ASK & DISCUSS INDEX

12 years, 2 months ago - John Lubran

I'd be interested to know which ‘authoritative’ source you've consulted Paddy. Considering actual Law, statutes, rules, regulations, Acts and mere procedure as demanded without lawful authority at ‘unlawful administrative hearings’ it’s a matter of fact that only one of the above is actually Law with a capital L. (‘unlawful administrative hearings,’ the authoritatively definitive ‘Halsbury’s Laws of England’ uses this term to describe the actual status of tribunals, most county court, some higher court and many magistrates hearings. You just couldn't make it up!) As far as I’m aware the issue of fair use and any specific words used to describe that condition are only a matter of Law when considered within the context of Law (No, that’s not an oxymoron). That means that constitutionally there is no specific regulation (yes, we do have a Constitution and it’s written too; ergo, of if it’s written it must be codified, even if on many diverse instruments; 1215, 1688 etc.). However there are Constitutionally Lawful precedents and statutes concerning intellectual property rights, unfair exploitation, misrepresentation and the Common Law argument of reasonableness/unreasonableness, under which supremacy for example, any contract or agreement that can be proven to be unreasonable is ultra vires (null and void) You couldn’t make that up either! The rest is an opportunity for the legal profession to push certain legal fictions for no other purpose than profit.

12 years, 2 months ago - Paddy Robinson-Griffin

John, could you post a link to the 'actual law' bit? I'm not sure there is such a thing as 'fair use' in British law per. se., so need to do some reading up! Cheers :)

12 years, 2 months ago - Ted Weinbaum

Festivals will require that you have all the rights to songs you use, but if you just picked it up with the mic while something else is going on they aren't going to care. For distribution beyond festivals that's when it becomes a potential problem; again that's what E&O insurance and a lawyer help you with when you have some kind of deal on the table.

12 years, 2 months ago - Ted Weinbaum

My understanding is that there is NO clear line and you aren't going to find one. I live in the US, so I'm not sure about the UK but I imagine these rules such as they are would be broadly the same. The threat of a lawsuit is often enough to keep someone from exercising fair use without the rights holder from using a piece of music. Anyone could theorectically sue you for anything you used under fair use, the matter remains grey, except where it's an obvious violation. I believe this is partly what E&O insurance is supposed to protect you from. And having a lawyer to tell you whether he thinks it's a good idea or not.

I attended a lecture with Alex Gibney where he said that on one of his early films he used one or more Beatles songs in the documentary, I think the film was about the 60s and it was directly relevant to the subject matter. After consulting with his lawyer, he said he was in effect challenging the rights holders to sue him. He said he didn't believe they would, and they didn't. But he says the reason they didn't was because if they had, he would have faced them down in court, and he believes they would have lost. And if that had happened, then the law would be set in stone, and anyone would know they were in their rights to use copyrighted songs in certain contexts, whereas now they don't, and they might pay instead for fear of being sued.

12 years, 2 months ago - John Baker

Haven't tried iMovie to FCP X but apparently works well.

http://www.larryjordan.biz/fcpx-import-imovie/

I doubt if songs count as fair use unless they are very short segments, maybe just single lines, not whole songs.

I mix sound and can do you a good price. I also make a tool for initially extracting the audio from an FCP X project for sound post.

http://vordio.net/guide/

12 years, 2 months ago - Paddy Robinson-Griffin

Hi John, please excuse my ineloquence above, SP doesn't seem to allow for withdrawals or corrections, (at least on the phone interface I use) and some days I make a better fist of things than others. I respect your healthy reserve about the motives of the legal profession, they're probably spot on - my last lawyer gave up law for good staying that they were a bunch of self serving... Well you get the idea. Shame, as he'd always had a relatively unlawyeryness about him which was what I liked!

What I was hoping to ask for was if you had a nice clear site which would spell out where 'the line' would be for shooters to be confident. For instance, in the original question, I took it that it could mean that the people singing in the park could have been in the park at that time at the behest of the director.

12 years, 2 months ago - Tom Green

I think the Hargreaves report on copyright did recommend some equivalent of the US fair use rule for UK but I'm not sure it's actual law yet. There are, I'm afraid no 'common sense' guidelines whatsoever. If the copyright holder decides to have a go at you, you'd probably have to either take the songs out or take the film out of distribution (including YouTube) It's pretty similar to the use of samples in music, though- in the end they're unlikely to unless it's obvious your film is making money and it's worth their while. Personally, I'd take the risk. If nothing else, any ensuing court case would make them look pretty petty (in this use) and give you some useful publicity. Yes, you're using their copyright, but since you're not using the original recordings, the label who owns them can't chase you, only the publisher. Who, I think, these days, is Paul Mcartney- I'm fairly sure he got the rights back to Northern Songs catalogue a while back. Probably got better things to do than chase small filmmakers using his songs....

12 years, 2 months ago - nanc cohen

I am grateful for the range of answers... does that ultimately mean that to be safe one needs to hire an attorney? And be insured? Or can you send to festivals, and then let potential broadcasters decide what;s needed after they option project? I know that with "rock hudson home movies"...all the footage was directly from the telly and the director had the deals with the studios for footage set up when his distribution company decidied to handle it. Thank you,nanc

12 years, 2 months ago - John Lubran

As I said before, most lawyers and corporate entities or their mirrored structures within other institutional organisations, such as some festivals, are timidly risk averse to a fault. If one needs to work with them or be beholding to them in any way then this entire conversation may be fruitless. If one must play with them then it's likely to have to be to their often unnecessary and arbitrary rules, regardless of any actual law. What this conversation does suggest though is that if one is functioning within the growing 'fully independent' sector with regards to production and distribution then legal fictions need not be applied.

12 years, 2 months ago - John Baker

Yes, the main problem with copyright law is it is basically designed by 300 years of powerful interests punching the crap out of each other in a room full of lawyers. That isn't a design process that leads to something logical and simple that non lawyers or small outfits without a legal department can follow. It is also a case of you do pretty much what you want until someone sues you. Then if you can't afford to defend yourself you are stuffed. It really needs a total rethink from the ground up but that is unlikely as corporate lobbyists have so much power now and the unnecessary complexity means it's a gold mine for the legal profession.

Yes, there is no fair use in the UK but people are also a bit less litigious than in the US (with automated matching now this is less likely to help you though).

There is a 5 year academic research project (CREATE) going on into copyright reform for the UK but already that is being derailed by corporate lobbyists even though only has just begun!!

https://paulbernal.wordpress.com/2013/02/01/create-and-the-copyright-lobby/

12 years, 2 months ago - John Lubran

Fair use rules are quite definitive. Nevertheless too many timid lawyers are risk averse to a considerable fault. First thing to clarify is what sort of film will this SYNC SOUND appear in? If the film is a fiction or an abstract arts production one has to be much more careful but if it's a factual project where sync sound is merely coincidental and no misrepresentation or harm is being done to any rights holder then you're pretty free to use it as sync sound with the images. Apart from a momentary split audio edit or parallel action cutaway the music cannot be used without the corresponding images. There is no specific length limit for a sync sound clip in actual law, as opposed to the law that some folk just make up, but one should be careful not be obviously over milking the opportunity beyond contextual reasonableness. Keeping these things in mind it's doubtful that anyone is going to risk making a case of it..

12 years, 2 months ago - Paddy Robinson-Griffin

Apologies, John I've found that fair use is in use to mean fair dealing in the UK - you can safely ignore my plea above unless you have any good authoritative sites in mind which shooters can use as an acid test? Cheers :)

12 years, 2 months ago - John Lubran

These are not the droids you're looking for

12 years, 2 months ago - Ted Weinbaum

I think you'll be OK if you follow common sense fair use guidelines.