will - I've seen it first hand) be fined $10K PER person watching. ...Same for Superbowl parties. I can't imagine how hard they'd tear you apart for running something on screen during a live gig... Moral? Make your OWN background videos.

 

 

Yikes:eek:

[eca]

I would recommend searching the web for indie filmmakers sites. they're highly likely to cooperate. think about it this way. if an indie film maker would ask you to use your music in his video, what would you say? I'm sure the cost would be negotiable. I'm pretty sure you can find someone to work with, in a reasonable cost.

[ddeerreekk]

 

I would recommend searching the web for indie filmmakers sites. they're highly likely to cooperate. think about it this way. if an indie film maker would ask you to use your music in his video, what would you say? I'm sure the cost would be negotiable. I'm pretty sure you can find someone to work with, in a reasonable cost.

 

 

Good idea

[eca]

I would love to know if you found something you liked and where...

[ddeerreekk]

 

I would love to know if you found something you liked and where...

 

 

well I'm thinking I might try making my own and seeing how that goes. It's not going to have any sound and it's not going to be the main focus of the stage so I think it'll be fine, even if it's not great quality.

[zenfleshzenbone]

I wouldn't worry about it at all.. I don't think you're gonna have the feds busting down the venue doors over this.

[scarecrowbob]

There is a lot of public domain content at archive.org

 

A lot of it has restrictions on use, but most of it would be perfectly free to be played in public. In fact, I am working up a film presentation to use as alternate content inbetween musical acts becasue the content is mostly free and there are a lot of really stringe things in their moving image archive.

 

check out the films "operation ivy" and "sudden birth" for examples of the odd kind of content they have availible

[sabriel9v]

To the OP, just do it. We're doing the same thing at our next two shows. If you prove that you don't intend to profit, it shouldn't be a big deal. I know of a band that covers Contra, Megaman, and Ninja Gaiden songs with the games projected behind them. They've never once had copyright issues.

[Michael Blue]

OK guys, here's the deal.

 

A church was having a lock-in. There was a DVD playing.

What was the production company out? Technically, maybe they could try to make a case that a few more people could have rented it if they hadn't seen it at the lock-in, that's all.

 

The church was later visited by the FBI and fined $10K PER PERSON at the event, for "copyright infringement".

 

I've heard of similar situations with the Superbowl, in which case there would be NO "damages", but they were fined, nonetheless.

 

If you've never experienced it, it's easy to blow it off as "no big deal", but I guarantee you, the FBI looks at it differently.

 

Recommending anyone to "go ahead and do" something illegal - particularly on an open forum - is ignorant and irresponsible.

[zenfleshzenbone]

OK guys, here's the deal. A church was having a lock-in. There was a DVD playing. What was the production company out? Technically, maybe they could try to make a case that a few more people could have rented it if they hadn't seen it at the lock-in, that's all. The church was later visited by the FBI and fined $10K PER PERSON at the event, for "copyright infringement". I've heard of similar situations with the Superbowl, in which case there would be NO "damages", but they were fined, nonetheless. If you've never experienced it, it's easy to blow it off as "no big deal", but I guarantee you, the FBI looks at it differently. Recommending anyone to "go ahead and do" something illegal - particularly on an open forum - is ignorant and irresponsible.

ah.. what are the chances.. i say go for it dude! {censored} THA POLICE!

[sabriel9v]

Recommending anyone to "go ahead and do" something illegal - particularly on an open forum - is ignorant and irresponsible.

 

That's not very rock n roll Mr. Blue ...

[ddeerreekk]

haha, I kinda doubt it's worth the possible risk. It's easy to say "what are the chances", but like Micheal said, it can happen to anyone. I'll probably try to hook up with some indie film makers or something. That archive site that scarecrowbob pointed me too looks good as well.

[slight-return]

 

A church was having a lock-in. There was a DVD playing. What was the production company out? Technically, maybe they could try to make a case that a few more people could have rented it if they hadn't seen it at the lock-in, that's all. I've heard of similar situations with the Superbowl, in which case there would be NO "damages", but they were fined, nonetheless.

 

 

There they are probably looking at is the infringement of public performance rights [17USC106(4) ] so I htink i'd be more likely they'd argue they'd be out their public performance license fee (which can be different than private viewing) for purposes of acutal damages. Then there are things like statuory and punative type damages.

 

though the "slideshow" stuff would prob fall under 17USC106(5)

Recommending anyone to "go ahead and do" something illegal - particularly on an open forum - is ignorant and irresponsible.

 

I think it's a good point, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" -- that Party A had no problem is no assurance that Party B won't get dinged.

"I got away with it" doesn't mean you will

 

Now. depending on the situation, there can be affirmative defenses and exceptions (about half of chapter 1 in title 17 is limitation to exclusive rights), but remember, with an affirmative defense the burden is on the D.

 

So, for purposes of practice, it's probably better to look at it in terms of risk exposure "how big of a target am I painting on my back EVEN IF there is a chance for legal defense? If I have a legal analysis that opines I am legal am I willing to go guns in my legal defense and possibly lose"

 

You could maybe contact your state's Lawyers for the Arts (a lot of states have em), to see if there is something (I kind of doubt from he description that it would be the case) to get traction with. But if it's just a "cool idea I wanted to try" - it probably wouldn't be a wise use of your time or the atty's time (the volunteer time could be better used elsewhere) nor a wise place to put up a risk

[slight-return]

 

haha, I kinda doubt it's worth the possible risk. It's easy to say "what are the chances", but like Micheal said, it can happen to anyone. I'll probably try to hook up with some indie film makers or something. That archive site that scarecrowbob pointed me too looks good as well.

 

 

One thing about archive.org -- there, certainly, is going to be some pub domain work on there, but the purpose of archive.org is scholarly -- so it's use may fall under some of the library exceptions like 17USC108...just as an example of the type of thing.

 

Your use of that material in a public performance may very well NOT fall under those provision, so be careful what you use even from there

 

 

hey here's a thought -- now I have no idead if he's intterested but...

 

sab9v has been looking to move toward promo/margeting, etc so maybe he'd like to see if he could work in getting you clearances (contacting the copyright holders, etc) , might be nice for you, might be a nice project for him to get some "flying hours" and good resume stuff

 

eh, again, dunno if he's interested or has the time - but something to run by him maybe

[jrlaudio]

 

The church was later visited by the FBI and fined $10K PER PERSON at the event, for "copyright infringement".

I doubt this greatly ... In fact I'm sure this is not true. Gotta love the BS that flies so freely on forums. The FBI does not exercise this type of enforcement. It would be up to the owner of the copyrighted material to file a lawsuit and sue for damages, since this is the only remedy for copyright infringement.

 

For music, this is usually done by representative associations like ASCAP or BMI. For film work I'm not sure who the representative organization is, but I know there is one. actually come to think of it, I think in the US it is the MPAA, and MPA internationally.

 

The police or FBI do not enforce these laws since there are no fines collected by the government. The damages are on the holder of the copyright, not the general public. So the owner of the copyrighted material has to sue to recover the damages. The only time the FBI gets involved is when the problem becomes very large scale, like bootlegging and distribution of illegal copies of movies which comes under illegal trade practice and theft of intellectual property laws, not copyright laws as far as FBI enforcement is concerned.

 

In this situation you could probably find the information about performance license fees and such at the MPAA website, and whether or not it is even necessary in this circumstance. In most cases it is for the venue to worry about and not the artists performing at the venue.

[Michael Blue]

I doubt this greatly ... In fact I'm sure this is not true. Gotta love the BS that flies so freely on forums. The FBI does not exercise this type of enforcement...

 

Psst...Mr, Knowitall...

 

 

 

 

[jrlaudio]

Pssst .... Mr. says he knows it all ....

 

Why wasn't the church fined $250,000 then, and somebody imprisoned.

 

Again, as I said, that is about illegal distribution, mass copying for profit, and commercial unlicensed exhibition for profit. As I said before, The only time the FBI gets involved is when the problem becomes very large scale, like bootlegging and distribution of illegal copies of movies which comes under illegal trade practice and theft of intellectual property laws, not copyright laws as far as FBI enforcement is concerned. That little sign you posted was created by the MPAA.

 

Here's a quote from the MPAA website: (I've highlighted important wording)

 

 

According to the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8: “The Congress shall have power to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.” Pursuant to this grant of authority the Congress has adopted copyright statutes giving the owners of movies and other creative works certain exclusive rights, including the right to make copies and to perform the work in public. One of MPAA's top priorities is to protect the copyrights held by its member companies . This frequently involves litigation against persons who have violated our members' copyrights or have assisted other to violate those rights. Most recently, the MPAA and its members companies were involved in the Supreme Court case of MGM Studios vs. Grokster, an Internet peer-to-peer (P2P) software company. P2P software allows users to search the computer files of other users (“peers”) connected to the network, and illegally copy copyrighted movies and songs. MGM Studios filed suit against Grokster, arguing that the company should be held liable for encouraging its users to violate the copyright law. The U.S. Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, ruled that Grokster was indeed liable for copyright infringement. In one accompanying opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote, “Deliberate unlawful copying is no less an unlawful taking of property than garden-variety theft.” Downloading copyrighted material without appropriate authorization has always been illegal. The Supreme Court reinforced this fact in the strongest terms. Furthermore, companies that encourage their customers to steal copyrighted material can now also be held accountable.

Funny I don't see the FBI mentioned in any of this. There are about 10 other cases detailed on the MPAA site

 

I was gonna say you saw the thing they show on video tapes to much, but I thought that was going to far. I see it actually wasn't. Dolt.

 

I have some personal experience and hold several licenses for public performance of some film I use in a Pink Floyd band I play in, and went through the legalities of this. I've been through the process so yeah I do know. Don't compound things by continuing to flame on this issue.

 

As far the original poster, yes it can be illegal, unless the venues you play in already have a public performance license.

[jrlaudio]

I called my lawyer. He sent me this information for US exhibition of copyrighted motion picture works. Turns out this from the MPAA website:

 

To Obtain a Public Performance License…

Obtaining a public performance license is relatively easy and usually requires no more than a phone call. Fees are determined by such factors as the number of times a particular movie is going to be shown, how large the audience will be and so forth. While fees vary, they are generally inexpensive for smaller performances. Most licensing fees are based on a particular performance or set of performances for specified films. The major firms that handle these licenses include:

 

Swank Motion Pictures, Inc.

http://www.swank.com

(800) 876-5577

Criterion Pictures

http://www.criterionpicusa.com

(800) 890-9494

Motion Picture Licensing Corporation (MPLC)

http://www.mplc.com

(800) 462-8855

 

 

Licensing costs a hell-of-alot less than litigation.

 

Good luck "dd"

[Michael Blue]

 

...Licensing costs a hell-of-alot less than litigation.

 

 

 

...The only intelligent thing you've added so far.

 

:golf clap:

[jrlaudio]

hmm...aren't we testy. Wonder why? Hmm....

 

I guess ASCAP, BMI, and other organizations who bring litigation against copyright infringement are ... what did you call them ... oh yeah ... Lollipop Guilds.

 

Look dude we are on the same side of the point, and your flaming because YOU made something up and got caught. Show some proof (like a press release) or move on. Nobody wants to hear it. Your "know a friend who knows a friend" crap doesn't mean a thing since most people talk nonsense. I been involved with this first hand and so has my lawyer who does copyright law as a specialty. I'll take what he says as fact.

 

Try giving the original poster some useful information to solve his issue and stop arguing with me about who's right.

 

You have now been officially pwnd!!!

 

later ... I'm done with you.

[Michael Blue]

You're talking civil vs criminal, and you're talking out your backside.

 

"Dolt" and "pwnd"? Yeah, I guess you got me there.

 

Let's see...Here's the NFL not allowing a Church to show the "big game" at a Superbowl party, because their screen is over the 55" diagonal law...

 

The "public viewing" case was a couple years ago, and honestly, your argument isn't worth the time it would take to dig it up for you...

 

You're right...They just put that stamp on stuff "just because"...The Government's not going to bother you for copyright infringement, or any other felonies, just go ahead and do whatever you want...The FBI's just a bunch of pansies, anyway...

 

There's no helping ignorance.

[masterbuilt]

 

To the OP, just do it. We're doing the same thing at our next two shows. If you prove that you don't intend to profit, it shouldn't be a big deal. I know of a band that covers Contra, Megaman, and Ninja Gaiden songs with the games projected behind them. They've never once had copyright issues.

 

 

Just because they have never been busted doesn't mean that they could get away with projecting the images on a screen behind them. By the way, "...prove you don't intent to profit..." that is exactly what the "band" is doing during a paid performance when they project the images on the screen behind them. That is part of the performance and musical presentation. Your argument would never hold up in court.

 

Licensing would be a good idea.

[jrlaudio]

Actually, even if you are non-profit it can still be copyright infringement, if there is no licensing. You are referring to "Fair Use Exceptions" to the copyright laws. For this exception to apply there are four points or tests that a judge would look at, profit being only one of them. And even if you could apply the fair use exception it doesn't stop someone from suing you, since this exception is applied during the subsequent litigation.

 

If you're interested there is a good treatise on this here:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use