![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
defrogITEM: Remember the woman who was ordered by Universal Music Group to take down a YouTube video of her toddler dancing to Prince’s “Let’s Go Crazy” because it was the same as stealing a Prince album from Wal-mart?
She fought back in court, arguing “fair use”. And won.
That’s good news because “fair use” is one of the traditional linchpins of copyright law. It’s what basically allows you to use copyrighted material for non-commercial purposes, be it a news story, a research paper or a parody. And the the music industry has made a point of arguing in its various copyright enforcement blitzes that in the Digital Age, there is no such thing as “fair use”. But then they’ve also argued in court that you don’t even have the right to back up yr CD collection on yr hard drive, even if the CDs are all legally paid for.
If UMG had won the argument that a 30-second Dancing Prince Baby video counted as copyright infringement, you’d never be able to upload a YouTube video again without checking to make sure that there’s no incidental music playing in the background – or forking over a fee to the record label.
It’s also worth noting that the music business (and Hollywood, for that matter) is interpreting the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) as being much more restrictive of fair use – and that the US govt is lobbying on their half to use the DMCA as the model for the global Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) – the same treaty being negotiated behind closed doors that would, among other things, require your Internet service provider to cut yr house off completely after two written warnings if UMG (for example) suspects anyone in yr family is infringing copyright in any way at all.
So right on, Dancing Prince Baby.
We can dance if we want to,
This is dF
She fought back in court, arguing “fair use”. And won.
That’s good news because “fair use” is one of the traditional linchpins of copyright law. It’s what basically allows you to use copyrighted material for non-commercial purposes, be it a news story, a research paper or a parody. And the the music industry has made a point of arguing in its various copyright enforcement blitzes that in the Digital Age, there is no such thing as “fair use”. But then they’ve also argued in court that you don’t even have the right to back up yr CD collection on yr hard drive, even if the CDs are all legally paid for.
If UMG had won the argument that a 30-second Dancing Prince Baby video counted as copyright infringement, you’d never be able to upload a YouTube video again without checking to make sure that there’s no incidental music playing in the background – or forking over a fee to the record label.
It’s also worth noting that the music business (and Hollywood, for that matter) is interpreting the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) as being much more restrictive of fair use – and that the US govt is lobbying on their half to use the DMCA as the model for the global Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) – the same treaty being negotiated behind closed doors that would, among other things, require your Internet service provider to cut yr house off completely after two written warnings if UMG (for example) suspects anyone in yr family is infringing copyright in any way at all.
So right on, Dancing Prince Baby.
We can dance if we want to,
This is dF
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
on 2010-03-03 05:06 am (UTC)Right now JMarc and I are dealign with Fair Use issues in the SIXSMITHS.
We want to quote a few (2 or 3) lines from a song in one of the chapters, but we're having a hell of a time finding out if it's going to get us sued or not.
Obviously, a musical performance in a comic strip is not threatening Hal Leonard's IP... but I'm reading a lot of scaremongering about "Fair use doesn't apply to prose fiction."
-- JF
no subject
on 2010-03-03 05:56 am (UTC)This also kind of illustrates how murky this is getting – it used to be pretty clear cut what counted as fair use and what didn't. Now everyone has to err on the side of caution, which is just fine with the media companies. They'd just as soon everyone assume that they can't do anything unless they get permission and pay for it.
no subject
on 2010-03-03 07:32 am (UTC)Australia's laws aren't all that relevant, actually, since the publisher is based in California.
I always thought you needed permission to quote a substantial portion of a song, but a couple of lyrics would be fair use. I have been advised otherwise, however.
I've written my own version of a traditional song which we'll probably use instead, but it's really not the same.
-- JF
no subject
on 2010-03-03 02:00 pm (UTC)