Voice samples from the old movies in the music tracks I bet most of you have heard - in some music compositions - short 5-10 seconds &quot;injections&quot; of voice-lines from some old movies. I'm producing a track right now, where I want to insert a phrase from &quot;Conan the Destroyer&quot; (1984), it's under 10 seconds in length. I wonder if such use is &quot;legal&quot;? I assume, due to neglectable short length of the sound-sample, it should be fine, but I just want to double-check. Any links to corresponding laws/acts would be appreciated, thanks.
Unless the &quot;old&quot; movie is so old that its copyright has expired (prior to 1926 in the US currently, I believe, the precise rule varies by country) or it entered the public domain in some other way (unusual), it is protected by copyright. One may use part of a copyrighted work only with permission from the copyright owner, unless an exception to copyright applies. Exceptions to copyright vary significantly from country to country In the US, the primary exception is fair use. This answer describes fair use is some detail. Fair use is defined by 17 USC 107. Whether something is a fair use is a highly-fact-driven determination., There is no clear bright line. Several factors must be considered, including at least the four= statutory factors. A short except, used in a transformative way, that does not harm the market for the original will often qualify as fair use, but details will matter. There is no specific length that qualifies a sound excerpt as fair use. For text, in the well known case of Harper v. Nation an excerpt of less than 300 words from a 500 page book was judged not to be fair use, because it was held to be &quot;the heart of the work&quot; and because its publication significantly harmed the market for the original (a paying contract was canceled because of the use). In other situations, much larger excepts have been held to be fair use. In some countries there is an exception to copyright known as &quot;fair dealing&quot; which is somewhat similar to fair use, but rather narrower and more restricted. Other countries have a list of specific exceptions (the law of India has more than 20 different exceptions). News reporting, criticism, commentary, and classroom use are common exceptions. In many countries, sampling is not covered by any exception, and permission is required. If an exception does not apply, and permission is not obtained, then using copyrighted content is copyright infringement. This is, in most cases, a tort, meaning that the copyright owner may sue the infringer. Such a suit may be brought in any country where infringing works are crested or distributed, and possibly in other countries as well. If the plaintiff (owner) wins, damages will be awarded. The rules for determining damages vary widely between countries, and the specific facts of the case will matter. To get a reliable opinion on whether a specific use qualifies under an exception to copyright, or requires permission, one would do well to consult a lawyer with copyright expertise. Or one could simply ask for permission from the copyright holder. For a publicly released movie, finding the copyright owner should not usually be too hard. The owner may say yes or no, or ask for a fee or other conditions. If the owner simply ignores a request for permission, that must be taken as a &quot;no&quot;. For this kind of use, an owner is free to reject or ignore requests for permission if it so chooses. (In the US, cover versions of songs are subject to a compulsory license under certain conditions.)
Copyright is automatic - it starts to exist when you create a work of a type protected by law. Lyrics are such a work, and thus your lyrics are protected. Even the fact that the lyrics go with an existing (public domain) melody is protected. In addition, your recording is protected. However, the melody is probably not copyrighted, and does not become copyrighted merely because you re-used it. (Probably, because you didn't indicate how old, so I assumed old enough that nobody remembers the origin)
Each episode of the show as a whole, and all the individual images in it, are protected by copyright, but the idea of a holophonor, or indeed any idea, is not. The more closely anyone else's drawing of a gadget resembles one from the show, the more likely it would be to be found to infringe copyright. The same is true of a character image. The more distinctive and original the image, and the more closely someone copies it, the more likely a finding of infringement would be.
Game mechanics are not copyright able. However, the images, words used, description of the rules are all copyright. If the original games is the source of the video game then the video game is a derivative work. If the original game is only the inspiration and the look and feel is different then this is OK. Which is which will turn on the actual facts.
Musical compositions can be, and if recent almost always are, protected by copyright. This is separate from the copyright on a recording of a performance of the work. If you reuse a musical passage, the new work may be a derivative work, that is a work based on an earlier work. Or an extended musical quotation could be considered to be copyright infringement. If this is in the united-states the use of a section from a previous work might be considered to be a fair use (fair-use). This is a specifically US concept in copyright law, although several other countries have a concept of fair dealing which is somewhat similar, although narrower. Whether a use is a fair use is an inherently fact-based determination. There is no clear and simple bright line for what is and is not a fair use. US law (17 USC 197) specifies four factors which are to be weighed by a court in considering the matter: The purpose and character of the use. If your use is commercial that weighs against fair use, but does not at all preclude it. This factor also includes whether the use is transformative or not. A transformative use is one that takes the part used for a very different sort of purpose than the original. Parodies are normally transformative, for example. A quote for purposes of commentary and analysis, or criticism is normally transformative. Transformative uses are more likely to be considered fair uses. The nature of the copyrighted work. Creative works such as fiction and music are more strongly protected than works such as textbooks and news stories. This probably weighs against fair use in the case described. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole. If only a short section of a longer work is used, that weighs in favor of fair use. However very short quotes can still fail, to be held to be fair uses. In Harper vs Nation a quote of about 300 words from a 500 page book was held not to be fair use because it was &quot;the heart of the book&quot;. The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. A use that significantly harms the market value of the original, or serves as a replacement for it, weigh strongly against fair use. This was a major factor in Harper vs Nation. Each case of claimed fair use is evaluated by looking at all four factors, and the specific facts of the case. From the description in the question, such a use might well be held to be fair use. Musical quotations often are. But there is no way to be sure unless a court evaluates the specific case. A lawyer specifically experienced in not only copyright law, but copyrights on music, might be able to give more specific advice. Or you could, of course, seek permission from the copyright holder, quite likely the original composer or artist. If you get permission, there is no further issue. There might be a charge, but when the use is minor, and has no commercial effect, the charge might be small or even zero provided that the source is acknowledged.
On the face of it, transcripts are derivative work covered by copyright (even if automagically generated). You are allowed to use them if the use is fair use or if you comply with YouTube's terms of service.
TL;DR: Probably not. Per Wikipedia, under USA law, for any audio recordings published after February 15, 1972, the earliest it it will enter public domain is 2043. CBS Mystery Theater was published from January 6, 1974 through December 31, 1982, per Wikipedia. Therefore, these recordings are not likely to be in the public domain until after 2043. If CBS, or whichever company now owns CBS Mystery Theater were to have made it available under a sufficiently permissive license, it's likely that it would, in practice, be in a very similar status to being in public domain. However with a quick search, I couldn't find any evidence that the owner of CBS Mystery Theater has in fact done so. Of course, my searching is imperfect, and Wikipedia might be wrong. It's possible that it is indeed released under a sufficiently permissive license, though I wouldn't personally bet on it. Finally, I'm not a lawyer, so my reading of the whole situation might be really wrong.
Under U.S. law (17 U.S. Code § 101 ) A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work.” But probably, focusing on this definition doesn't get to the heart of the question you seem to be asking. A more important matter becomes what protections does a copyright exclude? This is covered in § 102 (b), which says: In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work. The similarities you describe seem to be more ideas and concepts rather than Heinlein's expression of those ideas. I have looked no closer than the description used in the question, but the movie seems unlikely to have violated a protected right. Others might disagree.