Sound FX and Copyright

Hi
Creating a short all CG tongue in cheek homage to 'Close Encounters' and want to use the four note theme(not actual music, just the five notes.

Is this considered copyright infringement or fair use?
This is a web only personal and personal promo piece.

The world pf copyright is sometimes quite obtuse and wanted to get some expert advice here.
 
Last edited:
Hi
Creating a short all CG tongue in cheek homage to 'Close Encounters' and want to use the four note theme(not actual music, just the four notes.

Is this considered copyright infringement or fair use?
This is a web only personal and personal promo piece.

The world pf copyright is sometimes quite obtuse and wanted to get some expert advice here.

No, it's not obtuse; if you use copyrighted material without the permission of the holder of the copyright(s) you are in violation of the law, so you must have clearance from the owner of the copyright(s) to use that material in your projects. So yes, this would be a case of copyright infringement. It doesn't matter if your project is intended for YouTube or personal use of any kind. Yes, people use copyrighted material in their projects illegally all the time, but that does not make it right.

Oh, the four notes are a part of the score, as well.

BTW, if you change just one note of the four your will no longer be in violation of copyright, unless somebody else has already copyrighted the "modified" version.
 
Actually copyright law is incredibly vague. If you use the music as a parody or a fan film than it is legal under Fair Use. Now that doesn't mean you won't get sued or a cease and desist letter, but at least you would be legally ok, if you really wanted to go to court.
 
If it's a parody then you're in a very gray area. 'Fair Use' might defend you, but it's particularly vague and is just a defense you can use in a court of law (legal fees will be choking you financially at this point, even if you win.)

It's much safer to just replicate the five tones in a similar way than to use the same sound effect the original film used
 
Last edited:
The ability to read and comprehend. I used to work at a radio station and dealt with copyright law on a pretty regular basis, our general rule of thumb was "when in doubt, don't". That qualifies me to give legal advice on an Internet forum. I am also pretty well versed on political catechism rules in regard to airtime if you have any questions
 
No, it's not obtuse; if you use copyrighted material without the permission of the holder of the copyright(s) you are in violation of the law, so you must have clearance from the owner of the copyright(s) to use that material in your projects.

In this instance Alcove I'm going to have to disagree with you. While using copyright material without permission is an infringement of the copyright holder's rights, it might not be a violation of the law. Although I agree with you as far as what you've said being a good general "rule of thumb".

'Fair Use' might defend you, but it's particularly vague and is just a defense you can use in a court of law (legal fees will be choking you financially at this point, even if you win.)

"Fair Use" isn't a defence in the common meaning of the term, for two reasons: 1. To use "Fair Use" as a defence the respondent first has to legally admit that they did indeed infringe copyright and 2. In a traditional "defence" the burden of proof is on the side of the claimant but with a "Fair Use" defence the burden of proof rests with the respondent. Legally, it's up to the respondent to prove "Fair use", not the claimant to prove that it wasn't. I entirely agree with your comment on the financial side of it all though. I know of filmmakers who have licensed material which really they didn't legally need to but they did so because the cost of the license was less than defending against a claim of infringement, even a successful defence!

Although copyright is in theory an international law, exactly how it is implemented and how and what constitutes a legal exemption, varies from legal jurisdiction to jurisdiction. For example, in the UK it's not even called "fair use", it's called "fair dealing" and what constitutes "fair dealing" can be quite different from the USA's "fair Use". The OP is in Canada, so how vague or precise copyright law is in the USA is probably irrelevant. Even a Canadian's opinion might be irrelevant because it's possible that different provinces within Canada may implement copyright exemptions differently ... I've no idea though. The best advice given so far is to consult a Lawyer, an entertainment rights laywer!!

BTW, although it's years since I've seen it, isn't the motif of Close Encounters 5 notes rather than 4?

G
 
I'm not sure that copyright law is any more "vague" than any other law. All law is vague. So I suppose nothing is a given.

While I'm not a lawyer, I did take a couple of law classes in college, and from what I remember, Parody is 100% guaranteed to win in the US. Parody falls under the 1st amendment, freedom of speech area, freedom to mock, freedom to make fun of. There is almost no way that a parody cannot be defended from a copyright suit in the US. From what I recall. (Edit: Yes, Americans can thank Larry Flynt for making this a certainty).

But the OP is in Canada, and I'm not a 100% on it. Best bet is to google. I googled "parody copyright canada." and there's a lot of interesting stuff. Don't want to break it down for you as I'm no expert, but you should be able to make up your mind.

I think Canadian law in general, is open to fair use, as long as you're not profiting from a copyrighted work, if it is for "private study," which seems to be your case. But then again, you shouldn't take my opinion as expert advice.
 
Last edited:
Oh yeah, I forgot to take into account how Fair Use and copyright might function in other countries. Plus in this case he'd be dealing with two different countries views on it, since Close Encounters of the Third Kind is an American film.

At any rate, I'd still say to replicate the tones yourself, Eco. It isn't difficult and I'm sure everyone will understand the reference (and if they don't, then they won't understand it even if you used the original sounds)
 
Back
Top