Uploading an Entire Movie and Commentating It Fair Use
Disclaimer: What you're about to read is a compendium on fair use and copyrights pertaining to motion-picture show and video production. I provide plenty of links and references to support the information. Simply it should not supervene upon consulting an attorney with regard to your item situation.
What are copyrights and trademarks?
Just put, a copyright protects literary and artistic assets such as books, movies, videos, plays songs, photographs, etc. It should not be confused with a trademark which is a form of protection geared towards words and symbols. Trademarks are predominantly for the protection of a visitor's intellectual property surrounding its brands and logos.
Unless explicitly expressed, whoever creates an prototype (photo or video), owns the copyright to that image. As long as that image does not infringe on another pre-existing copyright. That is why information technology is so important for production companies to have contracts in identify with both clients and subcontractors with regards to the videos or photographs they create.
What is Off-white Employ?
The laws and regulations around fair employ and copyrights are among the virtually disruptive aspects of filmmaking. When tin can you lot use a vocal, photo, or motion-picture show clip, etc., and exist inside the bounds of the police? And what nearly all those thousands of videos uploaded to YouTube and Vimeo every week? How are they able to become abroad with what announced to exist copyrights violations?
Department 107
According to the U.South. Copyright Office, Fair Utilize is "a legal doctrine that promotes freedom of expression by permitting the unlicensed use of copyright-protected works in certain circumstances . Section 107 of the Copyright Act provides the statutory framework for determining whether something is a fair use and identifies sure types of uses—such as criticism, annotate, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research —as examples of activities that may qualify as fair use. Section 107 calls for consideration of the following four factors in evaluating a question of off-white utilize:
- Purpose and character of the apply. Including whether the apply is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
- Nature of the copyrighted work (using parts of something more than artistic in nature, similar a movie or book, has a weaker "fair use" argument than news footage or a technical article).
- Amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work every bit a whole (i.due east. do you really need 3 whole minutes of "Avengers: Age of Ultron" in that video essay most superhero movies? Or will iii seconds do?)
- Effect of the use upon the potential market place for or value of the copyrighted work (will the utilize hurt the original copyright holder'south ability to make coin from the work that was copied?).
The thing that makes fair use and so difficult is that information technology'due south not a lucent police force. It'southward relatively open to interpretation. Unless you lot're actually sued or challenged, you may never know 100% whether your use adheres to the constabulary or not. In court, it's the ruling judge'southward discretion based on his or her own interpretation of the law.
Transformative Piece of work
These four factors boil down into two of import questions:
First, are you repurposing the textile for employ in a mode other than its original purpose? That is what information technology means for a work to exist transformative. This is a common term you lot volition hear in discussions of fair use. A archetype example would exist the use of a moving-picture show clip inside an educational context. A prune from Saving Individual Ryan'south opening scene in a video essay on how Spielberg uses cinema verité is transformative. You're taking the original media (a piece of amusement) and using it for instruction.
Is it off-white?
However, if you took those same clips and dropped them into your WWII short film for the express purpose of being a battle scene, well, in the words of Andrew Garfield to Jesse Eisenberg'southward inThe Social Network, "Lawyer up!"
The 2nd question to inquire is, "If your use is transformative, are you using the advisable amount for that transformative purpose?" Usually, this amount is a small percentage of the whole. In the above example of using clips from Saving Private Ryan, you could probably justify as much as thirty seconds to adequately show utilize of cinema verité. Notwithstanding, if yous uploaded the entire picture show to your "educational activity channel," and you only had a few random vocalism-over commentaries nearly color grading or cinematography, that would be a harder fair use argument to support.
The fab four
F our uses of copyrighted material are specially addressed and often protected past fair use: commentary, criticism, education, and news. Then satires, parodies, video essays, documentaries, etc., volition usually be protected by fair use. However, your interpretation of "teaching" my not be the aforementioned as a approximate's. Lots of videos are uploaded to YouTube with a disclaimer like "This video is uploaded for educational purposes."
But it's just the full video with no transformative aspect. (Sorry buddy, that doesn't cut it.)
Remember, off-white use is the kind of law wherein a transgression isn't definitively determined until after the fact (i.due east. you get sued). It'due south not like running a red light or shooting a person in cold blood. These are acts that you know are illegal beforehand. So invoking "fair utilise," leaves you open to litigation if there are no expressed licenses in place. That'south only a cold hard truth.
With that said, you don't have to be gun-shy about it. There are resources and past precedents in place wherein you tin can feel confident in your awarding of off-white use. We'll become to those subsequently.
The DMCA
No discussion of copyrights and fair use in filmmaking would be consummate without addressing to some extent the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). This was a law signed by President Nib Clinton on October 12, 1998 that implements two treaties by the World Intellectual Property System (WIPO). The law is detailed and contains five titles. In short, and paraphrasing Wikipedia speak, "Information technology criminalizes production and dissemination of technology, devices, or services intended to circumvent digital rights management (DRM)."
These are the technologies used to admission copyrighted digital media such as computer programs, movies, etc. A key aspect is this. DMCA is the limitation of liability for net companies with regards to copyrighted works distributed on the internet. In other words, sites similar YouTube and Vimeo aren't liable for violations past people who use their services. Equally long as they respond immediately to copyright holders' requests for action confronting violators. We'll accost this afterwards as well.
Documentary Filmmakers' Argument of All-time Practices
I've studied and written about the topic of fair use a number of times in the past. A twelvemonth ago I had the opportunity to interview Patricia ("Pat") Aufderheide, one of the co-founders for the Centre for Media and Social Impact. This is a not-profit organization, based in Washington D.C. It fights for universal copyright and off-white utilize standards for films, videos, photographs, and even podcasts and radio.
My interview was part two of a ii-part podcast series on Fair Use in Filmmaking. (You can hear my full interview with her here). CMSI has worked with legal scholars and media professionals to create a series of PDFs. These aim to standardize off-white usage and provide a centralized resource for media makers. One of the documents is The Documentary Filmmakers' Statement of Best Practices in Fair Utilise. Pat specifically worked with one of the world's nearly renowned experts on fair use, Peter Jaszi, to put this document together.
Driving forcefulness
The principal impetus for Pat and Peter creating this document (and leading the research to create it) was their discovery of the number of documentary filmmakers who were fugitive the usage of material they believed would put them at risk. Some recurring refrains from documentary filmmakers included: don't cover any topics related to popular music; don't cover any politics that would require you to use news footage; don't cover anything related to popular civilisation; etc.
All of these topics would crave huge clearance budgets, some fifty-fifty greater than the budgets of the entire films themselves. Every bit Pat puts it, "Filmmakers aren't waiting for people to censor them. They're just going alee and doing it to themselves."
Based on these findings, Pat and Peter got funding from the Rockefeller and MacArthur Foundations. This was used to fund the extended research and cosmos of the statement of all-time practices.
The beauty of the argument of all-time practices is that it was created in conjunction with working feature film documentary filmmakers and the earth'due south leading legal scholars, to define, in uncomplicated words, what kinds of uses of copyright works fall nether off-white use. I used and referenced it in the making of my short movie documentary "Mixed in America: Little Mixed Sunshine."
I even had Pat watch the short to get her take on it. The prologue, in particular, contains a number of clips from music videos, old movies, and gimmicky movies. Aslope the credits for the clips used, I likewise reference the Off-white Use statement. So technically, could Disney or HBO come up later on me? Yes. But I followed the guidelines and went the extra mile to credit the clips used. And so, I'm not losing any slumber over the "Mouse House" giving me a call.
The Big Five Filmmaking Scenarios
Now I want to address the top five areas where filmmakers run into trouble when using other people's copyrights. This is based on my discussion with Pat and additional research. I'll be using a combination of case studies where copyright violators went afoul of the respective copyright holders. And cases where the fair use appears to be categorically intact.
Nosotros're also planning to produce some more articles on the concern side of filmmaking.
Trademarks and logos
You know how some reality Tv set shows blur out the logos on clothes? I used to think that was because the reality evidence didn't want to give gratis advertisement to the make. But that is not the instance. It turns out that it'south because of copyrights.
The first part of my same podcast 2-part interview was with New York documentary filmmaker Salima Koroma. I was interviewing her for something completely different, and I asked her how her morning was going. (Y'all know, regular pre-interview chit chat.) She said it was hectic because she was coming together with her lawyers to go over all the clearances she had to get back and become for her documentary "Bad Rap." Clearances she had no idea were needed. This pre-interview "small talk" led into a 15+ minute conversation that became its own separate episode.
For case, at that place'southward a shot of Times Square in her film. In the background are all of these logos, musical posters, billboards, etc. According to Salima'southward attorneys, they ALL needed clearances.
This seemed crazy to me. If anything seemed to fit nether fair utilise, a two-second shot of "The Lion Rex" billboard in the background of a documentary seemed it. Not only was it brief, but information technology was too incidental. These types of occurrence helped to inspire the work backside the CMSI-created document of best practices. Salima's attorney'due south response was that it's amend to exist condom than pitiful and get the clearances. Even if something technically fits nether "fair use."
Images
In 2011 I participated in The 48 Hr Film Project. To this day information technology remains the most challenging and one of the virtually rewarding filmmaking experiences of my life. One of the rules of the festival was making sure you had clearances for any copyrighted material in your film. Including paintings and photographs.
"But Ron, didn't yous allude to the fact that incidental appearances of copyrights or trademarks might be okay?" That is truthful. But one) these weren't documentaries we're making, they were narrative pieces of fiction. And 2) the 48HFP distributes the winning films online and internationally. And so they're roofing themselves. And in example you're wondering, no, my film didn't win. We missed the deadline by 30 minutes because needed to re-consign the projection.
Stock photos and footage
But it'due south only not the use of photographs or paintings as incidental appearances y'all demand to be mindful of. If you're using them in the video (i.east. you're dropping the image on your NLE timeline), you demand to make sure y'all have clearances. In that location are many resource for legally licensing stock photos and footage (e.g. Pond5, Getty Images, Video Blocks, and Shutterstock, to name a few).
There are also plenty of resource to obtain complimentary stock imagery. Sites similar Unsplash and StockSnap have utilized Artistic Commons Zero licenses. This is the most permissive of the creative eatables licenses (come across beneath for the full clarification of Creative Commons). It's essentially just one "notch" below the public domain. A CC0 license allows you to use the copyrighted piece of work any way you want. Without the demand to even credit the copyright holder. I've frequently used Pixabay to find free stock video footage. (Keep in mind, you get what you pay for.)
Movie and tv set clips
As I mentioned higher up, I used clips from diverse movies and Boob tube shows for my short motion-picture show documentary. Mayhap the almost common area where you lot might see this example of fair use is in video essays. Essayists similar Tony Zhou ("Every Frame a Painting") and Evan Puschak ("Nerdwriter") garner millions of views from their respective video essays. And they all include movie clips, photographs, television clips, and in some cases, even music.
Yet, YouTube has non invoked DMCA rules to take their videos down. And, on top of that, these guys are making thousands of dollars per video (as of this writing, Tony'due south Patreon campaign for "Every Frame a Painting" yields over $7,700 per video).
One of the tests for fair utilize adherence is whether the copyrighted material is used for commercial gain. It'southward clear here that these guys have a commercial do good from their apply. Evan not only makes a few one thousand dollars per video from his Patreon, but he also gets corporate sponsorship from companies like Squarespace.
In essence
But video essays are the quintessential instance of fair use in terms of both education and critical commentary. That is the essence of a video essay. Based on the transformative utilize, the corporeality of the copyrighted cloth used, and the fact that this utilize is not hurting the commercial viability of the copyright holders, they're protected.
At present, I cannot say for 100% certain those guys don't actually take licenses with all parties whose copyrighted works are being used. Just, I'one thousand going to get out on a limb and say that a guy from Philly making videos in his living room and earning $3,000 per video has not paid licensing fees to a dozen or so different conglomerates.
I have another perfect example of this usage where I exercise know for sure the filmmaker did not have license or permission.
Kirby Ferguson is the filmmaker behind "Everything's a Remix."
This brusque film series has garnered millions of views and Kirby has even spoken on the TED phase. Back in 2010 I interviewed him for one of my older podcasts, and I later contacted him about his use of Tarantino movie clips, as well equally music usage (where he used parts of famous songs to illustrate, coincidentally, how musicians sample songs). Kirby told me he did not get permission from the studios or labels to use those clips.
Y'all know what he did practice? He followed the guidelines of the CMSI'southward The Documentary Filmmakers' Statement of Best Practices in Fair Use. In fact, he was the starting time person to e'er refer me to the work of Pat and the CMSI.
Intellectual Belongings
Intellectual Property (or "IP") is a physically intangible detail of value based on ideas, estimator code, trademarks, copyrighted stories and characters, etc. For many companies, their IP is their primary product. And so, it stands to reason, they become out of their fashion to protect that IP.
But filmmakers are nerds. (You're reading an commodity by a huge ane. A nerd that is). And we love our sci-fi and fantasy. Hence the fan motion picture.
Fan service
YouTube contains tens of thousands of fan films. Media created by fans of a slice of IP wherein they utilise that IP to brand their ain films. (Some have jokingly argued that this flavor of "Game of Thrones" is a glorified "fan film" vs. an accommodation because George R.R. Martin hasn't finished the final 2 books in his famous Song of Ice and Burn series upon which the HBO serial is based. But, over again, don't get me started.)
Based on my understanding of fair utilize and copyright police, merely nigh every single instance of a fan film is a copyright violation. They are not necessarily making money from these films; merely for the nigh function, the films are not making whatever kind of commentary or critique on the IP. They are not transformative in purpose either (i.e. didactics). They are entertainment for entertainment'south sake, merely like the original IP.
Now, some IP holders encourage fan films and allow a vibrant fan film community to flourish. Fan films go along the culture alive and fans excited almost the traditional IP. Lucasfilm is a perfect instance of that in how they've responded to and embraced the "Star Wars" fan film customs. (One of the about historic "Star Wars" fan films recently was last year's "Darth Maul – Amateur" with over 14 million views as of this writing.)
Withal, some IP holders of sci-fi space stories are non every bit forgiving.
The Battle of Axanar
Earlier this yr, after a legal boxing that lasted nearly a yr, Paramount Pictures and CBS (the owners of "Star Trek") won a judgment against Axanar Productions. Axanar had raised over $ane million in crowdfunding to produce a feature-length version of it's popular short film "Prelude to Axanar." Axanar claimed fair apply. A U.Due south. district court judge said no.
Axanar and CBS/Paramount eventually reached a settlement whereby Axanar agreed to substantially change the length and content of their film (which naturally put them in a bit of a bind as they raised over a 1000000 dollars to make a feature).
What fabricated this case particularly stand up out was the fact that there have been "Star Trek" fan films literally for decades. Dating back equally early every bit the 80s. Fifty-fifty Axanar's original movie "Prelude to Axanar" was made with no objection from CBS/Paramount and as of this writing has over iii 1000000 views.
Don't get them started
What gear up the studio off, in this instance, was the scope of this new project. In addition to the feature-length and the $1 meg+ upkeep, information technology stars well-known actors similar Richard Hatch (Apollo from the original "Battlestar Galactica" and Tom Sarek in the SyFy Channel remake), Gary Graham, and Kate Vernon (too from SyFy's "BSG"). In the eyes of CBS/Paramount, the feature-length fan motion picture with those production values and bandage, was also much. (especially with the new "Star Expedition: Discovery" serial on the horizon).
Richard Hatch (who sadly passed away this past February) played a Klingon commander in the Axanar series.
The uproar from the fans was huge. Needless to say, they were pissed. The fan community is what kept "Star Trek" alive, going as far dorsum as the 70s. So many saw this lawsuit as an affront on the fan loyalty and devotion to the franchise.
In an effort to support the fan film community and encourage the continued production of fam films, CBS/Paramount created a set of guidelines for time to come fan picture productions. They put limits on things like the amount of coin raised (must be less than $fifty,000), the running time (less than 15 minutes), and that films must star and be produced by amateurs. Many feel that those guidelines are likewise limiting. Simply fourth dimension volition tell how it all plays out.
The Wrath of Kahn
Joseph Kahn is one of the almost prolific music video filmmakers on the planet. He is the go-to guy for Taylor Swift. He'south insanely talented and has the attitude to match.
About 2.five years agone, he and producer Adi Shankar released what some have described as the most ballsy Power Rangers film always made. Based on the popular children'southward series endemic by Saban Entertainment, Kahn and Shankar's version is dark, gritty, and admittedly Non FOR KIDS. This is due to sexual practice, graphic violence, drug use, language, nighttime themes—pretty much everything you lot tin put in a flick that makes it NSFW.
Recognizable talent
The production values are top-notch, from the CGI to the choreography; and even the acting is very good. It likewise stars well-known actors, namely Katee Sackhoff (yet another SyFy BSG alum), and "Dawson" from the WB hit "Dawson's Creek", James Van Der Beek.
A quick response
It did not have long for the brusk to become viral. Saban, who at the time was in pre-product for a new Ability Rangers film (released last twelvemonth), ordered to have the video removed from Vimeo. Kahn was pissed.
Remember the DMCA I mentioned to a higher place? This is where it came into action. Under the regulations of the DMCA, Vimeo was required by law to remove it at the behest of Saban. And they retorted every bit such to Kahn on Twitter.
They released a formal statement on their web log where they said:
"The video creator feels that the video is covered past Fair Use based on the fact that it is not-commercial and satirical. We hold that an argument for fair use tin be fabricated, but the DMCA police force does not requite content hosts (like Vimeo) permission to disregard a takedown detect simply considering of the presence of one or more fair use factors. This is a legal matter between the copyright holder and the video creator."
Making a example
Kahn and Shankar were making the case that this video falls nether Fair Use considering they were non making any coin from information technology, and they saw it as a satirical commentary on kids and violence. IMHO, I called B.South. on both, and I think Saban had a strong case against Kahn regarding this film.
- Kahn may not have been paid for the film, simply you don't take to be a Harvard business graduate to know that a picture similar this, and the publicity information technology was getting, will be worth more to him long-term than whatever director fee he would've earned. Filmmakers make these kinds of films all the time precisely for the marketing value they bring. All an chaser has to do is add up the press impressions Kahn had gotten on sites like Mashable, i09, HitFlix, and pretty much every major tech, sci-fi and movie website and calculate what ads on those sites would cost to come up up with a effigy.
- Information technology'due south plainly non an educational or "news" detail.
- Lastly, I don't remember this kind of film actually qualifies as a "commentary" on Power Rangers, or even a parody. It is a serious drama using the characters from the universe. In Kahn's own words, he made information technology considering he wanted to run into a "practiced" Power Rangers film; non as a critique or commentary. Shankar released a video which gives his reasons why he made it. But the comedic nature of this video clearly shows there was no sincere desire to brand a serious commentary nearly children and violence. At the end of the day, they wanted to make a kick-donkey Ability Rangers film. And without a doubt, they did.
Split conclusion
I loved that Power Rangers "fan film." It was truly a marvel. But it actually wasn't off-white use. Every bit fan fiction, few accomplish the level of sophistication of the Kahn motion picture. But if that fiction goes against the brand of the fine art in question, the copyright holder should have the right to have it removed, no affair how abrasive or frustrating information technology might be even to the very fans for which it was fabricated. IMHO, we as artists should really exist defending that right, non fighting confronting it (as many people did when Vimeo offset took information technology downward).
Ultimately Saban and Shankar/Kahn reached an understanding to reinstate the film if a disclaimer was added. I actually call back that's was pretty generous on the side of Saban. (And based on the dismal performance of their official Power Rangers pic, they may desire to await into Kahn doing a characteristic-length version of his fan film. One that is more child-friendly, of course).
Music
The last of the big 5 areas of fair apply scenarios for filmmakers I desire to encompass is music. Oh boy. This will exist fun.
No expanse of confusion on this issue is perhaps more misunderstood than music. You need look no further than the hundreds (if not thousands) of professionally shot wedding ceremony videos edited with copyrighted music. Or the countless epic short films on YouTube with Hans Zimmer or Michael Giacchino "scores." Many novice filmmakers assume that if a video is "not for commercial purposes" and/or if the music was purchased on iTunes, then that clears them or their conscience. Unfortunately, it doesn't (well, it may clear their conscience, but it definitely doesn't articulate them legally).
Within parameters
Music does indeed fall under fair utilise, and and so your use of it must also fit inside the parameters mentioned above. The problem is, most of the use of music in such picture show and video is a copyright violation. They use someone else'southward music, unlicensed, in the manner for which it was originally purposed. There is no transformative use or commentary on the music itself.
In club to legally use music in your flick or video, you demand 2 types of licenses: a main (also known every bit mechanical) utilise license (controlled past the tape label) and a synchronization (or sync) license (controlled by the publisher). The mechanical use license gives you rights to the vocal from the originator; the sync license gives you the right to the specific version of the song and set it to a picture or video. In many cases, the same company represents the publisher and the label. Just if they don't, you lot'd have to arrange for licenses with each entity separately.
Years ago, The Harry Fox Agency was a centralized resource for getting all the advisable licenses for use in films. They take since given upwards managing sync licenses and focus on mechanical apply licenses.
Raising the stakes
Inside the past 7 years, record companies have raised the stakes when information technology comes to illegally using their music. 2 wedding videographers I know personally had rather high-contour public lawsuits past EMI when wedding videos they produced for celebrities went viral. As nigh wedding videos do, theirs had copyrighted music. Each settled out of court for amounts in the 5-figure range; that's A LOT of money for a small wedding filmmaker to beat out out. If you are a wedding and event videographer, don't risk information technology. Fortunately, at that place are alternatives to using music illegally.
Music License Alternatives
Unless yous have a huge budget, you will non be able to get pop music for that really cool brusk moving picture or feature pic. Thankfully, there is a growing number of sites where you lot can legally license music from a broad variety genres. Some of these sites even accept mainstream popular music.
The length and cost of the license volition depend on factors such as the intended audience (wedding, corporate, personal), the size of the audience, and the intended distribution (theatrical, online, DVD/Blu-ray, broadcast). For theatrically-released features, you will typically demand to suit some sort of custom license (which undoubtedly will toll you lot an arm and a leg).
Royalty-free? Or rights-managed?
The most important thing to keep in heed is that some of these sites have royalty-free licenses, and others take what's chosen "rights-managed" licenses.
- Royalty-costless is essentially "buy one time, use indefinitely." You tin can use royalty-free songs in just about all manners of production, for as many productions, for as long as you similar. A few of the most popular royalty gratuitous sites I'g familiar with include Pond5, PremiumBeat, and AudioJungle. You'll notice that the rates on these sites can be as little as $12 to $40.
- Rights Managed licenses are more than restrictive. They are typically for ane vocal and one production. Whereas royalty-costless sites accept one price per song, rights-managed sites will change the price based on the license. The same song my price $60 for utilise in a nuptials video, simply $500 if used in a local cable TV commercial, or a corporate promo video for a visitor with fifty or more employees. The rights managed sites I come across more often are Marmoset Music, Song Freedom (now FyrFly), MusicBed, and Triple Scoop Music.
Equally an avid podcaster who pretty much does information technology as a passion projection, I don't have the budget to license music for the episodes I produce. So I've turned to a resource that is not only great for music only applicative to all forms of copyrights: artistic commons.
Artistic Commons
Creative Commons is an organization dedicated to providing worldwide licensing for copyright holders who want the power to freely and easily license their work to others. When you lot apply a copyrighted piece of work under Creative Eatables, you agree to one of six types of licenses.
Creative Commons licenses
- Attribution (CC BY): This license lets others distribute, remix, tweak, and build upon the copyright holder's work, even commercially, as long every bit they give credit for the original creation.
- Attribution-ShareAlike (CC BY-SA): This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon the copyright holder'southward work, even for commercial purposes, as long as they give credit and license their new creations under the identical terms. All new works will deport the aforementioned license, and then any derivatives will also allow commercial apply. This is the license used by Wikipedia and is recommended for materials that would do good from incorporating content from Wikipedia and similarly licensed projects.
- Attribution-NoDerivs (CC By-ND): This license allows for redistribution, commercial and not-commercial, as long every bit information technology is passed along unchanged and in whole, with credit to the copyright holder.
- Attribution-NonCommercial (CC Past-NC): This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon the copyright holder'south work non-commercially, and although their new works must as well acknowledge the copyright holder and exist non-commercial, they don't have to license their derivative works on the same terms.
- Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike (CC BY-NC-SA): This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon the copyright holder's piece of work non-commercially, every bit long as they give credit and license their new creations nether the identical terms.
- Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs (CC By-NC-ND): This license is the most restrictive, but allowing others to download the copyright holder'due south works and share them with others as long as they give credit. They can't change them in any way or use them commercially.
As I mentioned earlier, I use CC music in my podcasts, but I also used it in my documentary short.
Creative Eatables does extremely important work. It allows content creators to share and employ copyrighted textile in a style that is off-white and equitable to both the copyright holders and the users of those copyrights. You tin learn more nearly them at CreativeCommons.org.
C.Y.A.
As a filmmaker (documentary or otherwise) who wants to use other people'south copyrights in your work, at that place are a number of things you can practise to protect yourself:
- Use the Statement of Best Practices: When CMSI did a report two years ago of documentary films over the previous ten years that had implemented the guidelines of off-white employ outlined in this document, they found the overwhelming majority of them had no issues with broadcasters, insurers, or lawyers.
- Where budgets permit, go ahead and become the clearance. You may recall my recent interview with the editors of HBO'south documentary series "The Defiant Ones", about the careers of Dr. Dre and Jimmy Iovine. The music licensing budget for that 4-part serial was the highest in HBO'due south history.
- CC Yourself: when looking for music, photos, or even stock footage for your video needs, if you don't have the budget, starting time with Creative Commons sites. You tin even start your search directly from the CC Search Engine.
I've tried to give you an exhaustive list of resources and case studies related to fair employ and copyright usage so that moving frontwards, you tin brand informed decisions. But I'm sure there are other resources I may have missed. What are some of your favorite sites for finding and using copyrighted fabric legally in productions? Please share.
[Header paradigm Photo by Claire Anderson on Unsplash]
Source: https://blog.frame.io/2017/08/30/copyrights-and-fair-use-for-filmmakers/
0 Response to "Uploading an Entire Movie and Commentating It Fair Use"
Post a Comment