Copyright: Difference between revisions
Rescuing 2 sources and tagging 0 as dead. #IABot (v2.0beta9)
Looney Toons (talk | contribs) (trope->useful notes) |
(Rescuing 2 sources and tagging 0 as dead. #IABot (v2.0beta9)) |
||
Line 17:
Certain rights, such as reproduction, do not require a public component—one unauthorized copy is enough to get you in trouble. Distribution though, requires a public component. What this means is that when a TV program uses a song in it, they do not have to get permission to reproduce the recording as part of the program, because that program is only broadcast, it is not distributed to the public. If and when they decide to sell copies of that program, then they do need permission to include the sound recording as part of the video, that's why some shows don't get released because of the additional clearances needed.
Any use of a song (music and lyrics) in a public performance generally requires a license. A broadcaster or a webcaster playing a song recording would be required to pay licensing fees for use of the underlying song (music and lyrics). Copyrights for sound recordings, due to a ridiculous tangle of state and federal laws, are notoriously hard to clear and it's best to assume that any original ''recordings'' are NOT in the public domain. However, this is different from copyrights in "musical works." The copyright law has a provision ("mechanical licenses") which requires that anyone who wants to create a cover of a song to be allowed to so long as they pay the statutory fees. The [https://web.archive.org/web/20131021051153/http://www.harryfox.com/index.jsp Harry Fox Agency] is the place to go to find out information about fees in general. Owners of the musical work copyrights (who may different than owners of the SOUND RECORDING copyrights) may choose to lower their fees. This commonly occurs when the producers of ''[[Glee]]'' wish to cover a song.
For years the music industry has been trying to change this and get license fees paid for the use of the recording, the way the use of the underlying song has to be licensed. Record labels couldn't get past the National Association of Broadcasters ("NAB"), the trade industry group and its chief lobbying entity in Congress, so radio and television stations can still play sound recordings without paying additional license fees for the recording itself. But they could get a royalty for the use of the recording imposed on webcasters, which, in fact, the NAB loved the idea, because if the royalty fee on webcasters' use of recordings (which broadcasters do not pay) was high enough, it would kill Internet Radio, which, of course, is a competitor to NAB members and their offerings. (The NAB, of course, really doesn't like SiriusXM Satellite Radio much, either.)
Line 27:
It should be noted that copyright holders often do their best to discourage the concept of fair use. They'd prefer either to get paid for uses which would be considered fair use or even to stop a use they don't like, even where fair use permits it. For that reason, [[Fair Use]] is one of the most amorphous areas of copyright law and it's easy to find a case to support just about any proposition.
Toymaker Mattel didn't like the song "Barbie Girl," which parodied the unrealistic lifestyle of its [[Barbie]] doll line, and [https://web.archive.org/web/20120706064411/http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/296/296.F3d.894.98-56577.html sued the group that produced the song]. Judge Kozinski of the Ninth Circuit ruled that the song was a valid parody of the toymaker's product (and in a [[Crowning Moment of Funny]], Kozinski ends his opinion with the immortal line "The parties are advised to chill"). The Eveready battery company didn't like that the Adolph Coors brewery was doing a beer ad with an actor in a pink bunny suit parodying its "Bunny" ads (which were parodies of ''other'' ads), and in a case of "Can dish it out but can't take it," sued Coors over the ad. The court found this actor in a bunny suit a valid parody, saying "[[Leslie Nielsen|Mr. [Leslie] Nielsen]] is not a toy, and does not run on batteries."
Copyright as we know it originally started when various governments wanted to stop some things from being written; they would grant some publishers licenses to operate printing presses, subject to having to clear what they published with the crown.
| |||