By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.
Dear Law and Disorder:
We are in production of a new “Tribute” show with a video component. We are grappling with what type of media is public domain or where public domain photos or video can be found. None of the video production companies seem to have a definitive answer. I have been searching for pertinent federal statute that address this issue. Any thoughts?
There’s an old joke where a man encounters another man frantically searching for something in the middle of the street. The first man asks: “What are you looking for?” The second man replies: “My keys. I lost them in the dark alley over there.” “Then why are you looking for them out in the street?” “Because the light is better out here!” Ba da boom.
Like the man in the street, you’re looking for the right thing, but in the wrong place. There is no federal statute that addresses your issue…at least, not directly. If you’re producing a “tribute” show with a video component, then any copyrighted material you want to include in your video will need to be licensed. Any material that is not protected by copyright is in the public domain and is free to use. The question you need to ask then is: how do you tell if material is still protected by copyright? The federal copyright statute will give you a formula, but not the answer. The answer depends on when the copyrighted material was first published. Most often, copyright lasts for the life of the owner plus 70 years. But who is the owner?
The challenge with videos is that you are often dealing with multiple copyrights with multiple owners. Let’s say, for example, that you want to include a video of the original artist (since this is a “tribute” show) performing at a concert recorded in the 1960s. There is a copyright in the video itself as well as a copyright in the music being performed on the video. So, even if you were to determine that the video is in the public domain, the music being performed may still be protected by copyright—or vice versa. We once had an orchestra contact us about creating a DVD to celebrate their 50th anniversary using old video clips from past concerts. Not only did we (well, to be fair, Robyn!) have to obtain licenses from publishers of certain contemporary works (as well as arrangements of older works), but we needed to obtain licenses from some of the original videographers who still owned the rights to the video footage. (Side note: ALWAYS take the time to get a written license or assignment from anyone whom you hire to photograph or videotape your or your performance—even volunteers!)
Photographs are similar. In every photograph are two sets of rights: the rights to the photograph itself (ie: the negative) and the person being photographed. The photograph itself may be owned by the photographer, but the photographer may or may not own or control the rights to the image or person in the photograph. While a person does not have a “copyright” in his or her own image, they do own rights of publicity, rights of endorsement, etc. So, for example, if you wanted to use a photograph of the famous artist you are paying “tribute” to, you would need to determine whether or not the photograph itself was in the public domain and whether or not you required any publicity or endorsement rights to use the image of the artist. (To make matters even worse, publicity and endorsement rights are controlled by state, not federal law, and can vary from state to state.)
Determining whether or not a photograph is the public domain is just like determining whether or not a video is in the public domain: when was it made? Who made it? Are they dead or alive? Even if the photograph or video is in the public domain, you still need to do a separate analysis of the contents or images on the photograph or video.
While we’re on the topic of “tribute” shows, its also worth mentioning that even if you are lucky enough to find all the videos and photographs you want, as well as the contents thereof, in the public domain, you still need to be wary of using the name and image of the original artist in the marketing and publicity materials of your tribute show. Things like names and even visual elements such as distinctive costumes or a physical characteristic of the original artist can trigger trademark issues that are entirely different from copyright and other rights. The good news is that with enough advance planning and thoughtful analysis, its entirely possible to create the type of video component you want. Many artists and producers successfully do this all the time, often with the blessing of the original artist.
__________________________________________________________________
For additional information and resources on this and other legal and business issues for the performing arts, visit ggartslaw.com
To ask your own question, write to lawanddisorder@musicalamerica.org.
All questions on any topic related to legal and business issues will be welcome. However, please post only general questions or hypotheticals. GG Arts Law reserves the right to alter, edit or, amend questions to focus on specific issues or to avoid names, circumstances, or any information that could be used to identify or embarrass a specific individual or organization. All questions will be posted anonymously and/or posthumously.
__________________________________________________________________
THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:
THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!
The purpose of this blog is to provide general advice and guidance, not legal advice. Please consult with an attorney familiar with your specific circumstances, facts, challenges, medications, psychiatric disorders, past-lives, karmic debt, and anything else that may impact your situation before drawing any conclusions, deciding upon a course of action, sending a nasty email, filing a lawsuit, or doing anything rash!
Can Newspapers Charge To Quote Reviews??
Wednesday, August 8th, 2012By Brian Taylor Goldstein
Dear Law & Disorder:
I recently came across the website of an artist management agency in Europe where they had posted the following: “The press review is temporarily not available. German newspapers Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung and Süddeutsche Zeitung recently started to pursue institutions and artists using texts (press reviews, interviews, commentaries etc.) published by those newspapers on their websites or in any other commercial context without having paid for them. We have been advised to remove all press quotations from our website as the same phenomenon seems to happen in other countries like Switzerland and Austria.” Is this a copyright trend that will spread to other European countries and the USA? Will agents, and artists have to start paying for the use of (press reviews, interviews, commentaries) used to promote an artists career? Also, if an American agency has press reviews, interviews, commentaries from Europeans newspapers on their websites, such as from the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung and Süddeutsche Zeitung, will these agencies be liable for payment of the use for this information, as well, as it is being used in a commercial context? (Thank you for your column on Musical America, and I also thank Ms. Challener for her leadership in including such information in the weekly email Musical America updates.)
Newspapers and magazines have always owned the exclusive rights to the articles, reviews, editorials, and interviews they publish. Just like you can’t make copies of sheet music, CDs, books, and other copyrighted materials, you cannot make copies of articles and reviews and re-post them without the owner’s permission. Even if you are not “re-selling” an article or review, anything that is used to promote, advertise, or sell a product or service (ie: an artist!) is a “commercial” use.” While “quoting” or “excerpting” a positive review is most often considered a limited “fair use”, making copies of the entire article or review is not. While it should go without saying, you also cannot “edit” or revise articles and reviews in an effort to make a bad review sound more positive. (That’s not only copyright infringement, but violates a number of other laws as well!)
The website you encountered was in response to certain German newspapers, in particular, who began making significant efforts to require anyone who wanted to copy or quote their articles or reviews to pay a licensing fee. In the United States, for the most part, most newspapers and magazines have not actively pursued agents or managers who have quoted articles and reviews on their websites to promote their artists. However, I am aware of managers and agents who have been contacted by certain publications where entire articles have been copied and made available for download. In such cases, the publication has demanded that the copy either be licensed or removed. I also know of agents and managers who have posted unlicensed images on their websites and then been contacted by the photographers demanding licensing fees.
As for the ability of an American agent to quote or copy articles from the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung and Süddeutsche Zeitung, under the applicable international copyright treaties, they could require American agents to pay as well. While I don’t necessarily see this becoming a trend among US publications, its certainly worthwhile to reflect that anytime an agent, manager, or presenter uses images, articles, videos, other materials to promote an artist or performance, there are copyright and licensing considerations that need to be taken into consideration.
________________________________________________________________
For additional information and resources on this and other legal and business issues for the performing arts, visit ggartslaw.com
To ask your own question, write to lawanddisorder@musicalamerica.org.
All questions on any topic related to legal and business issues will be welcome. However, please post only general questions or hypotheticals. GG Arts Law reserves the right to alter, edit or, amend questions to focus on specific issues or to avoid names, circumstances, or any information that could be used to identify or embarrass a specific individual or organization. All questions will be posted anonymously.
__________________________________________________________________
THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:
THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!
The purpose of this blog is to provide general advice and guidance, not legal advice. Please consult with an attorney familiar with your specific circumstances, facts, challenges, medications, psychiatric disorders, past-lives, karmic debt, and anything else that may impact your situation before drawing any conclusions, deciding upon a course of action, sending a nasty email, filing a lawsuit, or doing anything rash!
Tags:agent, artist, Brian Taylor, cannot make copies, commentaries, commercial context, copy, copyright, copyright infringement, european countries, Goldstein, license, Licensing, manager, permission, photograph, quotations
Posted in Artist Management, Arts Management, Copyrights, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Licensing | Comments Closed