Need a good Bluetooth/wireless speaker

[Boyd01]

However, from a legal standpoint, it is acceptable if copyrighted music/material is playing in the background of a video/slive stream and is captured if the videographer would have no reasonable way of blocking out said background/ambient music/material.

But, of course that would not apply since this isn't a case where you have "no reasonable way of blocking it out". The only reason the music would be in your video is that you are intentionally playing it in an attempt the skirt the copyright law. This thread could be exhibit one in the copyright holder's lawsuit!

 

[KaliYoni]

I once talked to Sony about getting the rights to use the Elvis song "Are You Lonesome Tonight" for non-commercial use with a short film...

Yeah, that's why cheesy cover versions of songs are so common in films, both indie and studio, and commercials.

In my view, musicians and composers who are dead are one thing but unlicensed use of music really does hurt the 99% of living artists who are not crazy popular. Plus streaming services pay insanely low royalties. I'm no fan–or fanboi for that matter–of the music business but I don't think it is unreasonable for video hosting sites to take down content that violates copyright or fair-use laws. A totally unfettered environment barely hurts the Metallicas and Taylor Swifts but totally screws over indie bands, non-pop musicians, and indie record labels.

But, of course that would not apply since this isn't a case where you have "no reasonable way of blocking it out". The only reason the music would be in your video is that you are intentionally playing it in an attempt the skirt the copyright law. This thread could be exhibit one in the copyright holder's lawsuit!

And it bears mentioning that not telling the truth while under oath in court or in a deposition is not a good move. Especially when dealing with corporate lawyers.

 

[casperes1996]

In my view, musicians and composers who are dead are one thing but unlicensed use of music really does hurt the 99% of living artists who are not crazy popular. Plus streaming services pay insanely low royalties. I'm no fan–or fanboi for that matter–of the music business but I don't think it is unreasonable for video hosting sites to take down content that violates copyright or fair-use laws. A totally unfettered environment barely hurts the Metallicas and Taylor Swifts but totally screws over indie bands, non-pop musicians, and indie record labels.

Oh I agree. The fact I reached out to Sony to ask about licensing in the first place was also because I was ready to spend some money for the use of the song - Had they given a price I could more reasonably afford and justify I'd have gone with that. Even for Elvis, not just smaller artists

Covers doesn't solve the licensing problem entirely though. While you don't need the performance rights for it to play a cover in your movie or something (I mean you'll need the cover artist's performance rights of course), you may still need rights to use the composition itself

 

[TwoLaneHighway]

I once talked to Sony about getting the rights to use the Elvis song "Are You Lonesome Tonight" for non-commercial use with a short film. I hadn't made any money off it and had no intention to - i.e. non-commercial - I just wanted to submit it to a film festival. In the end I wound up needing to use the alternate edit without the song because the figure Sony quotes for using the song in this way was astronomical for a student project. I can't remember the exact figure off top my had but in dollars it would probably be around the equivalent of $60k. I couldn't justify spending that much on one bit of audio for the short film - Hell, I didn't have that much to spend even if I wanted to. And they phrased the email something like "Since it's for a non-commercial student project we can offer licensing rights for as little as".
This was quite a few years ago now and I was dealing with the Danish office for Sony Music Entertainment - I have no clue with any other region, company or anything like that, but yeah - I also only have this one experience with SME, and Elvis may not exactly be the cheapest artist in their catalogue to License music from

No you understand my angle!

I wouldn't have guessed $60k for a non-commercial film, but maybe over $10k.

Hollywood and record companies are some of the greediest bastards on planet Earth! (Now you know why music is dying and why so many artists absolutely hate the record companies.)

 

[TwoLaneHighway]

You see, if I add copyrighted music to a video, it is either impossible to get licensing rights, or the royalties would be mega expensive.

However, if music happens to be playing in the background, then it is fair game if it can be heard in a video I am creating.

I think you are way off base here. I've been a moderator at DVinfo.net for almost 20 years. It has been an ongoing complaint that YouTube and Vimeo will take your video down if there is recognizable copyrighted music playing in the background. From what I've seen, they have gotten much more aggressive about doing this in recent years. And people who live-stream events have complained their streams get cut off when recognizable music is playing.

I think you misunderstood the above quote that I added.

I was saying that it is fair game for me to use copyrighted music in my video if that copyrighted music is playing in the background of my interview/video and I have no reasonable way of controlling it (e.g. concert, festival, park, game).

I was not saying that YouTube/Vimeo should have a right to take down your video in that case, but obviously they are doing a "CYA" and don't care.

There are some services that sell licenses that allow you to use copyrighted music but there are complaints of YouTube/Vimeo taking videos down nonetheless.

And that is an even bigger problem than the scenario above.

Then again, it is "their house" and their rules.

You get what you pay for with Google...

I have no personal experience with this but have sure read a lot of first-hand reports. So give it a try and see what happens, but I think copyrighted music is copyrighted music regardless of how it gets into your video.

Well, my first statement about the legality of things is correct. However, how YouTube/Vimeo/whoever chooses to enforce it, is their prerogative.

What I was describing is this...

Ask SPLC: Can we use a video clip that had a copyrighted song playing in the background?

 

[TwoLaneHighway]

Covers doesn't solve the licensing problem entirely though. While you don't need the performance rights for it to play a cover in your movie or something (I mean you'll need the cover artist's performance rights of course), you may still need rights to use the composition itself

Correct.

 

[TwoLaneHighway]

But, of course that would not apply since this isn't a case where you have "no reasonable way of blocking it out". The only reason the music would be in your video is that you are intentionally playing it in an attempt the skirt the copyright law. This thread could be exhibit one in the copyright holder's lawsuit!

Details! Details!

So you are saying you won't be part of my legal defense team?

 

[casperes1996]

I think you misunderstood the above quote that I added.

I was saying that it is fair game for me to use copyrighted music in my video if that copyrighted music is playing in the background of my interview/video and I have no reasonable way of controlling it (e.g. concert, festival, park, game).

I was not saying that YouTube/Vimeo should have a right to take down your video in that case, but obviously they are doing a "CYA" and don't care.





And that is an even bigger problem than the scenario above.

Then again, it is "their house" and their rules.

You get what you pay for with Google...




Well, my first statement about the legality of things is correct. However, how YouTube/Vimeo/whoever chooses to enforce it, is their prerogative.

What I was describing is this...

Ask SPLC: Can we use a video clip that had a copyrighted song playing in the background?

Yeah and in fairness to Google's system, data from 2019 says that for every real time hour, 30,000 hours of video is uploaded to YouTube. If they take down more than they need to under fair use laws then that's just their house rules as you say. If they take down less, then it's a legal issue. And they can't reasonably manually manage all that video so better err on the side of caution