Fair use of 30-second music clips?

[stpetesteve]

It's my understand, albeit not formally, that podcasters and websites in general are allowed to use up to 30 seconds of a song without any licensing.

Can anyone confirm this?

[TINKOFF RADIO]

While there is no hard rule for this and the RIAA, BMI and ASCAP would probably argue against the re-broadcast ANY portion of a song registered by them - I suggest you consider Stamford Law's excellent resource on Fair Use.

http://fairuse.stanford.edu/

Each instance would be considered on a case by case basis due to the complexities involved if you ran into legal complications .
- how much of the song used?
- is it detrimental to the potential market?
- is it defaming or damaging to the original material?
- is it part of a collection that's not meant to be separated, etc.?
- has the artist or copyright holder specifically asked not for their music to be republished (Metallica, etc.)
- etc.

While there's no legal precedent of a podcaster being sued as far as I know (could be wrong here) the best way to avoid the high cost of representing yourself with a lawyer should you be challenged - is to not use copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder/agency or play it safe by using Podsafe music.

So to answer your question, as the in-house guru on copyright for a large IT company - I cannot confirm the "30 second rule" and suggest you walk carefully down this path. Your fate is in your own hands.

Why do you think Adam Curry is doing the "right thing"?

Peace,
Adam Tinkoff
http://www.burningtwenty.com

[docsnavely]

do you have a good lawyer?

by my sarcasm, i would hope you get the point i'm trying to pass.

just because some do it gives no credit to it being legal.

from all of the conversations on this, it has been concluded in almost all ofhtem that no matter how long the clip is, it would be deemed illegal by the wonderful friends of entertainment, the RIAA.

[TINKOFF RADIO]

Great minds...

Well said Doc!

[docsnavely]

you just type quicker than i adam. :)

[guscave]

It's my understand, albeit not formally, that podcasters and websites in general are allowed to use up to 30 seconds of a song without any licensing.

Can anyone confirm this?

As a songwriter/producer who owns most of my own publishing, I can tell you that there is no such thing as a minimum allowed time of usage without a license.

If you use even 1 second of a song and it's recognized by the copyright holder, look out... :?

[cc_chapman]

Everyone here has pretty much covered it.

Fair Use is one of those concepts that gets handled on a case by case basis and you only get to use that defense once you get to court. Is it worth having to get to that point?

[Craig]

It's my understand, albeit not formally, that podcasters and websites in general are allowed to use up to 30 seconds of a song without any licensing.

Can anyone confirm this?
This is an old-wives' tale (at least as far as podcasts are concerned)...as others have pointed out if you play enough of a song for it to be recognized you're at risk for a lawsuit. And as far as fair use is concerned. unless your use of the copyrighted work is for review purposes , parody, or a legitimate educational purpose, don't even bother. Even if it's for one of those three, you should still consult a copyright attorney.

Bottom line? "If it's RIAA, stay far away."

Craig

[tabulator32]

Bottom line? "If it's RIAA, stay far away."


I seem to recall a musician that was "successfully" sued by another musician for using a short drum riff that was prominent throughout both artists' songs.

The riff was less than half asecond in duration but was still a pretty touchy subject and worth several thousands of dollars.

I like Craig's mantra.

[dangercast]

Seriously folks, the RIAA doesn't really have the time to go after every obscure podcast on the planet that plays a few seconds of music. It's basically a non-issue.

[kinkysex]

Seriously folks, the RIAA doesn't really have the time to go after every obscure podcast on the planet that plays a few seconds of music. It's basically a non-issue.

hmmmmm.. but they'll sue children? I don't know. Seems like they have nothing but time. :lol:

[dangercast]

Seriously folks, the RIAA doesn't really have the time to go after every obscure podcast on the planet that plays a few seconds of music. It's basically a non-issue.

hmmmmm.. but they'll sue children? I don't know. Seems like they have nothing but time. :lol:

El Nacho? Seriously, which exact case are you talking about?

[kinkysex]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/09/09/the_riaa_sees_the_face/

in the future, please do your own homework. :lol:

[dangercast]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/09/09/the_riaa_sees_the_face/

in the future, please do your own homework. :lol:

I remember the story and it's hardly relevant to the original subject of this thread, since the RIAA was after her for file-sharing over a P2P network. At any rate, the girl in question simply received a cease and desist letter and was not actually taken to court. At that particular time, RIAA was trying to flex its muscles by sending thousands of demand letters to anybody allegedly engaged in file-sharing. All of this was fallout from the whining of showboating recording artists like Metallica. RIAA failed. P2P is just as popular as ever and there is nothing that they can do about it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not for podcasts establishing shows based on the broadcast of copyrighted material. For instance, I would certainly frown upon some guy playing all of U2's latest sucky CD on his podcast. But using 15-seconds of sound for an intro? Seriously, who is going to prosecute? Who would care?

[tabulator32]

Seriously folks, the RIAA doesn't really have the time to go after every obscure podcast on the planet that plays a few seconds of music. It's basically a non-issue.

That is completely and absolutely true and plenty of people use that to their advantage. It would really suck to one of the few they try to make an example of, though.

8)

[kinkysex]

I remember the story and it's hardly relevant to the original subject of this thread,

You said, "Seriously folks, the RIAA doesn't really have the time to go after every obscure podcast on the planet that plays a few seconds of music. It's basically a non-issue."

I said they have time. Used an example.

Relevant.

The original post is asking, in essence, if he would get in trouble for a behavior. You seem to imply he would not. I disagreed. You asked for proof... does any of this sound familiar?

[dangercast]

Seriously folks, the RIAA doesn't really have the time to go after every obscure podcast on the planet that plays a few seconds of music. It's basically a non-issue.

That is completely and absolutely true and plenty of people use that to their advantage. It would really suck to one of the few they try to make an example of, though.

8)

Well let them! I mean seriously, a few seconds of music?!?! Let the RIAA do their worst.

[kinkysex]

Dangercast,

I think you are insane. But I applaude your balls.

Fight the man!

[dangercast]

I remember the story and it's hardly relevant to the original subject of this thread,

You said, "Seriously folks, the RIAA doesn't really have the time to go after every obscure podcast on the planet that plays a few seconds of music. It's basically a non-issue."

I said they have time. Used an example.

Relevant.

The original post is asking, in essence, if he would get in trouble for a behavior. You seem to imply he would not. I disagreed. You asked for proof... does any of this sound familiar?


The RIAA's main mandate is seemingly to go after people allegedly file-sharing over a P2P network.

The demand letter that was sent to the mother of the minor child whom you presented was part of a one-time campaign to thwart file-sharing. Obviously subpoenas were issued to various IPs and consequently names and addresses were issued as a result. This was all part of a mass campaign that the attorneys in question were more than happy to execute.

Thousands of people received the same demand letter.

Make no mistake, they didn't really go after the child, but rather, her mother... no matter how the press spins it.

In terms of your "they have the time" argument, I would just like to again say that the girl in question was part of a mass campaign.

I invite you to provide an example sepecific to podcasting.

[dangercast]

Dangercast,

I think you are insane. But I applaude your balls.

Fight the man!

I may be insane, but I am not fighting the "man". I think people need to stand their ground and fight for what they think is right.

[kinkysex]

slight correction:
It was NOT a one time campaign. You are wrong on that one.

[kinkysex]

From the RIAA website.....

The online infringement of copyrighted music can be punished by up to 3 years in prison and $250,000 in fines. Repeat offenders can be imprisoned up to 6 years. Individuals also may be held civilly liable, regardless of whether the activity is for profit, for actual damages or lost profits, or for statutory damages up to $150,000 per infringed copyright.

<emphasis was added by me>

They don't need to be specific. The law is open ended.

[kinkysex]

I may be insane, but I am not fighting the "man". I think people need to stand their ground and fight for what they think is right.

That's what I'm talkin' about - you've got balls. I mean it as a compliment. Unfortuately most of the US isn't as brave as you are.

[dangercast]

slight correction:
It was NOT a one time campaign. You are wrong on that one.

Bad wording on my part. The little girl was part of that campaign, but the media made it look like that she was the target. She never went to court and the RIAA didn't give a crap about her. If I remember correctly, she was downloading Barney or Winnie the Pooh songs (or something in that genre).

[kinkysex]

Bad wording on my part. The little girl was part of that campaign, but the media made it look like that she was the target. She never went to court and the RIAA didn't give a crap about her. If I remember correctly, she was downloading Barney or Winnie the Pooh songs (or something in that genre).

nope. They went after the mother first and THEN the girl.

http://p2pnet.net/story/6485

Now, that's a bastard! Of course, mom gave her up.

[dangercast]

From the RIAA website.....

The online infringement of copyrighted music can be punished by up to 3 years in prison and $250,000 in fines. Repeat offenders can be imprisoned up to 6 years. Individuals also may be held civilly liable, regardless of whether the activity is for profit, for actual damages or lost profits, or for statutory damages up to $150,000 per infringed copyright.

<emphasis was added by me>

They don't need to be specific. The law is open ended.

You know, similar penalties can be levied against people who copy vhs cassettes. Nobody cares. Convicted rapists and pedophiles are doing what? 6 months? A year?

We are talking about a few seconds of music.

[dangercast]

I may be insane, but I am not fighting the "man". I think people need to stand their ground and fight for what they think is right.

That's what I'm talkin' about - you've got balls. I mean it as a compliment. Unfortuately most of the US isn't as brave as you are.

Doubt that. I think most of the US is braver than I am.

[kinkysex]

woah!

In theory I agree with you.

I'm just debating whether this guy would get busted or not (and whether it's legal or not).

I'm in complete agreement with you that these pricks gotta go!

[dangercast]

Bad wording on my part. The little girl was part of that campaign, but the media made it look like that she was the target. She never went to court and the RIAA didn't give a crap about her. If I remember correctly, she was downloading Barney or Winnie the Pooh songs (or something in that genre).

nope. They went after the mother first and THEN the girl.

http://p2pnet.net/story/6485

Now, that's a bastard! Of course, mom gave her up.

I don't think that's a reputable news source. If anybody wants to supply an actual court docket number, I would be more than happy to get a copy.

[kinkysex]

hah!

you are messing with me?!


click here: http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/Chan_motguardadlitem.pdf

Take that! 8)

[dangercast]

woah!

In theory I agree with you.

I'm just debating whether this guy would get busted or not (and whether it's legal or not).

I'm in complete agreement with you that these pricks gotta go!

No, I like the RIAA. I think they are great. My point is that a 10-second clip on a podcast is something nobody will care about.

[kinkysex]

No, I like the RIAA. I think they are great. My point is that a 10-second clip on a podcast is something nobody will care about.

Oh Good, then we can still fight. :wink:

[dangercast]

hah!

you are messing with me?!


click here: http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/Chan_motguardadlitem.pdf

Take that! 8)

Well, this all is about p2p file-sharing and nothing else. You will note that the Plaintiffs are veritable nobodies being represented by an obscure law firm.

[kinkysex]

Well, this all is about p2p file-sharing and nothing else. You will note that the Plaintiffs are veritable nobodies being represented by an obscure law firm.

Yes, file sharing.

Ummm.... obscure law firm? There all obscure except 5. Why would that matter? Cochran was obscure at one point. So was Lincoln. :wink:

[dangercast]

Well, this all is about p2p file-sharing and nothing else. You will note that the Plaintiffs are veritable nobodies being represented by an obscure law firm.

Yes, file sharing.

Ummm.... obscure law firm? There all obscure except 5. Why would that matter? Cochran was obscure at one point. So was Lincoln. :wink:

Well, exactly my point: Shouldn't we be discussing something other than p2p file sharing?

[kinkysex]

FOUL!

No fair re-framing the argument!

We were talking about whether or not the RIAA had spare time on it's hands. NOT if there were more important things in the world.

[dangercast]

FOUL!

No fair re-framing the argument!

We were talking about whether or not the RIAA had spare time on it's hands. NOT if there were more important things in the world.

"Spare time" wasn't the topic.

The actual topic is this: Has the RIAA brought lawsuits against podcasters who used 15-second snippets of music on their shows? The answer is of course, no. Specious arguments and/or debating the relative merits of p2p file-sharing have nothing to do with any of this.

[kinkysex]

Seriously folks, the RIAA doesn't really have the time to go after every obscure podcast on the planet that plays a few seconds of music. It's basically a non-issue.
FOUL!

Liar.

Spare time issue. You started it. :lol:

[dangercast]

Seriously folks, the RIAA doesn't really have the time to go after every obscure podcast on the planet that plays a few seconds of music. It's basically a non-issue.
FOUL!

Liar.

Spare time issue. You started it. :lol:


No, that issue was in your head and you started it by posting this: hmmmmm.. but they'll sue children? I don't know. Seems like they have nothing but time.

The real issue has to do with whether the RIAA would come after podcasters who broadcast 15-second snippets of material. Unfortunately for you, you can't respond to that issue.

[kinkysex]

I responded to that issue. I even posted the law. The law is open ended. They can sue anyone who broadcasts anything in their realm. That's law. Done.

The only issue left is whether they will elect to prosecute YOU. That's a sole matter of resources.

I win. :wink:

[dangercast]

I responded to that issue. I even posted the law. The law is open ended. They can sue anyone who broadcasts anything in their realm. That's law. Done.

The only issue left is whether they will elect to prosecute YOU. That's a sole matter of resources.

I win. :wink:


All you did was post about the girl and her mom who were file-sharing on a p2p network. Nothing you stated was relevant and I'm not even certain you understand the issues.

Let's look at your previous post, and I quote: "They can sue anyone who broadcasts anything in their realm" Sorry princess, but that statement doesn't even make any sense. "Their realm"???? lol.

[kinkysex]

From the RIAA website.....

The online infringement of copyrighted music can be punished by up to 3 years in prison and $250,000 in fines. Repeat offenders can be imprisoned up to 6 years. Individuals also may be held civilly liable, regardless of whether the activity is for profit, for actual damages or lost profits, or for statutory damages up to $150,000 per infringed copyright.

<emphasis was added by me>

They don't need to be specific. The law is open ended.

Hey princess. Learn to read! My name is TOM.
Does this look familiar?

[dangercast]

From the RIAA website.....

The online infringement of copyrighted music can be punished by up to 3 years in prison and $250,000 in fines. Repeat offenders can be imprisoned up to 6 years. Individuals also may be held civilly liable, regardless of whether the activity is for profit, for actual damages or lost profits, or for statutory damages up to $150,000 per infringed copyright.

<emphasis was added by me>

They don't need to be specific. The law is open ended.

Hey princess. Learn to read! My name is TOM.
Does this look familiar?


Somebody who obviously doesn't know what they are talking about? Yeah, princess... very familiar. lol

[kinkysex]

ok I'm done with you now. You aren't any good at fighting. You are too sensitive. 'night.

[dangercast]

ok I'm done with you now. You aren't any good at fighting. You are too sensitive. 'night.

g'night princess! lol