The Dink Network

Reply to Re: Millimeter talks about copyright

If you don't have an account, just leave the password field blank.
Username:
Password:
Subject:
Antispam: Enter Dink Smallwood's last name (surname) below.
Formatting: :) :( ;( :P ;) :D >( : :s :O evil cat blood
Bold font Italic font hyperlink Code tags
Message:
 
 
January 9th 2016, 12:39 AM
dinkdead.gif
millimeter
Peasant He/Him Canada
Millimeter is Wee-Lamm, Recording Artist. :-) 
I will keep this post about copyright only, and answer data points in another post.

Much of what I write about copyright is not merely my opinion, unless I specifically say it is my opinion or desire.

Simply, according to the Berne's convention, once a work has been published, it can be used for personal use to some extent, the definition of "some extent is varied depending on the work and the purpose of it's use.

Using portion's of a work to write a review or news report on the work is permissible, IIRC upto 30 seconds of audio or video is acceptable, unless a complete section is required to retain the actual message conveyed by the creator.

Using a complete composition for the purpose of Parody is also accepted, such as Weird Al Yankvich, as it is both obvious that the derivative work is not an attempt to mislead the audience as to who created the original work, and it would also tend to increase exposure of the work to a larger audience.

Public performance is generally accepted, at least in music, where there is no attempt to claim ownership to somebody else's work. Most minor performances are likely to be small enough in scale to not detract from the earning potential of the copyright holder, larger scale performances are required to either belong to a Performance Rights organization or perform at a venue that is required to pay a the yearly usage license fee, which is collected into a fund and distributed by a formula based largely on average radio play lists, for example. For the most part, performers do not contract directly with the owner of the work, though there are some exceptions such as an act portraying a specific artist or band. Bon Jovi, Bryan Adams, AC/DC, and ELVIS are a few examples of this where there is a flat fee licensing arrangement but it is more of a "right to portray the likeness of" the artist, and does not require keeping track of number of performances, and the such. I do work with an Elvis impersonation act, I can only presume the the other acts have similar licensing arrangements.

However, "educational use" is not always free either and is not always limited to properly crediting the copyright holder in the performance. As well, it is not limited to realizing a monetary benefit that makes the use become a payable performance, receiving a higher grade or standing because of the inclusion of the work, can be considered realizing a gain.

The copyright holder does retain the right to not allow their work to be presented in a way that is different that their intention when creating the work and also they can prevent their work from being used against them in an effort to damage their character. The example used by BMI, if an artist writes a song that speaks against cruelty to animals, they can prevent a performance of their work that is aimed at promoting cruelty to animals. A more recent example is the hit song, "Eye of the Tiger", owned by Survivor. They claim they wrote the song to promote an individual overcoming their own weaknesses and becoming a champion of who they are. They are currently offended that their work was used to promote the exercise of a religious concept, that places some peoples beliefs lower than others. This message is completely contrary to their intent of creating the work, and they are seeking compensation.

I will clarify, copyright does not grant the holder the ability to prevent the use of their work in all situations. Copyright is largely a Capitalistic document that demands the holder is entitled to realize gain from their work when a gain is realized from their work being performed, and to limit the use of their property when that use could tend to reduce their future rightful earning potential from that work.

The restriction of making copies is not entirely etched in stone. For any recorded material, such as audio, video, computer softer-ware; it is permissible to make a "working copy" of recorded medium with the intent of keeping the original as a "Master", that will only be used to create a replacement working copy, when the physical media becomes worn through use.

It does not imply that you can purchase 1 copy and use it simultaneously on 2 devices. It does not imply that you can purchase 1 movie and charge your neighbors to come over for movie night, even if that rental fee is their supplying the popcorn and beverage. It does not imply we can buy 1 music cd for our home, and make a copy for our vehicle or friends. At the same time, we can install most computer software on multiple computers in our home, with the restriction that if we purchased 1 copy, we can only be using it on 1 computer at any given moment. Some software includes copy protection mechanisms to prevent multiple installations, attempt to circumvent that is not permitted.

On how copyright applies to recorded media, it can make sense to think of it as, we have purchased the physical media as though it was blank and we have rented a license to use the recorded material for personal use only.

I don't think the math should be in the law.
For the most part, the math is administered by a handful of Performance Rights organizations. The have predefined membership fees for Authors, Performance Artists, and Venues (which includes elevator/restaurant/telephone background) and other uses. My leaving the math out was to avoid trying to define how they calculate how much each artist will receive for a single use of an individual work, relative to the historical patterns of previous performances of their collective work.