Hi all, I hope my twist on the question isn't out of line for this thread. I'm a volunteer, (a parent too) who video records kids on the dance line team in high school dancing, to music of course, for competition. These competitions are in the school gyms, are open to the public, but the hosting school does usually have a door fee, and the videos frankly are of very non commercial quality. That is to say, I'm in the stands with only the camera mic recording. The volunteer part comes in where I put these recordings up on youtube so that all of the girls, family, and whomever, can see them. They are used to review their performances as well as I'm sure, show grandma, what they are doing. I certainly make no money from this, and the recording quality is such that no one in their right mind would listen to it just for the music (there is cheering, yelliing, etc in the background) and as such I wouldn't think that it detracts from the marketability of the piece. The issue at hand is that youtube seems to randomly claim that I am infringing on UMG's, or someones copyright and either blocks, or removes the video. To me these are what fair use is all about, but then I'm the consumer here, not someone looking for a profit. On the down side, a substantial portion of the musical piece is played, sometimes all of it. Additionally, it isn't simply random, it needs to be there for the dance to make any sense. One could have a very weak argument I suppose that it is educational since it is used for review and thus further practice, but I'm wondering of putting it on youtube obviates that argument...... It is certainly non commercial. And it could possibly be considered a derivative since the tempo is frequently altered to suite the dance. I have thought of talking over the track a bit and adding commentary to turn it into a news piece, but feels silly and perhaps like a sham to me. Any thoughts? I'd love to hear what anyone else thinks. I should add that this same scenario applies to the video I might do of a school play, or other school activities. Thanks for your time, Mike
Copyright enforcement?
- Thread starterSayen
- Start date
Morte615
Active Member
Fair Use and Online Video | Center for Social Media
A good primer for information on Fair Use. The quality of the recording does not matter, neither does it matter if it is used for commercial or not, just how the copyrighted material is used in the recording. If in doubt ask an attorney.
YouTube uses an automated system to prevent violations. It misses quite often and even items that have a clear cut fair use are taken down regularly. If you think you are in the right there is a way to get your videos back up. (https://www.eff.org/issues/intellectual-property/guide-to-youtube-removals) Though they are not guaranteed to remain there. Look into spending some money and host the videos on your own site, that may help but you may still get take-down notices and you better be prepared to defend them.
A good primer for information on Fair Use. The quality of the recording does not matter, neither does it matter if it is used for commercial or not, just how the copyrighted material is used in the recording. If in doubt ask an attorney.
YouTube uses an automated system to prevent violations. It misses quite often and even items that have a clear cut fair use are taken down regularly. If you think you are in the right there is a way to get your videos back up. (https://www.eff.org/issues/intellectual-property/guide-to-youtube-removals) Though they are not guaranteed to remain there. Look into spending some money and host the videos on your own site, that may help but you may still get take-down notices and you better be prepared to defend them.
gfiremark
Member
Volunteer or not, profit or not, what you're doing amounts to copyright infringement. It's NOT Fair Use, it's a wholesale copying of several other copyright protected works, and making of a derivative work without permission of the copyright holder.
When you press "record", you begin making a duplicate (albeit low quality due to the microphone) of the song being played through gym's loudspeakers. When you upload the video to YouTube, you're making ANOTHER copy, and when the video is streamed to users, there's an unauthorized performance of the copied work. YouTube's algorithm is rightly catching this, and taking your videos down. If they don't, they could be liable for Millions of dollars in damages. (the DMCA requires that they implement these kinds of procedures, or lose their so-called "safe harbor") So, they have to be vigilant.
The school has a license to make a "public performance" of the song (this is what ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC are all about... public performance licensing) But, the license does NOT authorize the recording or making of derivative works based on the song. That would require direct permission from TWO different owners. First, the owner of the musical composition (the music publisher representing the songwriter), and second, the record company that owns the recording being used.
It may seem oppressive, even silly, but it's the legal framework under which these entities (the publisher, record company, songwriter and artist) get compensated for making the investment in writing, recording and marketing the music we enjoy and dance to.
When you press "record", you begin making a duplicate (albeit low quality due to the microphone) of the song being played through gym's loudspeakers. When you upload the video to YouTube, you're making ANOTHER copy, and when the video is streamed to users, there's an unauthorized performance of the copied work. YouTube's algorithm is rightly catching this, and taking your videos down. If they don't, they could be liable for Millions of dollars in damages. (the DMCA requires that they implement these kinds of procedures, or lose their so-called "safe harbor") So, they have to be vigilant.
The school has a license to make a "public performance" of the song (this is what ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC are all about... public performance licensing) But, the license does NOT authorize the recording or making of derivative works based on the song. That would require direct permission from TWO different owners. First, the owner of the musical composition (the music publisher representing the songwriter), and second, the record company that owns the recording being used.
It may seem oppressive, even silly, but it's the legal framework under which these entities (the publisher, record company, songwriter and artist) get compensated for making the investment in writing, recording and marketing the music we enjoy and dance to.
I would personally have no problem recording a rehearsal for the purpose of critiquing a show. I would even record a show that had a relative in it to keep. Just don't post it on the internet. For safety reasons, personal videos of your children (and other people's kids) shouldn't be on the net anyway. There are too many weirdos out there. There is a way to make YouTube videos private so that only people you allow can view them, but you're still showing copyrighted material on the net.
Is making the video legal? Most likely not. But if I had a kid who was acting in a play and the cellphone in my pocket recorded video, you can bet I would save that memory.
Is making the video legal? Most likely not. But if I had a kid who was acting in a play and the cellphone in my pocket recorded video, you can bet I would save that memory.
And it's exactly this mindset that makes your ilk the bane of every House Manager and usher.
What part of "The use of cameras, and audio or video recording devices is strictly prohibited." don't you get?
.
I'm not suggesting that someone disturb fellow audience members by opening up their cell phone and trying to record a show during a performance. That's distracting. However, I wouldn't have a problem recording during a dress rehearsal.
DrPinto, I think you are missing the point.
It is not just about the distraction to the audience, which I will grant you is very self-centered and rude. If you do not have permission from the copyright holder to make the recording, you have no right to make said recording. The copyright holder can seek redress for your action. I know of a local dance school where a parent made an unauthorized recording of their child's performance and the the choreographer had the parent ejected from the performance and their daughter ejected from the dance school. I guess they will treasure that memory.
It is not just about the distraction to the audience, which I will grant you is very self-centered and rude. If you do not have permission from the copyright holder to make the recording, you have no right to make said recording. The copyright holder can seek redress for your action. I know of a local dance school where a parent made an unauthorized recording of their child's performance and the the choreographer had the parent ejected from the performance and their daughter ejected from the dance school. I guess they will treasure that memory.
I do get the point. But I have to wonder why the parent was kicked out of the performance. I'll bet it was because he/she was distracting, not because the choreographer was thinking about copyright law.
In this age of cellphones with built in cameras, parents will try to sneak video of their kids performing. It doesn't matter what you say in the pre-show announcement, some will. And I don't see that changing in the near future. Parents want video of their kids. They don't care what song is playing while their child is on stage and they don't expect to make money off their recording. There should be some allowance for this. Maybe by allowing limited recording during a dress rehearsal or having the performance recorded professionally and allowing parents to buy a copy (with a cut going to the copyright holders), this problem can be dealt with reasonably. It just seems that copyright law and its enforcement has gone overboard.
Well, you make it sound clear cut, but here's what I'm thinking. The case of a parent audio/video recording a, football game, dance recital , play, etc., seems to me to be directly related to the 'Dancing Baby' case where it has been decided that the use was Fair. The main difference that might occur is the length of the audio captured. Perhaps I'm placing too much emphasis on the fact that it is non commercial, does not detract from the saleability of the original piece, and has an educational function. This is still a developing area, and I sure do hope congress sorts it out in an understandable fashion soon. One thing that I thought of while pondering this, what of security cameras in the gym, on the street, in the theater, that are all recording AV all the time. This isn't posted to the public web such as youtube, but it is on the web for use by school officials, police, security, and so on. What issues may exist there??? Is it any different than the parent recording something? They are all copies. Mike
They were ejected because the choreographer was upset about her work being stolen, not because her work used prerecorded music, under SOCAN license.
Re. security cameras: They're there to capture thieves, miscreants, what have you - any inclusion of copyrighted material is incidental, and as it happens (in Canada at least) that's one of the exemptions. Additionally, if someone still wanted to pursue this non-infringement, who would they go after? The original installer who clicked "Record" 7 years ago?
Parental recordings, on the other hand, are clearly meant to capture a specific work. That the parent does not know if the work is copyrighted, or whether they have permission to record, has no bearing.
Of course, nothing is illegal if you don't get caught, but "everybody does it" isn't going to stand up that one time someone does end up in court.
Parental recordings, on the other hand, are clearly meant to capture a specific work. That the parent does not know if the work is copyrighted, or whether they have permission to record, has no bearing.
Of course, nothing is illegal if you don't get caught, but "everybody does it" isn't going to stand up that one time someone does end up in court.
Last edited:
The topic of copyright can get very complex and subjective. It is the realm of specialist attorneys who play in gray areas and use language that sometimes even they don't understand. It can also involve greatly varying personal perspectives and strong beliefs that one's personal perspective is justified.
That being said, the example of recording a dance team performance and posting it on YouTube seems to potentially involve multiple rights issues. Was the music being played legally obtained? Did someone obtain performance rights? Is the music and dance performance such that it may require dramatic or Grand rights? Do you have mechanical rights to record the copyrighted content? What about rights to copy and/or distribute it?
I look at it simply, there probably has been some benefit to or value gained from performing to the music and recording and posting those performances as human nature being what it is they otherwise would probably not be happening. The media and performance quality, your being a volunteer amateur, your not financially profiting and so on may affect any potential damages or penalties but probably not whether any infrigement occurred. And the educational exemption is generally much more limited than many seem to think, e.g. face-to-face instruction, directly relevant to an established curriculum, etc.
I also look at copyright infringement a bit like speeding in that it may be common and you may believe it is acceptable in your situation but neither of those alters the legality or the potential consequences. It isn't what you think or believe but rather how the legal system interprest it and thus you are often best served by obtaining the input of an expert in that area.
That being said, the example of recording a dance team performance and posting it on YouTube seems to potentially involve multiple rights issues. Was the music being played legally obtained? Did someone obtain performance rights? Is the music and dance performance such that it may require dramatic or Grand rights? Do you have mechanical rights to record the copyrighted content? What about rights to copy and/or distribute it?
I look at it simply, there probably has been some benefit to or value gained from performing to the music and recording and posting those performances as human nature being what it is they otherwise would probably not be happening. The media and performance quality, your being a volunteer amateur, your not financially profiting and so on may affect any potential damages or penalties but probably not whether any infrigement occurred. And the educational exemption is generally much more limited than many seem to think, e.g. face-to-face instruction, directly relevant to an established curriculum, etc.
I also look at copyright infringement a bit like speeding in that it may be common and you may believe it is acceptable in your situation but neither of those alters the legality or the potential consequences. It isn't what you think or believe but rather how the legal system interprest it and thus you are often best served by obtaining the input of an expert in that area.
JChenault
Well-Known Member
I always enjoy these copyright discussions.
One thing I have not seen discussed is the use of recording rehearsals for the sole purpose of setting cues.
For example, when not dealing with equity actors, is it all right for me to video tape a rehearsal in order to have a memory jog of the blocking so I can more easily decide where and what my cues should look like.
I would opine that this is fair use. First of all what I am doing is akin to time shifting in recording TV shows. Secondly I am not taping the final performance, but only rehearsals. Third since I delete the video after the show is done, there is no adverse effect to the copyright holder
But as always, I would be interested in your opinions
One thing I have not seen discussed is the use of recording rehearsals for the sole purpose of setting cues.
For example, when not dealing with equity actors, is it all right for me to video tape a rehearsal in order to have a memory jog of the blocking so I can more easily decide where and what my cues should look like.
I would opine that this is fair use. First of all what I am doing is akin to time shifting in recording TV shows. Secondly I am not taping the final performance, but only rehearsals. Third since I delete the video after the show is done, there is no adverse effect to the copyright holder
But as always, I would be interested in your opinions
I'm not a lawyer, but for the copyright aspects, this sounds like fair dealing to me (in a Canadian context). The copy of the work is for private study, literally, and is therefore exempt. Of course, there are many other factors that could prevent you from making the recording in the first place.
GOP Caucus Fires Staffer For Advocating Copyright Reform | Crooks and Liars
Write your congressperson.
Sayen
Active Member
I like this analogy, and that's usually how I explain it to people. The other aspect is that if you speed, you probably shouldn't brag about it, or post videos online. The copyright world is also changing rapidly - pre-Internet copyright holders weren't as involved as they are now, especially in a post-Napster world.
There is also the element that not everyone gets stopped and you never really know when it might be you. You could get busted at any time for doing the same thing you previously did for years without issue. And while obvious violations will understandably garner attention, enforcement sometimes seems almost random or the result of some specific combination of circumstances.
Sayen
Active Member
I had a cop give me a good analogy for that too, as it related to speeders. This is like old timey advice time. He said a woman once complained when he wrote her a ticket, claiming that while she was speeding, she wasn't the fastest car on the road. Think of it like fishing, he said. You don't always catch the biggest fish, but you usually come back with something. And the big ones eventually get caught, or die off.
Wow. Just wow. That was a really thought provoking memo. It has since been deleted, but it's available here:
Republican Study Committee Intellectual Property Brief
It's a good read for everybody.
