Copyright?

[Ad's]

I was just wondering if anyone could tell me where you stand for copy right when you put a video up for all to see of your latest flight and you put music to the video as i would like to share some of my footage but dont want to upset anyone or get into some big bother?

[Colin Naylar]

Can't believe that you are asking this. Any video that you produce is yours and the copyright belongs to you. Obviously if you accompany it with a commercial record track then you are infringing their copyright and liable to prosecution. If you compose your own music then it is yours to do with as you wish. You can't just steal someone else's music! I feel strongly about this as back in the day I wrote commercial educational software and at one point was telephoned by a school asking how they could produce hundreds of copies to distribute to the pupils.

[BB]

Theres loadsa 'copyright free' music on the web if you search that phrase. But, if you are talking about that favorite track on your favorite CD, you'll be infringinging copyright rules by using it.

 

I tend to download music from YouTube that carries an itunes listing, seen just below the main screen on the right. This means its for listing & playing in your region. It'l mean you will end up with a brief advert on your vid. They will send you a notice of a 'possible' copyright issue. It will either be allowed, with an advert. Or, disallowed and removed. If, so, just add another.

 

Youtube also gives you a choice of tunes you can use from their copyright free list. Pick the genre and length depending on your own preference and video length.

 

E.G; One of mine.

 

 

BB

Edited By BB on 29/12/2011 20:53:15

[flyeruk]

Colin,why cant you believe he is asking this? Surely its better to ask such a question if you dont know the position.

[Tony Bennett]

i dunno why people have to keep putting music to everything.

 

 

[Ad's]

i only asked as i have seen quite a few video's with well known songs on them,here and elseware and as flyeruk points out its better to ask if you are un- clear, after all isn't that how anyone gains know how about anything in life? i just thought if i am not sure abut this i cant be the only one so here we are

[Steve Houghton 1]

I am one of those people who likes to add music to my gliding vids. Reason being if I don't, you just get either a load of wind noise or nothing at all as I have to remove it.

 

Many video editing suites have music with them that can be added to your videos. I've just downloaded the trial version of the Cyberlink Powerdirector 10 suite, and that has a surprising amount of usable music available, although I have been guilty in the past of using commercially available music

[Alan Cantwell]

if you are not getting financial gain, then no one will bother you, the fact that you have picked their music could even flatter, its the same with using aircraft names on models, call your model for your own use a cessna 152, and no probs, call it a cessna 152, and make shed loads and sell them, COULD be problems!!

[Tim Mackey]

Doesn'twork quite like that on U tube etc though.

Almost ANY commercial music will be quickly detected by the robot spy, and the soundtrack will be removed. Sometimes you will receive a notice to that effect, other times not. We had a whole thread about this subject a few weeks back.

[Tim Mackey]

Here.

...and Here

[Alan Cantwell]

spoilsports, and partypoopers

[kc]

The previous comments about copyright are not quite exact as regards the photos or videos. It is the person who commisions the photos who owns the copyright. If you commission ( instruct or ask ) someone else to take photos ( perhaps of your wedding etc ) you own the copyright even though the photographer owns the actual negatives etc. Digital would be just the same as film.

[Erfolg]

Are you sure KC?

 

In respect to my daughters wedding, the photographer submitted a selection of proofs, with Copyright printed over them. We then had to select and buy the photos we wanted. It was a dear do.

 

I also worked for an Engineering organisation, who contracted out development work and the production of engineering drawings, to a another organisation,all paid for by the company I worked for. The contractor claimed Copyright and patents.

 

It seems a thorny area.

 

Apparently Apple has a patent on touching the screen as a means to accessing data, there are many others of a similar type, where some argue that the idea is both self evident, and been prior a concept from both comics and films. None the less some with money get patents and copyright, others have to pay.

 

It does seem that if you work for others, your ideas are worth your salary, to the business they are worth millions.

[kc]

Erfolg. Yes i am sure unless they have changed things recently! Digital might have changed things but not in this respect I think.

Basically if the wedding photographer just took the photographs without being asked to, then he owns copyright. However if someone commissions the photographs they own the copyright. ( unless they agreed some different arrangement) But the photographer owns the negatives! ( unless agreed otherwise ) So you have no way of obtaining prints unless he prints them or he gives or sells the negatives to you! Memory cards would obviously belong to the camera owner. But you own the copyright if you commissioned the photos, so you could publish them if you wanted but the photographer could not ( unless agreed ) So once you have bought a print you could scan it and reproduce it if you own the copyright. But of course the other guests could not as you own the copyright.

Stamping " Rough Proof" or " Copyright" on the proofs is just an old way of making you pay for proper prints. ( a friend who did wedding prints in the old black & white film days only gave the prints marked proofs a short time in the hypo (fixer) so they faded in weeks anyway! )

However people are cunning and you might have signed away your rights by signing some contract, perhaps an order note etc with small print. . Maybe he said something about him owning copyright during a verbal agreement

All this has been in many photo books over the decades with weddings as an example but it applies to all art.

As an example. My brother in law asked me to video his sons wedding. I agreed and he owns the copyright as he commissioned me ( no money was involved I did it for fun ) I should have said " On condition I own the copyright in case there is anything to send to Youve Been Framed" But I didnt and there wasnt anything anyway! But as brother in law owns the copyright  I could not now do so legally.   But this is why I suspect wedding photographers have some small print making you agree to changing the normal laws so they can cash in if anything newsworthy happens.

( beware of this if you commission a wedding photographer make sure there is no small print. You want to own copyright in case there is any incident.  You dont want to end up on Youve Been Framed without payment! )

I would presume there was a contract with special terms agreed between the parties for any big engineering contract

 

As for employment, obviously the employer commissions the employee so clearly the firm owns the copyright. But to make sure they would have this and claim patents too in the contract of employment or something.

Edited By kc on 30/12/2011 16:39:46

[John Cole]

KC: "My brother in law asked me to video his sons wedding. I agreed and he owns the copyright as he commissioned me ( no money was involved I did it for fun )."

 

If there was no money involved and you did it for fun then in legal terms there is "no consideration" and hence no contract between the two of you. So YOU would own the copyright.

[kc]

John, you dont need a contract. Its a right you own copyright. You could have a contract which gave away this right.

 

Incidentally, I only did it reluctantly and I made sure there would be a professional still photographer to organise the photos & ensure a proper record existed. I didnt want responsibility if anything went wrong! I just enjoyed the day and filmed casually.

[Erfolg]

KC

 

At first I thought it does not matter who owns the copyright.

 

That was until you wrote about if anything happened. Then I thought, hum, it matters a lot. Not to make money. But potentially preventing someone whom I have paid, acting against my interests and perhaps comfort, when I have paid to make it potentially possible.

[John Cole]

KC: you say "he commissioned me". No he didn't. That requires a contract and there wasn't one (no consideration). He asked you to do it. That's different. So you own the copyright.

 

Totally irrelevant to the original question, though.

[kc]

Sorry John you are wrong! It's in all the photo books for decades. The person commissioning the photos owns the copyright, whether or not there is money involved.

 

Erfolg. Thats why it's important not to have some smallprint you didnt notice giving the copyright to the photographer. But you can bet that they try to grab the copyright via small print because obviously there is money to be made from TV shows when something funny or even tragic happens. It would be bad enough looking a fool at an event without having it spread over TV for years to come.

 

 

If memory serves I think they always published an article about copyright in the Writers and Artists Yearbook which is probably still published each year. That would be a first place to look if this matter concerns you more.

[John Cole]

KC: Yes, a person who commissions the photo holds the copyright.

 

My point is that in the case you describe there is no commission, as a commission is a form of contract. And there's no contract, as there's no consideration. Note: consideration does not HAVE to be money, but normally is. And the money does not need to change hands. In your case an agreement to pay one penny, payable on demand (and never paid) would suffice to create a binding contract (and thus a commission).

 

This may not be what the photo books say. But you'll find my answer is correct if you look in any book on English contract law.

[kc]

Well if John has studied law maybe he is right for contracts. Actually my understanding was that if there was a consideration there was definately a contract , but that a contract could exist even without a consideration. I might be misinformed!

However there is no exchange of a 'consideration' if you decide ( commission yourself ) to create a photo or some work of art, yet you undoubtedly own the copyright. So I say there doesn't have to be a consideration.

[EarlieP]

Interesting discussion kc but I'm afraid incorrect in terms of your understandiing of copyright!! I must state a personal interest in this as I am a fulltime professional wedding photographer.

The copyright is always owned by the creator or author as defined in the 'Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988'. Therefore even if the photographer is commissioned then the copyright is retained by the photographer, this may not sound right but it is a fact and its a common misconception by couples that they own the images of their wedding.

The only exception to this is if the creator is employed and creates something within their employment, in this case the first copyright is owned by the employer.

In our case we always hold copyright, but license the client to use the images and this can be from complete use through to a restricted use. Photographers who talk about giving you the copyright are talking rubbish as you cannot give copyright. For instance we allow any personal use of wedding images, but the couple cannot use the pictures in publications or supply pictures to other vendors such as the venue.

anyway this is my first post on this forum, but i thought i had better clear that one up - happy new year everyone...

earle

[Antiquated]

It isn't quite true to say you can't give someone else the copyright - but it must be done in writing (see http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-manage/c-useenforce/c-use/c-sell.htm)

 

Any sensible person getting works created that fall under copyright will negotiate for the copyright to be transferred as part of the contract - although this will usually cost extra.

 

There is also a separate right, the so-called "moral right" that can be asserted on certain types of work - one of these is the right to be named as the author of the work.

 

Things get more complex if a work is the result of multiple people.

 

[Erfolg]

I am not sure that your interpretation can be completely correct, in all circumstances.

 

The reason being, after the company I worked for were caught out by subcontracting a design activity, where the subcontractor successfully claimed all intellectual property. All subsequent work paid for by the business, subcontracted, as part of the terms of the contract, had to transfer all rights, copyright and patents to our company out of any work undertaken on the companies behalf as defined by the contract.

 

I guess photographers get away with claiming copyright, is that most of us ordinary citizens do not recognise that they will hold the copyright, if we do not do anything about it. I cannot imagine that the company I worked for would have allowed ( as I have written) any photographer to hold the copyright for any work that they had commissioned. They certainly did not allow any design, drawing, modelling work, that they commissioned (payed for) to be in any way the property of the company which was paid for that activity. They became very IP savvy.

 

[EarlieP]

Antiquated

Antiquated you are right, in that you can assign copyright as part of the contract. Erfolg, your ex-company should shoot their contracts department, as that should have been dealt with at the contracts stage

 

earle