Must the credit reel be displayed in a public performance/display of copyrighted works? I'm the technical volunteer for a non-profit youth ministry. I do front-of-house sound and lighting for a weekly live show while (usually) another volunteer runs the video projector. I also setup the media beforehand that plays on the projector. I'm not very good at searching legalese and so I haven't seen this directly, but I've gotten the idea that credits are required at some point during or immediately after the show, but beyond that, it's open to creativity as to when and how they appear. Even a spoken credit is sufficient. Just as long as that information is reasonably available to the one anonymous audience member that wants to know what something actually was. That includes videos, pictures, music, song lyrics, poetry/prose, etc. So just to be sure that they're there in some form, I've started putting those credits on the projector at the end of the show because, like a movie theater, nobody's paying attention anymore except the one who happens to notice and cares to know. Our president insists strongly that showing credits at all is too obtrusive (as far as I can tell at least - he's not very good with details despite the insistence, even when I try to clarify, and some of my earlier attempts were a bit more obtrusive than what I'm doing now), and cites a concert and some churches to back up his claim that they're not necessary. Most churches' legal credibility notwithstanding (most of the ones that I've worked with directly had a print license for song lyrics only because everyone else does too, not knowing what it actually is, even after years of maintaining it), this is the same guy that put up a fierce fight against buying public performance licenses for about $500 / year. (In fact, I ended up paying that.) His primary argument was essentially the same bandwagon with the same churches, plus his personal precedent, against my (admittedly indirect but still) legal research. So is it necessary to have credits for a live show when someone else's work is used? I would especially appreciate, if it exists, a reference to the exact section of code that says explicitly one way or the other. Thanks!
The credits following a recorded video performance are both customary in the industry, and are also required by union the union contract that applies when the production company is a union shop. These customs have not been static, however, and the history of this particular practice (without its underlying legal context) is discussed in a relevant Wikipedia article. Almost all professionally made entertainment video programming in the United States on television and in the movies, other than pornography, is covered by union contracts, because actors, screenwriters, producers, directors, electricians, costumers, etc. are almost all part of unions or guilds or trade associations organized on an industry basis (as are almost all regional, broadway and off-broadway live theater performances, and as is most live mascot work). See, for example, this list of associations. The Screen Actor's Guild is representative of how this industry-wide union system came into being and works today. In a nutshell, Guild members agree not to work for any production that does not have a union contract, on pain of being kicked out of the Guild, and any production with a union contract is forbidden from hiring anyone outside the union to a screen acting job within the Guild's jurisdiction. Guild members have a strong incentive to honor this requirement because (1) an actor who is kicked out of the Guild is not eligible to work in union productions which have a 97%+ market share (all of the top 79 grossing movies in the U.S. in 2015 were unionized and at least 97 of the top 100 grossing movies in the U.S. in 2015 were unionized), and (2) most of the employee benefits that more conventional employees get through their employer, like health insurance and retirement plans, are usually secured by Guild members through the Guild. Many screen actors also rely on the Guild for referrals for new audition opportunities. This system was originally organized in the 1910s and 1920s and has remained in force pretty much ever since then, and is organized similarly for each of the kinds of employees that a production company hires. Generally, the video productions of a non-profit youth ministry would not be within the jurisdiction of any of the industry-wide union contracts that mandate that credits be given for performers and back stage people, particularly if they are volunteer productions. If you don't need to hire union actors, videographers, etc., you are not legally bound to comply with the terms of a union contract. It also isn't unheard of for a union performer to obtain a special dispensation from their union to work on a volunteer basis, or a below market rate basis, for a particular isolated engagement with an organization such as a non-profit youth ministry. Even then, however, this dispensation would often still require that the non-union organization using the services of a union member at least honor union regulations regarding crediting the people involved in the performance (about which the various unions within the industry have reached a cross-union consensus). Usually, however, any license to perform a particular work would require, at a minimum, an oral or written statement along the lines of "By arrangement with Bill Holab music" (that particular one appears on the program of the opera performance I saw yesterday) that credits the copyright owner, in connection with any performance of the licensed work, even if there is no royalty due or the royalty is only a one time nominal $1 or $10 payment. Also, many non-U.S. countries incorporate a right of attribution into their copyright laws (these are called moral rights), so if you are producing a foreign copyrighted work, whether or not it is under a license, to be technically squeaky clean, it would be necessary to credit the author of the copyrighted work (e.g. the screenwriter and composer), even if the author no longer owns the copyright. The odds of ever facing legal action for a violation like that, however, are remote, and performers and stage hands generally do not have rights of attribution. Lots of pornography is non-union, but it is subject to a requirement to verify that its actors are adults and include a certification to that effect in lieu of actor credits that would be required in a union shop. Unless your youth ministry produces pornography (in which case, you have a variety of much more weighty legal issues to worry about), you don't have to worry about this requirement either.
I think it is probably public domain. I would suggest contacting Jon Mulvaney at the Criterion Collection. They recently remastered "The Kid" and will know all about the rights for public showings. Also, if you want to show their remastered version, which is very high quality, they can explain the process.
I think that both your examples would be considered, if not outright copies, then at the very least derivative works of the originals. Under US law, the copyright holder of a work has the exclusive right to prepare derivative works. So anyone who prepares such a work without the authorization of the copyright holder is infringing their copyright and will be liable for such infringment. The US Copyright Office, in their Circular 14, explicitly includes &quot;a new version of an existing computer program&quot; as an example of a derivative work. That would certainly seem to cover the GTA folks. The concept that derivative works generally include &quot;translations&quot; might capture them, too. Your example of transcribing a musical performance isn't explicitly mentioned, but I think your sheet music would likewise be a derivative work of the performance: it includes all the editorial and arrangement choices made by the orchestra. Of course, both the performance and your transcription are derivative works of the original composition, but since the composition is out of copyright, there's no legal problem with that aspect.
I believe the author has published it online. I agree. It is posted at his publisher's website. However, I am unsure if I'm allowed to read it. This answer assumes you are in jurisdiction whose copyright laws is based upon the Berne convention (i.e. the civilized world + USA). Assuming it was the author published it online, it is perfectly legal to read it. Technically, the author is performing his work by putting it online, and by reading it, you are just enjoying his performance. Also, if you are in a jurisdiction with an explicit exception from copyright for personal use, or where fair use allows making copies for personal use, it would also be legal to download it, or to print it on paper (but for personal use only). As for downloading and printing for non-personal use - that is not legal in Berne jurisdictions.
There is no case law as yet However, the most likely situation is that there is no copyright in the original works because they are computer-generated. There is certainly copyright in the code that created the art but the output of that code, the art itself, would probably not be subject to copyright. Copyright only exists in art created by humans. The US Ninth Circuit has held that animals cannot create copyrighted works. Subsequently, the US Copyright office has rejected applications for registration (a prerequisite to a suit in the US) of computer-generated art because it “lacks the human authorship necessary to support a copyright claim.” While this position has not been tested in the courts, I don't think they are any more likely to grant copyright to a program than they were to a monkey. What's going on? The OP states that there is litigation: there isn't. What there is, is a DCMA takedown request from Larva Labs. If this is complied with that will be the end of the matter; if it isn't then there may be litigation. However, before Larva Labs could sue CryptoPunks in the US they would first need to get a writ of mandamus to force the USCO to register it. If they try and fail then there will be a legally binding court decision that Larva Labs don't own the copyright in any of their computer-generated art. Which kills their business model and, presumably, them. This would be a very high-risk move. They may choose to sue in a jurisdiction where registration is not a prerequisite, however, that court would still need to be satisfied that there was a copyright that could be breached. So that's just a different take on the same problem. I have ignored the issue of NFTs as these are legally problematic in their own right and irrelevant to the main question. However, the NFT and the artwork are not the same thing.
It would be an overgeneralization to conclude that movie posters are "fair use for commerical use". The uses you see imply that low resolution reproductions of movie posters have been judged by IMDB, Wikipedia, and others to be fair use for the purpose of identification alongside commentary (or in a transformative function like browsing). As an example case, see Bill Graham Archives v. Dorling Kindersley Ltd., 448 F.3d 605 (2d Cir. 2006), which held that it was fair use to reproduce thumbnail sized Grateful Dead concert posters in a book alongside a timeline.
Copyright requires originality Your infinity hard drive appears to be a machine designed to violate copyright by immediately copying anything presented to it. Damien Riehl and Noah Rubin were creating original melodies. These do not have copyright until they are fixed in a tangible medium. That's what the hard drive is for. This is insurance against them being sued if they release a song and someone claims it violates that person's copyright - they can produce in court the melody with a date stamp of 2015 (or whatever). GitHub or similar would be even better evidence. In this context there is a specific allegation that melody X infringes copyright. Riehl &amp; Rubin can then go to their records (including metadata) and say no, here is melody X version 1 through n and they all predate your release so we didn’t violate your copyright.
Even if I give credit to the composer, and I will make no profit from the performance, will it still be illegal to use my transcription? This definitely infringes the composer's performance and derivative work rights under the composer's copyright. There is a mandatory right to cover someone else's composition outside of a movie or TV show (roughly speaking) for a statutorily fixed royalty, but the bureaucracy is such that it would be impractical to do here. Whether or not the &quot;fair use&quot; defense applies in this case is a &quot;colorable&quot; argument, but really, when you perform the entire work as written except for transcription, winning a &quot;fair use&quot; defense in a infringement action would be a long shot. The fact that it is somehow connected to an educational activity would be the strongest argument in this case. Also, as noted in a comment, your school may have obtained express permission to cover the work: Your music school may have a license with a PRO (performing rights organization) that covers your song. You might make some inquiries with the administration as to whether this is the case. Radio stations obtain similar licenses to play a large catalog of music without individually obtaining licenses to use each work separately from the author. This said, this kind of activity is often done, despite the fact that it is a copyright infringement, and most of the time, if the performance isn't too widely broadcast, most copyright owners will never pursue copyright infringement claims over something like this and indeed often won't even consider doing so. Still, copyright is an absolute bar to infringing rights without permission, even if there is absolutely no money received for the work and even if there is full attribution of its author. I'm not a great fan of the law as it is, and it is often disregarded, but that is the law. Also, this answer is based upon U.S. law, but there isn't much international variation in this part of copyright law in countries that meaningfully enforce copyright laws in their courts. But, as another answer notes, in some countries the mandatory right to do a cover of songs in the U.S. is much easier bureaucratically, in some other countries: In several countries, there are organizations that deal with the copyright issue globally. That means you pay a certain (quite small) fee to be allowed to perform a piece of music publicly, and the organization deals with the individual right owners. That makes reusing works much simpler.