YouTube - fair / allowed / legal use - is it OK to record music performances? Quite often I take a GoPro / iPhone and record fragments of a music performance. Quite often I upload the content to YouTube. Quite often I receive following message: The copyright holder, which uses Content ID, submitted a claim to the content of your movie. For now it is only notification Do not worry. That does not mean trouble or affect the standing of your account. In your film, they see ads that generate revenue for the owner of the copyright or the copyright holder has received insight into the statistics of his views. (I have Polish language settings so I used Google Translate to get the English version) I would like to know if recording of a music performance - that includes: lightning visuals scenery audience artists and some music in the background (that is subject to copyright) Is a fair / allowed / legal use? If yes, I should initiate an objection procedure If there are no problems, you do not need to do anything. There is no need to remove the film. There is a procedure to lodge an objection, which you can use if something goes wrong and the copyright holder or we make a mistake. Use it only in cases when you are sure that you have the right to use all content in his film. (again Google Translate) I'm actually not sure, that's why I'm asking... Related: What is the &quot;area&quot; of copyright claims and fair use of songs?
Performers have "performers right" in any recordings of their performance. It is a "related right" (a kind of copyright just like authors rights). This gives them the exclusive right to distribute recordings of their performances. You are prima facie infringing their copyright by distributing recordings of their performances. In the US, the act of recording a performance isn't an infringement. http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/text.jsp?file_id=289757#P97_7400 (the US is not a signatory) https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/114 http://www.ip-watch.org/2014/11/24/us-courts-recognise-new-performers-rights/
That's copyright infringement, and is illegal under various copyright laws. To take down the content, you'll have to make a claim under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The online form for making a takedown notice to YouTube under the DMCA can be found here: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2807622?hl=en Remember, that by submitting a takedown notice, that you are initiating a legal process. Take extra care not to abuse it, and to make sure that all information you submit is accurate.
The comment is incorrect; creating a derivative work without permission is still disallowed, even for private use. In US copyright law 17USC 106 defines the exclusive rights that the copyright holder has, the right &quot;to do and to authorize&quot;. The second of these is: (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work; Note that the right is the right to &quot;prepare&quot; a derivative work, not the right to &quot;distribute&quot; or &quot;sell&quot; the work. US copyright law defines a derivative work in 17 USC 101 which reads: 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”. The laws of other countries are similar to US law on this point. Article 2, paragraph 3 of the Berne Copyright Convention provides that: (3) Translations, adaptations, arrangements of music and other alterations of a literary or artistic work shall be protected as original works without prejudice to the copyright in the original work. However, it should be noted that if a person creates a derivative work in private, and never shows it to anyone else, the copyright owner would never learn of it, and so could never sue for infringement. But if it were shown or described to anyone, and the owner did learn, then he owner could in theory sue. Whether the owner would choose to sue over a derivative work never circulated is a different matter. The real effect of this law is that when an infringing derivative work is distributed and the owner wants to sue, the owner need not prove distribution. Proving creation of the derivative work is enough. The quoted comment asks about whether such a rule is &quot;unconstitutional or something&quot; and says that &quot;You should be allowed to do whatever you want with your own stuff in your own home.&quot; The US constitution does not grant any such broad right. There are lots of things one might do in own's own home that are illegal: building a bomb for example. Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the US Constitution, sometimes called the Copyright Clause or the IP clause, grants Congress the power: To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries. See the LII page &quot;Intellectual Property Clause&quot; and the page Nature and Scope of the Right Secured for Copyright where it is written that: Congress was within its powers in giving to authors the exclusive right to dramatize any of their works. Even as applied to pantomime dramatization by means of silent motion pictures, the act was sustained against the objection that it extended the copyright to ideas rather than to the words in which they were clothed. {Kalem Co. v. Harper Bros., 222 U.S. 55 (1911). For other problems arising because of technological and electronic advancement, see, e.g., Fortnightly Corp. v. United Artists Television, Inc., 392 U.S. 390 (1968); Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417 (1984).} See also the Wikipedia article &quot;Copyright Clause&quot;.
if I directly purchase this custom content... As a general rule, &quot;intellectual property&quot; is very different from tangible property - arguably, &quot;intellectual property&quot; is a misnomer. Trying to apply concepts from property law (such as &quot;a thing has a single owner, who can do anything not illegal with it as they please&quot;) is fraught with danger. You would generally not &quot;purchase content&quot;, but rather purchase a license for the content, allowing you to do various things. One of those things might be to &quot;curate/edit this collection of recordings and present it publicly as an art project (probably just online)&quot;. Another might be to &quot;to sell or otherwise profit from this&quot;. All that depends on what your contract says. In an ideal world(?), contracts would all be detailed enough to leave no uncertainty about what is allowed and what is not. In the real world, a bunch of SMS can form a contract. For instance, the following is a contract: A (version 1): Hey B, could you send me a clip of you waving at the camera? I will pay $10 for it. B: sure ...but it’s not clear what A and B agreed as to what the clip would be used for. Saving and viewing on A’s device, probably yes; putting it in fullscreen in the next blockbuster movie, probably no. Showing it to A’s friends, putting it in an art project? That’s getting dicey. You might have heard about &quot;work for hire&quot; granting full copyright control to whoever pays for the work to be created. In the united-states, the above exchange does not explicitly designate the content as work-for-hire, as would be required by 17 U.S.C. § 101 (&quot;...if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire&quot;). Here’s a better SMS contract: A (version 2): Hey B, could you send me a clip of you waving at the camera? I will use it to make an art project, collating many such clips, and publishing that on the internet. I will pay $10 for it. B: sure Here there’s no question that B agreed with the proposed use. On the other hand, it’s likely than a different use would be deemed a copyright violation - the contract was proposed by A and should be understood as limiting A’s right to use the clip to exactly what they said they would do. If they wanted it to say something else, they could have sent a different SMS (see contra proferentem).
The lyricist and composers already have copyright. Copyright exists for the moment of creation: registration is not necessary to enforce copyright rights and to grant licences. Registration in the US is merely useful if you want to prove that you own the copyright which otherwise would require providing evidence of the date of creation, priority etc. Most countries do not have copyright registers. Similarly, you will have copyright in the derivative work of the soundtrack from the moment of its creation.
Here are the jury instructions. These describe how to evaluate witness testimony, burdens of proof, and the four-factor fair use test, among other things. The jury had to answer yes or no to the following question: Has Google shown by a preponderance of the evidence that its use in Android of the declaring lines of code and their structure, sequence, and organization from Java 2 Standard Edition 1.4 and Java 2 Standard Edition Version 5.0 constitutes a "fair use" under the Copyright Act? They answered yes. Juries do not explain their reasoning (different jurors might even have different reasonings), but the assumption is that they followed the jury instructions to arrive at this conclusion. To be clear, the issue wasn't reimplementation of 37 Java APIs, but a more limited taking, including "the declaring code and the structure, sequence, and organization".
That depends very much on the specific details. But such a thing is more likely to be held to be fair use if it includes commentary on or criticism of the movie as well as a mere summary of it. Also, 15 minutes of clips seems like a lot, although there is no clear rule on how much can be reused under a claim of fair use. But if the point of the comment and summery could be well made with a shorter set of clips that might improve the claim of fair use. In general, a fair use will use no more of the source than is reasonable needed for the purpose, and will not serve as a substitute for the original work. Being &quot;transformative&quot; is very often cited in case law as strongly favoring fair use. It has nothing to do with making a derivative work original. Any derivative work gets a separate copyright if it has enough original content to satisfy the low requirements of copyright protection, which most such works do. Even an abridgement which adds nothing will generally get a separate copyright.
A performance of copyrighted written music is copyright infringement. One of the bundle of rights that comes with a copyright is the performance right. You can obtain a license to cover copyrighted written music, however, on a mandatory basis for a royalty amount set by law, rather than only with the permission of the copyright owner as is the case with other copyrighted works. There are exceptions to the broad general scope of the the rights associated with a copyright, such as fair use, but a performance of instrumental music is not itself, in general, fair use.