Forum - View topicAnswerman - Are AMVs And Other Fan Works Really "Fair Use?"
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | ||
|---|---|---|---|
Mr. Oshawott
 Posts: 6773 |
|
||
From my observation, King Records and Lantis comes to mind... |
|||
|
|||
prime_pm
 Posts: 2338 Location: Your Mother's Bedroom |
|
||
I recall the big scare when music reps sent the Org a cease and desist for all vids containing Evanescence, Creed and/or Seether. We creators were all in a serious panic wondering who would be next to drop the hammer. On the plus side, no more Creed! But then again, they made sure of that themselves. |
|||
|
|||
xstylus
 Posts: 263 |
|
||
Yup, I remember that. I also remember Phade (the .org admin at the time) actually contacting the lawyers and basically saying "We complied, thanks for not suing us into oblivion, now what'll it take for us to do this legitimately?" The lawyers responded kindly and sympathetically to that, but said it was an impossibility because of the kind of contractual license terms that the rights-holders themselves had with the artists. One such term was that the artists had final say over any music video made featuring their music. So, that meant that the rights-holders couldn't grant permission for an AMV even if they wanted to. Of course, that was back in 2006 -- such terms have likely given way to the realities of YouTube since then. |
|||
|
|||
leafy sea dragon
 Posts: 7163 Location: Another Kingdom |
|
||
|
While I never got involved in AMVs, I definitely remembered the music rights troubles because they spilled over into video game coverage, which I WAS involved in. Some games that use songs from mainstream artists unintentionally became account-destroying traps. Samba de Amigo (the Dreamcast one) was one of the worst ones and an infamous forbidden game because it contained several of these songs that would ban you the moment you put any one of them up. It was so bad that Sonic & SEGA All-Stars Racing, which used some of those licensed songs for their Samba de Amigo racetracks, got people (including myself) branded with copyright strikes whenever these racetracks came up in a video.
So if the artists get the final say, does that mean the response from the attorneys is basically that the artists weren't allowing any of their music to be used in AMVs? Or do they mean that the answer is "no" by default until the artist says "yes"? |
|||
|
|||
st_owly
 Posts: 5234 Location: Edinburgh, Scotland |
|
||
That is how I would interpret that statement. In UK law at least, there is a concept called "moral rights", which are the right to be identified as the author or director of a work as appropriate, the right to object to the derogatory treatment of a work and the right to object to false attribution of a work.So if someone made a music video with content you didn't want associated with your song, even if you have waived your right to money, as long as you've retained your moral rights, you can still claim for derogatory treatment. |
|||
|
|||
|
xstylus
Posts: 263 |
|
||
I doubt the artists themselves were even notified. But basically, the default answer is "no." The way it even came to the lawyers' attention is that some idiot saw an AMV with Creed music (or Evanescence music -- I forget), sent a fan message to the label of the band ("Did you guys make this? If so, you're so kewl!"), to which somebody in the chain went WTF and sent the lawyers. It likely would never have been an issue had it not been explicitly brought to their attention. |
|||
|
|||
yuna49
 Posts: 3804 |
|
||
|
The concept of "moral rights" does not exist in American copyright law. Most performances are considered "works for hire" with the copyright assigned to the producer of the work and the artists compensated via the provisions of the contracts they sign. Japan, on the other hand, does recognize moral rights, as do many other countries.
|
|||
|
|||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group