Abuse of Copyright Law?

[jeffkohn]

I agree with Tom, and I also think the context of the usage is relevent. Posting a clip on YouTube is hardly commercial use, it's not like the mom is selling DVD's or putting on shows and charging admission.

We have to keep in mind that copyright law was originally intended to benefit both the content creator and society, not just to give content creators an absolute stranglehold on the content. That's why we have the concept of fair use (and it's also why copyrights had expirations, although that part has been pretty much destroyed thanks to Disney et al).

[SaSha]

Look what Sony started with the Betamax.

Tom has it right...I believe the Digital Millenium Copyright Act covers this in detail.
It says something about the # of seconds of a clip can constitute infringement.

[markfh]

Originally Posted by studiocygnet

I'm a musician, and in my opinion, 30 seconds of a 4:39 minute song playing behind a dancing baby does not copyright infringement make. I agree with the Jakestir's take on this, but here it would be maybe 20% of your photo in the background. And if she had taken the video a few minutes later, it would have been a different song playing, so the specific song is incidental to the performance on film. Like if she turned the camera and there was a different portrait on the wall.

This is totally different than using a complete song as a soundtrack. Heck, if you look at my band's website, we have 30 second clips of a bunch of our songs available so that you can check them out and see what they sound like. Most bands do that. The whole song is the art, so if it is not at least the major percentage of the song, I don't see the problem.

Wow, imagine that, common sense. Good for you Tom...

[Ahh!]

In olden days, artists (and their labels) were thrilled if they could get ANY play on the radio. Now their labels get their undies in a bundle about the i'Net. We need a better definition of fair use for the casual user.
They are also making a big mistake in wasting money on the lawyers to prevent the distribution of a lousy quality copy and WAKE UP to the commercial possibilities of the web, video, CD/DvD photo albums, etc. If usage/exposure is what they want, and payment is what they crave, make it EASY and AFFORDABLE to purchase licenses for those purposes. How many copies of Sally and John's wedding DvD are going to be resold to illegally distribute the latest Nashville sob song outside the label's control? But Sally and John would love to have the original instead of a knock-off as long as they can still afford it. And THAT is brand loyalty the label's artist can't imagine the value.
"Dear? Remember OUR song? Well, for our anniversary, I bought us artist circle tickets to their concert tonight!"
PRICELESS? Well, let's see...
The artists, the venue, the manager...heck, even the janitor gets paid. And the husband gets...OK, let's keep it G.

Do you know, some couples don't even remember what "their song" was!