Not sure why I never saw this earlier but just to set the record straight, it is never OK to use, play, broadcast, give away or sell copyrighted music ever, for any reason, without written permission for that purpose.
1. Its not fair to filmmakers who have "legal" original music
2. Its not legal
It
IS fair to filmmakers who have legal music, because those filmmakers who use legal music don't have to worry about lawsuits. Therefore, based on point #2, it's completely fair, because it's NOT legal, so filmmakers with original (legal) music have a better chance at getting their film sold (music can always be added during studio touch-ups anyway). And people who do use popular music illegally have limited options.... but why should the budget of a film (considering the cost of licensing big songs) affect the artistic development of non-profiting artists? Most of our first movies, and indeed, the first trailer for Macbeth 3000 (it was later re-scored so we could submit it to film festivals and get it played on TV, to which it did, thrice... on CBC and Razor TV) used popular music... NiN, Matt Good, the theme song of Krull: The conquerer, star wars battle music, the 60's batman theme, a re-lyicised version of the theme song for the Fresh Prince of Belair, the mortal kombat theme... all of these had been used in some of our first Shakespearian short films in class projects for high school English. We didn't have the resources to score a film with original music, and often, the music was part of the parody. Based off the reactions of our classmates, we decided to make the feature Macbeth 3000 outside of class. Where are these shorts? Well, mostly lost in time or with crappy versions floating around on the internet, but legality aside, do you really think the Foo Fighters or Metallica should get any money from someone downloading these shorts or seeing them at a small, "community" (as opposed to commercial) film festivals? Does Puff Daddy get money from the cover-charges of clubs that play his music? No. If the music and film is used commercially for thousands of dollars, sure, give the band a cut. But that's where you get into having to deal with record labels, so I'd just rather deal with one composer and use original music than dealing with 7 laywers in a courtroom. But by all means, it's not unfair to others.
In any case, Macbeth 3000 cost approximately $10,000, with more than half of that going into the "audio" budget for Harmeet's triple screen, multi-track mixing system, boom mic, portable mixer/capture device, cords, mics, programs and all the other splendor of a post production audio suite... the original score was made using that equipment and his own musical genius.... but even if we couldn't have crafted it ourselves, there's a slew of damn fine composers out there willing to work for free or low cost. So it's easy to get good music... but there are times (especially in parody) where certain music is needed for artistic purposes, and if you don't have the budget to afford big label expenses, I don't think it's a case where you shouldn't be able to use it... you just have to limit the venues of where it goes. That being said, I'm currently working on a sketch series where we make a Breakfast Club reference at the end... how am I supposed to do that WITHOUT "Don't you forget about me"? I'm going to have to do a cover and change a note here and there, unless someone can properly explain fair use to me.
Is the bandying around of copyright infringement really an issue of theft when we talk about music/movies that are so utterly proliferated through mainstream that they are DEFINING our (lacklustre) culture?
Beyonce is sold as ringtones and Mick Jagger's lips are on T-shirts everywhere... you can't shoot a scene in a public place without getting an ad for some pharmaceutical product or local divorce lawyer in the background. Hell, I can't even walk to the fucking corner store without seeing the same fucking properties that are on our television, our billboards, our tshirts, mugs, radios and movie screens. And you have however many major studios and major networks and major banks and major governments trying to keep the little guys from breaking in, because they only want the brands that represent their own goals and can make more money. They recruit talent and sign people into binding exclusive contracts in secret rooms, all hush-hush with confidential agreements, so that entertainment becomes property, can be owned, patented, produced, and distributed... and if anyone else uses that property and doesn't pay for it, they can sue. And that's a shit system. It may be how it IS, and thus, as far as legality is concerned, "correct", but you just have to digest that information and make an educated decision when putting music in a film.
While of course, I think that bands should be paid for their work, I don't like the idea of buying the rights for songs that include the administrative fees to cover the golf club entry fees for label executives... just so that I can put a song in the movie I'm going to be selling off to some other high-paid executive who'll take a bigger cut of the profit from my work because he's "in" the "system". But if you want to be IN the system, that's what you have to do- tuck your balls between your legs and make your quiet millions doing occasional PSAs for Darfur while bleeding whatever money you can get from some car dealership that is selling a car the exact same color you bought and patented the rights for. If you choose to remain outside the system, like a small film festival or short film on the internet, and it is purely for the purpose of sharing art (and getting your name out), then really, who cares?
Sorry about RANTING, but I get so pissy about how uptight and complicated this stupid economy-driven society is. But that's what you get when we're all owned by the banks.