At what point are you legally obligated to pay royalties

[slang]

At what point in a protected song's duration are you legally liable for royalties. Is there a tme limit, say, you can distribute the first 20 seconds of a song without paying?

I'd like to make an animation with some popular songs playing in the background.

Is anyone up on this?

[Elspode]

If you aren't charging for the viewing of the animation, I think it falls under "fair use". I think.

[slang]

That would be great. It would kinda sorta advertise a gunshop though.

[Elspode]

In that case, you might have to worry that, if the owner of the song found out you were using it, and they were anti-gun, you might have a problem on your hands. I've always wondered about Rush Limbaugh's use of "Back to Ohio" by the Pretenders as his main theme. I figure he pays for it, and so can use it how he wants.

Your use is intended to promote a for-profit enterprise, and I would think that cuts you out of Fair Use.

[smoothmoniker]

There's no legal time limit that sets "fair use". The limit is “recognizable content.” If a reasonable person can recognize that your content involves or derives from someone else’s work, then you have to pay royalties.

The fair use exemptions are, under the statute, very vague. Derived satirical use, news reporting use, some educational uses are allowable. The difficulty is that if the content you’re using is under the control of a large company, like Sony or EMI, they’re going to sue you for infringement regardless of whether the use is fair or not. They’ll litigate because they have the deeper pockets and the better lawyers, and they figure that a shot at a settlement is better than a possible missed royalty.

One other thing to remember. If you’re pulling your audio from a pre-recorded source, there are two pieces of intellectual property involved. The law recognizes a distinction between the song and the sound recording. Let’s say you’re using the song “Look Away” by Chicago, but you hire your friend to sit in his basement and remake the song using a banjo and a washboard. You need to clear the rights to the song only, and there’s a statutory rate set by law that lets you do that.

Now let’s say that you don’t much like your friend’s washboard playing, and decide you want to use the original Chicago recording, primarily because of the beautifully crafted 80’s synth parts. You still need to clear the song, but now you also need to clear the rights to the sound recording, the actual version recorded by Chicago, and there’s no statutory rate set by law for that. Whoever owns that sound recording is free to charge whatever they want, or to refuse permission.

And if this thing is going to touch TV, then trust me, they will track you down. There are people here in LA whose whole job is to watch TV channels from around the world and keep track of every single piece of intellectual property that gets used.

-sm

[jaguar]

And if this thing is going to touch TV, then trust me, they will track you down. There are people here in LA whose whole job is to watch TV channels from around the world and keep track of every single piece of intellectual property that gets used.

Boy that sounds like a stimulating career option. If it's old enough it might be in public domain but the media industry is doing it's best to snuff out such commie pinko concepts.

[slang]

Good thinking but not in this case. The song is actually a disco version of a song from 1988.

This particular un-named song lends itself to the storyline of as animation that lasts about 2 minutes. There are moans, shouts in pain and synth solos that make it fit all that much more into what I have in mind.

The portion of the song is only the "buildup" for the actual song though. It's obvious what song it is even before the "real song" starts though, so it seems that it wouldn't fit into SM's description of fair use.

The climax of the proposed animation is having a 50 cal round, shot by a marine sniper team in Iraq (or somewhere in the middle east), explode the head of OBL. Not exactly someting I'd like to go through the hassle of explaining, let alone trying to get legal permission for.

Would using the music with no affilliation or identification possibly decrease the chances of litigation?

This is more complicated than I expected and I havent even started the modeling for the animation.

[wolf]

You can always do it for the educational experience it represents ... stick to that story if anyone ever notices.

You think the viking kitties guys asked Led Zep for permission?

[smoothmoniker]

well, if you're asking "will I get caught" that's obviously a different question than "how do I legally."

Will you get caught? I dunno. If the owner of the property is a major publisher, distribution house, or label, and if the final product touches TV, movie, or major website, then yes. you probably will. It doesn't matter if you don't credit it, they don't rely on credit rolls, they rely on software and viewers who scan media for protected property.

-sm

[lumberjim]

but you hire your friend to sit in his basement and remake the song using a banjo and a washboard.

subtle

[slang]

Looks like I'll be tapping Jethro on the shoulder and hanging out in his cellar then.

I might take the chance in using the music, but the owner of the gunshop might not be too happy if the shit hit the fan. Even more frightening, his wife definitely wouldnt.

Thanks for the advice SM.

[smoothmoniker]

slang, just so you know, you're liable as the creator. Not just the guy who commisioned you, and payed for and broadcasts the spot, but you personally as the guy who created it.

I'm not the morality cops here, but you should head into this with eyes wide open.

-sm

[elSicomoro]

Originally Posted by lumberjim

subtle

But it could actually make the song better.

[slang]

Just to clarify here, the advertisment would be on the net only. The original idea was to have the clip available from the gunshop's website. Just to add a "wow that's cool" kinda appeal for the visitors.

So, now I'm working on a new delivery concept that might not have a tag team of lawyers at our doorstep. It's going to kill the original appeal but given the realities of producing this type of thing, it seems like the best option.

What if I could program the download format to launch ITunes and set up the sale of the song I set the animation to? Complex? Absolutely. A hassle for new users or people that dont pay for *any god damn thing* on the net, unfortunately, yes.

Think about this. I have an animation that is an advertisement for the shop available for download on our site. I give a couple of screenshots as the promo.......for the promo. It costs $.99 to watch with music but is free without it. I could explain the legality of the situation and that the $.99 isn't going to me but is actually selling them the song that the animation is set to, so that the original artist is getting a piece of the pie and the RIAA isn't loading up legal ammo to shut the site down.


So, you could download the animation from our site without the music...big yawn....or buy the song that goes with it through ITunes and have *their copy* of the song play. That way there really isnt any protected code embedded into the clip, it just queus up the song to play with the clip. The user gets the copy of the song as a benefit of viewing the clip and if they happen to already have that tune, the program plays finds it on their machine and plays it to the animation with their copy of the music, free.

From either option, we arent liable for any infringement because we dont provide the music. We, in fact become a sales agent for the song and contribute to it's revenue. If the viewer doesn't have the song, they have the option to buy it.....and that enhances the experience of the gunshop's animated adverisement.....and if they already have it, they don't have to mess around. This, in an extrememly small way, might encourage people to use the ITunes system. They get to keep the music, worry free after viewing the clip and get familiar with the system.

I know there are a large number of people that think that everything on the net should be free and they never buy a god damned thing. That's fine. From my experience though, "non payers...not under any circumstance god damnit" types have the potential to see the benefits. A friend of mine was like this a year ago, and thought I was the dumbest mother fucker on the planet for paying for anything on the net. He doesn't have a probelm with the payment protocol and security issues, just that you shouldn't have to pay for anything on the net. Now a year later, after hooking him up with a few subscriptions, is handing me cash money to renew them as he sees their value.

It seems to me there is the same potential for our advertisements, although it looks very complicated at this time.

[wolf]

Don't do it. You will annoy people.

Don't set up any of the pages to automatically play any music.

It makes people crazy. Okay, it makes ME crazy, and you know how easygoing I am. I am merely extrapolating to "people."

Now, on the other side of it ... sounds like any proposal that requires charging people to view the ad will result in people not viewing the ad. I don't think that the interface to be able to get people to buy the tune and then view the ad will be anything other than a colossal pain in the nuts to set up.

(Of course, I would enjoy seeing the piece itself, music or no)