Fair use?

H

hepimedia

Question about fair use.

I want to use some footage from a different documentary. I've seen examples of people putting the footage inside of a frame (for example the borrowed footage is being shown inside a TV set). I'm wondering if that's done to "modify" the footage in order to comply with fair use.

I think I got the other fair use points right since my documentary is
- non profit
- does not compete with original
- for education purposes (since it's a documentary)
- adds new meaning (sheds new light on the topic)

Can you please share your advice?
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
A few issues to consider:

The legal tern “nonprofit” is different than making a movie that will
not return a profit. If your doc is being made under a nonprofit
organization then fair use may apply. If your company has legal
nonprofit status then fair use may apply.

A documentary doesn’t necessarily mean “for educational purposes”
even if the doc teaches. Yes, you can play with the words, but we are
speaking legally here. In general “fair use” educational purposes limits
the use to schools.

I know the “Fair dealing” laws in Canada are different than “fair use”
in the US copyright law so keep that in mind, too.

And what you are planing to do with the finished product matters legally.
Morally it isn't right to use someone else's material without their permission.
But if you feel okay doing that and you will be self-distributing on line or
home video then you will most likely not be sued. If you hope to distribute
the doc using an distributor you should clear all copyrighted footage you
use.

There is no, general answer to this question.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
thank you for the reply, it cleared up a lot of things!

I tried my best to get in touch with the owner, contacted him multiple times via every possible channel (apart from knocking on his door), but to no avail.

The finished product will be put on youtube (I won't try to run ads on the video either) and won't be distributed via a distributor.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I have spent many hours lately with a lawyer on fair use. If it is indeed a documentary it would not be a problem to have music/video/images in the natural setting of your subject's environment. If you are talking about the 60's, you can under "fair use" play a segment of the Beatles as you are authenticating the era.

However, as another poster mentioned, non profit videos educating on the subject are NOT protected under fair use if they are promoting in any way their cause. The non profit CAN be a part of a documentary if the film focuses on a subject and the non profit's cause is part of the story (for example, a documentary on Hurricane Katrina that talks about FEMA).
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
bellabell said:
I have spent many hours lately with a lawyer on fair use. If it is indeed a documentary it would not be a problem to have music/video/images in the natural setting of your subject's environment. If you are talking about the 60's, you can under "fair use" play a segment of the Beatles as you are authenticating the era.
Click to expand...

A clip of music from The Beatles? I highly doubt this. Was your lawyer an entertainment lawyer? If you're ever going to charge a dime to have people watch/buy your doc, you got to have clearance.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
If you are talking about the 60's, you can under "fair use" play a segment of the Beatles as you are authenticating the era.
Click to expand...

Very dangerous advice, even if it turns out to be true.

You could be sued. Even if you're in the right, do you have enough cash reserves to defend your position? Is it worth it? What if you're wrong?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Sweetie said:
Very dangerous advice, even if it turns out to be true.

You could be sued. Even if you're in the right, do you have enough cash reserves to defend your position? Is it worth it? What if you're wrong?
Click to expand...

A successful case that protected a documentary filmmaker's right to use popular culture songs/artist under fair use:

"In Money for Nothing, Kembrew McLeod argued that popular music stars were being chosen for their ability to cross-promote their work.

McLeod claimed fair use for advertisements, album covers and television programming because he was making a critique of the media products themselves, as examples of a cultural trend."

Check out this helpful website. It does a great job of breaking it down.

Like I said, I have spent many hours with a great lawyer and he reminded me that documentary filmmakers need to be bold in order to be heard. If you know your rights, you can create with confidence. Each case can be different, and a web forum is not the place to get legal advice, so do seek a professional opinion.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
bellabell said:
he was making a critique of the media products themselves,
Click to expand...

Had you said that, I would have noted that one can do product reviews, film reviews and so on. Some appreciate the PR, others have a pack of wolves ready to unleash should you even use a sniplet of their product (ESPECIALLY the music industry).

But yeah, like you said, check with your own lawyer so you can at least pass off some of that liability to the lawyer if you get sued.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
McLeod claimed fair use for advertisements, album covers and television programming because he was making a critique of the media products themselves, as examples of a cultural trend."
Click to expand...

This is the case in USA. Is it the case in Canada where the original poster is from? If not, It's still dangerous advice.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
It only protects you from the CRIMINAL use of the music under copyright law. This will not protect you from CIVIL LITIGATION from the copyright holder in any way. IE, as someone else said, it won't protect you from being SUED, just not the jail time for violating the copyright laws.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top