Fair Use for Presentations?

Fubar asks: "The company I work for provides training 'workshops' to various folks in the finance industry. The folks who give the presentations during the workshops are considering adding short clips from various movies to help illustrate their points. In my searching, I have found evidence that basically seems to suggest the practice COULD be either a) fine or b) illegal. Not exactly the black & white answer I was hoping to find."

Comments

Interesting question...

[mattdev121]

Of course, IANAL, but I always assumed that unless you were selling the end product in a commercial environment, this sort of thing is ok, but on the other hand, there are some bits of copyrighting that say otherwise.

I'm really interested in whatever the real answer to this question is because I do this sort of thing as well.

Re:Interesting question...

[Zocalo]

I guess it depends on where "fair use" ends and "copyright infringement begins", which is probably quite a large grey area which both sides would like to be black and white, although probably not with the same proportions of "black" and "white". You could probably use the standard disclaimer most DVDs seem to force you to watch as a starting point; if it has words to the effect of "public broadcast of any part of this product are prohibited", then that's pretty clear cut. Failing that, you would really need to either consult a lawyer or, better yet, get something in writing from the producer(s) about what they would consider acceptable. The latter actually isn't all that difficult to get, or at least it wasn't a few years ago when an employer wanted to use some movie clips and stills in a publically available presentation; it the main it was "keep it brief and give us a credit with our copyright stated on it".

Re:Interesting question...

[Fulcrum of Evil]

One place I worked at, the lawyers basically said that it wasn't copyright infringement if we used copyrighted images on internal pages. The implication was that if the images went outside our company, it'd be verboten. Based on that, I'd say that if it's part of something you're selling, like a presentation, then it's probably not kosher.

Seriously...

[Microsift]

Hire a fucking attorney who knows copyright law.

Re:Seriously...

[Anonymous Coward]

I recommend hiring a regular attorney. Those fucking attorneys are real assholes.

Re:Seriously...

[Xtifr]

> I recommend hiring a regular attorney. Those fucking attorneys are real assholes.

Unless she's cute. (Yes, I am speaking from experience here.) :)

I'd say just do it

[Netochka]

I've had teachers who do the same thing, as long as the audience is small I doubt anyone's going to care. And if you run into someone who does care, do you think they're really going to sue you for compensation for all the past times that you've done it? No, they'll probably just ask you to stop, and you can stop then.

Re:I'd say just do it

[AuMatar]

Educational use is a special part of fair use with extended rights.

Re:I'd say just do it

[Gulthek]

Educational use is a special part of fair use with extended rights.

No. No it isn't.

Educational use doesn't do anything to get "extended rights". Educational use is simply a part of one of the four determining factors to be considered when deciding whether something is fair use. You see, the tricky bit about fair use is that the law doesn't say what it is. It is up to the legal system (the courts) to decide fair use claims on a case-by-case basis. By now we've developed a small set of legal precedents, but still don't really have enough information to give hard answers.
----------
US Code > TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 1 > 107

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include--

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

OK, here's my fair use example

[$RANDOMLUSER]

OK, this is supposed to be "insightful", not "funny". If you don't know "Fantasia", don't bother.

Back in the day, I was teaching Java at the local community college. Every semester, I'd bring in "Fantasia" and show the Mickey Mouse as Sorcerer's Apprentice bit. Mickey would watch the sorcerer, who'd go off to bed, then Mickey would start the broomsticks filling the well, (dum da dadada dum da) things would get out of hand, and the broomsticks would split and split and split. Next thing you know, Mickey's afloat on the sorcerer's book, frantically turning pages, trying to figure out how to make it stop.

I'd pause the tape then, and after a long time starting at Mickey floating atop the book, I'd say:

"NOW he checks the docs."

Re:OK, here's my fair use example

[Andyman1134]

There really needs to be a +1 funny because it's so insightful.

Re:OK, here's my fair use example

[$RANDOMLUSER]

I make a lot of my points with humor. Jesus told parables, I tell jokes. The goal of either is to make you think. Try it sometime.

If you're nice to me, maybe I'll tell you the pot roast joke. Guaranteed programmers ROFL, because it's true, but said in a funny way.

Re:OK, here's my fair use example

[svunt]

If you're nice to me, maybe I'll tell you the pot roast joke. Guaranteed programmers ROFL, because it's true, but said in a funny way.

Dude, this pot roast joke had better be good, I was all set to moderate three posts in this thread, but I gotta hear it.

Re:OK, here's my fair use example

[Foobar of Borg]

If you're nice to me, maybe I'll tell you the pot roast joke.

Oh, forget the pot roast joke. Show us the Cardassian neck trick! I want the Cardassian neck trick! And then read me "Hamster Huey and the Gooey Kablooie!"

Seriously, though, that's about the only way I can get through to /.'ers too is through jokes. And if that doesn't work, raving lunatic insanity sometimes works as well. It is particularly effective if I am at least slightly inebriated, like now.

Re:OK, here's my fair use example

[AKAImBatman]

You've never heard the Pot Roast joke? What's this world coming to?! We'd better correct that immediately! :-)

The joke goes like this:

A newly-wed husband noticed that every time his wife cooked a ham, she would first cut off a quarter of it and put it in another pan. She would then put both pans into the oven to cook them. After pondering over why she might be doing this, he finally decided to ask her, "Honey, why do you always put a quarter of the ham in another pan?"

"Why, I don't know," she replied. "My mother always did it that way, so that's the way I do it."

Being a curious fellow, he convinced his wife to ask her mother next time she saw her.

A few weeks later, she's talking with her mom and asks about the ham. "Mother, why did you always cut off a quarter of the ham before cooking it?"

"Why, I don't know," she replied. "My mother always did it that way, so that's the way I do it!"

When she related this to her husband, they both became even more curious! After much wrangling about bothering her grandmother (who was currently residing in a nursing home, bless her heart) they decided to pay her a visit and ask about the ham.

A few days later, they visit her at the home with a beautiful bouquet of flowers. She is duely impressed and asks to what she owes the visit. The couple, feeling a bit embarrassed, beat around the bush for awhile. After a bit of chatting, they finally get up the nerve to ask.

"Grandmother, we've been wondering. I learned from mother to always cut off a quarter of the ham before cooking it. When I asked her why she did it, she said that she learned it from you. So we're kind of curious, why do you cut off a quarter of the ham before cooking it?"

"What?!?" she exclaims, "You came all this way to ask me that?!?"

"Um. Yes grandma," the granddaughter replies sheepishly.

Grandma huffed a little at the rediculous question, shook her head, and then finally uttered her answer,

"There's only one reason why I always cut a quarter of the ham off before I cooked it. My pan was too small!"

I leave you to figure out the moral of the story. :-)

Re:OK, here's my fair use example

[$RANDOMLUSER]

> Dude, this pot roast joke had better be good, I was all set to moderate three posts in this thread, but I gotta hear it.

Damn, two of my best stories blown on one thread, no funny voices or inflections, just ASCII, but, OK, since you ask so nice, and I haven't been hammered by the "overrated" mod trolls yet:

There's a newlywed couple; he's watching her make dinner, and he asks:
"Why do you cut the end off the pot roast like that?"
And she says:
"I've always done it that way, it has to be done that way, my mother taught me to do it that way".
And he says:
"Well, you don't have to cut the end of the pot roast off like that".
And she says:
"I've always done it that way, it has to be done that way, my mother taught me to do it that way".

So they get into (their first) huge fight.

She calls her mom in tears and asks:
"Mom, why did you teach me to cut off the end of the pot roast like that?"
And her mom says
"I've always done it that way, it has to be done that way, my mother taught me to do it that way".
And she says:
"Well, Jeff says you don't have to do it that way."
And her mom says:
"I've always done it that way, it has to be done that way, my mother taught me to do it that way".

Now, totally confused, the girl calls her gran, and asks:
"Gran, why did you teach my mom, and she taught me, to cut off the end of the pot roast like that?"
Her gran thinks for a minute and says:
"I don't have a pan that big".

Ba Dum Cha!

Just to spoil the joke by explaining it:

For those of you just joining us, the point would be something along the lines of:
"The workarounds of one generation become the religious dictums to the next generation."

Re:OK, here's my fair use example

[$RANDOMLUSER]

I see you cut and pasted this from a spell-checker-free site while I was fooling with telling a story and HTML formatting. You'll forgive me if I still prefer the ritualistic cargo-cult style of my own version?

Re:OK, here's my fair use example

[AKAImBatman]

I see you cut and pasted this from a spell-checker-free site while I was fooling with telling a story and HTML formatting.

Nope. I quoted it from memory on the spot, adding my own embellishments. I waited around a good 10 minutes or before I start, just to make sure you weren't posting it. Then I went ahead and typed it up.

Next time, HURRY UP!

:D

Re:OK, here's my fair use example

[$RANDOMLUSER]

> Next time, HURRY UP!

Agreed. Sorry, I mistook your <blockquote> for slash and paste.

Re:OK, here's my fair use example

[Anonymous Coward]

When good information gets passed around, it usually accumulates useless mutations.

For example, the grandmother is totally superfluous in that story. The way I heard it, the mother delivers the punchline. No need for the extra stack frame. And there was a lot less crying, too.

I also think it's interesting that, about 10 years ago, the story would have been considered rather blatantly sexist. Times have changed.

Re:OK, here's my fair use example

[Anonymous Coward]

  I quoted it from memory on the spot, adding my own embellishments.

Too bad you took a mildly amusing short joke and turned it into a poorly told, tedious, Bataan Death March. Try telling that in a class I'm in and you'll regret it.

Maybe yes, maybe no

[Andyman1134]

Are you making any profit off this? I.e. If this is a workshop people are not paying to attend then you are definately in the free and clear. If you are making profit off this, then you are definately not in the free and clear. If you are charging admission, but not really doing it for the sake of a profit, so much as just covering your costs, then you are probably ok. At any rate, if that is the case, then most likely no copyright holders are likely to bother you anyway. So why worry about it?

No clear answer...

[kebes]

IANAL, but I don't think you're going to find a clear answer. What you're talking about is a fringe case, so it's always up for debate. However, you should consider:

1. Is it 'necessary' in the sense that you need that clip to make a point? Remember that satire, commentary, and even artistic pieces are protected. If you need the clip to make your point, then it's probably okay (subject to the next two points)...

2. Is it a small usage? If you are showing only a small clip from a full movie (1%), then it's probably fine.

3. Is it commercial? ... in the sense of "are you somehow limiting the original content owner's market?" If you're showing the full movie and charging people, you are cutting into the copyright holder's market (they charge ppl to see the movie, after all). If you are just using a short clip to make a point, and charging people for the presentation/training as a whole, then it's a fair use. Unless the copyright holder in question is actively trying to sell in the "clips for use in training sessions" market, then you're not cutting into his business.

There will never be an iron-clad answer (that can only come out of a court decision). However if you seem to be "okay" with respect to 1, 2, and 3... I would guess that nearly any judge would not find you guilty of copyright infringement.

I also know that in Canada there are explicit exceptions for education. Thus, if it is for teaching you can make copies of a copyrighted work and distribute these to the class. The only requirement is that you properly log all your usage, and that there is no viable, available, commercial alternative that performs the exact same function. I'm not sure if something similar exists in the US.

The only people who will tell you that this is "obviously illegal" are those who are trying to exagerrate how extensive copyright really is. Of course, this is just my interpretation of the laws in question.

Re:No clear answer...

[rueger]

I also know that in Canada there are explicit exceptions for education. Thus, if it is for teaching you can make copies of a copyrighted work and distribute these to the class.

That is within an educational setting that is licenced by Access Copyright.

Fubar says "The company I work for provides training 'workshops' to various folks in the finance industry. The folks who give the presentations during the workshops are considering adding short clips from various movies to help illustrate their points."

This is a purely commercial use, and as such permission and probably royalties would need to be paid in either country.

Re:No clear answer...

[Joe Decker]

Is it commercial? ... in the sense of "are you somehow limiting the original content owner's market?" If you're showing the full movie and charging people, you are cutting into the copyright holder's market (they charge ppl to see the movie, after all). If you are just using a short clip to make a point, and charging people for the presentation/training as a whole, then it's a fair use. Unless the copyright holder in question is actively trying to sell in the "clips for use in training sessions" market, then you're not cutting into his business.

Looks like Sony, at least, does in fact sell movie clips into similar markets.

One correction, the "is it commercial" test is different than the "does this interfere with the ability of the copyright holder to exploit the material" test, at least in US law. The Wikipedia page on "fair use" seems to cover this pretty well.

Disclaimer: IANAL.

Re:No clear answer...

[Joe Decker]

Dang, I'd intended to link the Sony licensing page.

Re:No clear answer...

[Anonymous Coward]

Legal or not isn't necessarily the most important thing. You should be asking yourself,"If they decide to sue us over the project, can we survive the legal fees?"

Unfortunately, the answer to this question is usually "NO!" Equally unfortunate is that this is the more important question. You can be completely correct, and unquestionably within Fair Use, but if they have deep pockets (and we're talking the movie cartel here) they can sue you into oblivion and never get to trial.

I recently read an article in a video magazine. A documentary interviewed some roadies backstage. The Simpsons was on a TV in the background. The footage was less than 30 seconds, and Fox wanted $10k+ for rights to use the video. The documentary producers simply blurred the TV. Fixing the TV in post was trivial. Why? Rights cost too much and they couldn't survive the cost of a potential lawsuit.

Re:No clear answer...

[Anonymous Coward]

2. Is it a small usage? If you are showing only a small clip from a full movie (1%), then it's probably fine.

You were fine up until you said 'movie'. Then it became a $300,000 fine and 10 years in PMITA Penitentiary.

Re:No clear answer...

[loraksus]

I've heard of cases where a photo /poster in the background of a tv show got the photographer $1,500.

Re:No clear answer...

[Joe Decker]

Bravo if that actually happened, a lot of magazine covers wouldn't net you that much.

Re:No clear answer...

[loraksus]

Easier to ask for a good chunk of change if you have a vhs tape of the tv show and they wan't to avoid a lawsuit ;)

Actually, case was more or less like this - photographer has a picture of Mt. Hood overlooking Portland, and during the opening of a big mall here, it got blown up into a poster (believe by the mall folks) and the today show did a couple minute segment with the picture in the background.
Lawyer for the photographer called in and the conversation went like this.
"Hey, umm, you folks had one of my client's photos in the back of one of your sets during last night's taping."
"Shit. $1000 ok?"
"$1500.."
"Done. Where should I send it?"
Money arrived shortly thereafter.

Direct Quote

[Anonymous Coward]

Fubar: The folks who give the presentations during the workshops are considering adding short clips from various movies to help illustrate their points. In my searching, I have found evidence that basically seems to suggest the practice COULD be either a) fine or b) illegal. Not exactly the black & white answer I was hoping to find."

Article: The preceding analysis shows that multimedia designers might find a safe harbor in the fair use doctrine. However, there are clear limitations on this safe harbor. For example, a developer who wanted to use a longer film clip, say two minutes of a feature length movie, in a multimedia presentation designed solely for commercial use (like a game) probably falls outside the boundaries of the fair use doctrine

Poor Idea

[Distinguished Hero]

The folks who give the presentations during the workshops are considering adding short clips from various movies to help illustrate their points. In my searching, I have found evidence that basically seems to suggest the practice COULD be either a) fine or b) illegal. Not exactly the black & white answer I was hoping to find."

Whether it is "a) fine or b) illegal," one thing is rather certain: "adding short clips from various movies" is probably a rather poor (asinine, and lazy) way to go about "illustrating ... points." Perhaps they should reconsider the entire initiative, regardless of the legality of the matter. There are almost certainly better ways of illustrating points other than relying on the crutch of rummaging through the intellectual rubbish heap that is Hollywood.

Re:Poor Idea

[slashbob22]

Whether it is "a) fine or b) illegal," one thing is rather certain: "adding short clips from various movies" is probably a rather poor (asinine, and lazy) way to go about "illustrating ... points."

I completely agree, I recently saw a presentation in which there was 3-4 clips used and very little of the original message was conveyed do to the heavy reliance on external content. Too much "illustration" can certainly distract from the true message.

Re:Poor Idea

[Anonymous Coward]

was conveyed do to

"due".

I'd ask the companies you want to use stuff from.

[ShyGuy91284]

IANAL either, but I would think since it is under their control, if they really wanted to and had evidence, they could probably nail you for it. What you want doesn't sound like "private use". Many things specifically say "blah blah, not for commercial distribution". Much software says "if this is used in a business, you have to pay, but if it's personal, you don't". So in short, I'd check the disclaimers of the material, and check with the copyright holders if you want to be safe. The chances of them nailing you for it are slim to none, but it sounds like you want to do it 100% legally.

Here's an article to look at

[kaufmanmoore]

look at this article from the intellectual property and technology forum at BC's law school, a few pages down it provides a hypothetical about using a film clip in a training presentation and how it couple be considered fair use. link

Re:Here's an article to look at

[teridon]

How exactly do you get an "Informative" mod for linking to a site that Fubar provided in his question?

Welcome to Copyright Law

[QuantumG]

Where even the lawyers can't agree on what is legal and what is not.

Re:Welcome to Copyright Law

[whoppers]

And that's how they make their money, if everything was black & white the lawyers would have nothing to do. Same with the tax laws. Imagine if the tax laws were consolidated, all the loopholes taken away. Billions of dollars would be saved that companies could put back into development, their workforce, etc.. Course the tax experts would have to find a new career but since their buddies write the tax laws, it's just a big circle jerk and we're all funding this.

You forgot other options

[dbIII]

... seems to suggest the practice COULD be either

(c) Lazy

(d) If done badly - tasteless, irrelevant and a waste of time. Consider the SCO presentation near the very start of their linux IP claims which contained clips from a James Bond movie. In that presentation it was implied that Darl McBride was in some way similar to James Bond and the linux community was similar to the forces of evil in the movie. A presentation like this may look cool and funny to insiders but to outsiders (who may be in your audience or your entire audience) it just looks like you have completely lost the plot and they may even consider you do not take anything seriously enough to deserve any sort of trust.

(e) Get completely off the point by association. A clip that shows the point may contain an actor that people associate more with another role and they may think of that other role instead and completely miss the point. A clip from "Much Ado about Nothing" that is relevant may have people thinking of "Matrix" or "The Tall Guy" or whatever depending on who is in the clip.

Fair use is only a legal defense

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

The concept of "fair use" is really only a legal defense in case you are sued/prosecuted for copyright infringement. This effectively means there are no hard and fast rules as to what is OK and what is not OK - it is all subject to interpretation and one person's grey area may be another judge's clear distinction.

Here's the relevant section of the law:

107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include --

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
   
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
   
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
   
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

As you can see, there is lots of room for interpretation - which, like most of the law, helps to keep the unemployment rate among lawyers very low.

Re:Fair use is only a legal defense

[Cyphertube]

Actually it's not that wide as regards interpretation.

Unless your company is functioning as a non-profit, you are making money off their work, using it to illustrate point. So, you need their permission, which may or may not come with certain royalty payments needing to be made.

While the scope for written materials is fairly wide, because one can cite a small piece, generally speaking when it comes to visual elements, there tends to not be much latitude given, with the possible exception of academic work.

I'm not a lawyer, but this is what I have been given to understand over the years.

Legit vs Non-Legit Usage

[Alien54]

IANAL but here goes as far as my understanding goes.

If you are in an art history class, and were citing The Simpsons in their impact on culture in the Late 20th century, then use of images and clips to illustrate the point in this discussion about the Simpsons is fine and quite legit. You are likely not using an entire show, but might have clips of entire bits or segments.

On the other hand, if you are selling a product called BARFO, then the use of the Simpsons is not legitimate, as it is likely the use of a copyrighted image in the promotion of a product, without licensing.

Internal usage inside a company, such as a sales training manual, would probably pass because the danger of getting caught is low. This would probably be inside a single office.

External usage, say in the training of Vendors, or across a much larger campany area is probably in dangerous territory, probably because it is unlicensed usage, and the danger of getting caught is much higher. This brings to mind the phrase "not a career enhancing decision". Lawyers might get to know you well. This is not always a good thing

For an example, see this discussion of a classic cartoonist instruction book, where the first edition had to be changed in the second edition, so as not use well known characters of the day. The first edition used all famous characters, many of which you may recognise. Link one and Link two

These links are heavy with illustrations. which enlarge when you click on them.

Thus you could likely use simpson inspired characters, or simpson style characters,

Using the actual simpson characters in materials to be distributed outside the company into a semi-public or public area Is probably very bad. Similar to using them on a company website or blog, again, without permission.

Re:Legit vs Non-Legit Usage

[CastrTroy]

I'm not sure how education gets into this too. In school, we often watch movies (To Kill a Mockingbird, Romeo and Juliet, Lord of the Flies, etc..) and that was kind of a public performance. I mean, it wasn't really in your own home. What if it wasn't part of a class? What if it was an after school program? Do schools have to pay for the rights to show these films? What about copyrighted music at school dances? I think the poster's situation would fall into the same realm. I don't see how this could be illegal. Although with the way things have been going lately, I wouldn't doubt it if they got sued.

Re:Legit vs Non-Legit Usage

[Alien54]

Typically the schools purchased the films for the school system. Renting them from your local video store would not be on the menu. Typically a school also has a small fee that goes to ASCAP, or BMI so the composer's get their share. The RIAA might have other issues with the school dance, however.

Simple. Read the bloody FBI warning on a DVD.

[WoTG]

Remember that stupidly annoying FBI warning on your DVD movies? That pretty much tells you exactly whether or not you are allowed to use parts of the movie for your own purposes. Simply put, you're not. Now you can contact the movie publishers or one of their agents to buy an appropriate license for a price -- at least I assume so. I know that many TV shows have programs for that sort of situation. Similarly, there's a well outlined method for using music for your public events and corporate use.

IANAL, yada yada yada.

It's a needless risk and almost certainly illegal

[DavidinAla]

You can probably get away with this if the audiences are small enough that nobody with the copyright holders ever finds out about what you're doing, but it seems clearly illegal and would be very bad judgment.

You would be using someone else's work product in a commercial environment. You open your company up to serious copyright lawsuits and bad PR. It's not worth it. If you truly need footage to illustrate something, buy permission to use something that you can actually afford. Or find public domain footage that does the same thing. (Check archive.org, for example.) Or pay somebody to shoot the footage you need. But you probably don't really NEED it to make your points. It's a needless legal risk, and I'd strongly suggest you consult a competent lawyer instead of trust the ignorant legal advice you're going to get on Slashdot. :-)

David

Of course it's unclear . . .

[edward.virtually@pob]

How the US "justice" system works is that the richer party wins. Rulings on the issue so far have not involved the big media corporations and thus vary in outcome and are few in number. Once one of them brings it to trial, the ambiguity will be resolved since there's no chance in hell of them being the poorer no matter who the defendant is, and once they decide to act they'll sue as many victims as possible. If you do it now, you probably won't get sued. If you do it in, say, two years now that youtube et. al is making video cliping commonplace, you probably will. Creativity and legal safety are an oxymoron in this country, sadly.

Only one possble answer to this:

[whoever57]

You want legal advice: go see a lawyer. Why on earth would you take any notice of the comments of the geeks on /. regarding any legal issue?

Re:I'd ask the companies you want to use stuff fro

[SydShamino]

Many things specifically say "blah blah, not for commercial distribution".

Yes, this is so that the CEO of Dish Network can't go down to Best Buy, purchase a copy of a show just released to DVD, and then broadcast it to all his customers. The copyright holder of a DVD copy of a movie is granting you an explicit right to show it for private purposes: you can watch it all you want, you can even invite all your friends over and show it at your birthday party. In other words, the distribution license for the content you purchased allows you to redistribute the content to others as long as admission is not open to the general public, and you do not make a profit.

BUT

You have more rights than those granted to you by this license. US law allows you to sell the DVD and transfer your license. You can even rent the DVD to someone else, and make a profit by renting it often enough to recoup your initial costs. Moreover, you have fair use rights to use portions of the work for parody, commentary, or criticism. A judge will look at the purpose and character of your use, and one such use that has been found to be valid for fair use in some cases is for education.

In other words, the parent's posters argument that "the license only allows for private use, so anything that isn't private isn't allowed" is incomplete. You have other rights. Unfortunately, neither I nor anyone else on Slashdot can tell you if those rights include what you are doing. Go hire a real lawyer. It will be cheaper than getting sued, if you are are within your rights to do what you do.

you can do it til they catch you...

[Sfing_ter]

IANAL - but I have a client that used movie clips in presentations... used the same ones for 3yrs. (5 to 10min clips), then they got their letter from the mpaa wanting fines and requiring they purchase licenses. They paid the fines and removed the clips. They did not tell me what the licensing cost was, but they no longer use commercial movie clips.

If you are in business and you are using it to get business, then pay up, don't be a dick.

I only know this...

[Seraphim_72]

From the great Lawrence Lessig's Free Culture:

"I've seen the flash of recognition when people get this point, but only a few times. The first was at a conference of federal judges in California. The judges were gathered to discuss the emerging topic of cyber-law. I was asked to be on the panel. Harvey Saferstein, a well-respected lawyer from an L.A. firm, introduced the panel with a video that he and a friend, Robert Fairbank, had produced.

The video was a brilliant collage of film from every period in the twentieth century, all framed around the idea of a 60 Minutes episode. The execution was perfect, down to the sixty-minute stopwatch. The judges loved every minute of it.

When the lights came up, I looked over to my copanelist, David Nimmer, perhaps the leading copyright scholar and practitioner in the nation. He had an astonished look on his face, as he peered across the room of over 250 well-entertained judges.Taking an ominous tone, he began his talk with a question: "Do you know how many federal laws were just violated in this room?""

These are ominous, deep and dark waters that you want to wade through. Get a lawyer, a very good lawyer.

Sera

Google about the TEACH Act

[BrianCarlstrom]

The TEACH Act provides a fair use framework for classroom use, including distance learning. There are strings attached. However, if your use falls under the scope of the TEACH Act, it should give you some clarity on what you can use without fear of reprisal.

IANAL...

That's because

[91degrees]

It's either fine, or illegal. It's a gray area. By design. If you're using very small portions then you're probably okay.

Re:Hello Ask Slashdot, I have a problem.....

[loraksus]

Go to a 7-11, get a slurpee straw and use the little spoon thingy while sucking.
-Glad to be of help.

Theory and practice.

[A beautiful mind]

In theory, you're 100% covered by fair use.

In practice, fair use is an incredibly fuzzy thing. If you can't pay or your company can't pay a team of lawyers to protect your fair use rights against the 800lb gorillas from Hollywood, then you better not do it.

Lawrence Lessig details this issue in his book. Basically, even if it is a cut clear case of fair use, even then it is only clear cut as long as you have the lawyers to back that up. Lessig mentions the case when some documentary filmmaker was filming in a theatre and there was about 4 seconds of Simpsons caught on footage from a tv in the corner of the recorded picture. The guy who made the documentary wanted to clear rights for that 4 seconds, and the company who owns the rights to Simpsons demanded $10,000 (for something theoretically free under fair use). He couldn't even think about just using it anyway based on fair use, because the company he was making the documentary for had insured his production. It ment that lawyers would review the production and they would look for (among others) fair use parts, and if they didn't clear rights for those supposedly fair use parts from the copyright holder, they would most certainly never approve the production, because in their opinion it would carry too much of a risk factor.

So there you have it, theory and practice.

Re:I'd ask the companies you want to use stuff fro

[cpt kangarooski]

Wow, no.

The copyright holder of a DVD copy of a movie is granting you an explicit right to show it for private purposes

No. This is because there is no right within copyright to control private performances. The only performances copyright deals with are public performances. What actually happens is that the owner of the DVD can do anything lawful that he wants with it, whether he wants to use it as a frisbee or use it to watch the content within. No one owns the work itself. And the copyright doesn't touch on private performances. Thus, when you buy a DVD, performing the work privately is one of the legal things you can do.

In other words, the distribution license for the content you purchased allows you to redistribute the content to others as long as admission is not open to the general public, and you do not make a profit.

Not only no, for the same reason as above, but also performance is not the same thing as distribution. Distribution is when someone else ends up with a copy -- where a copy is defined as a material object, the sort you could literally touch -- whether that's the original copy you got from the store, or whether a new copy is made, e.g. by burning another identical DVD, or reproducing the bits in a hard drive, or whatever.

You have more rights than those granted to you by this license.

No, there is no license involved with ordinary consumer DVDs bought in a store. No license at all.

US law allows you to sell the DVD and transfer your license.

No, it doesn't, not only because there is no license, but whether licenses can be transfered depends on what the license says; there's no copyright law on the subject.

You can even rent the DVD to someone else, and make a profit by renting it often enough to recoup your initial costs.

Surprisingly, given how wrong you've been so far, yes.

Moreover, you have fair use rights to use portions of the work for parody, commentary, or criticism. A judge will look at the purpose and character of your use, and one such use that has been found to be valid for fair use in some cases is for education.

I wouldn't call fair use a right per se. Free speech is a right, whether you're using a copyrighted work or not. Of course, copyright can override free speech at times. Fair use is a defense to copyright such that where it applies, there is no copyright, and thus no bar to free speech. Also judges look at more factors than merely the purpose and character of the use.

Go hire a real lawyer.

Yes. Because you don't know too much about copyright law.

Don't look at is as legal vs illegal...

[RingDev]

Think of it as a liability. What are the chances that you would be sued for showing the clip? What are the possible damages you would have to pay? If you show a clip of "Ground Hog Day" to a group of 20 attendees, will one of them rat you out to the copyright holder? Does the copyright holder have the means and desire to persue you? Do you have enough money to make it worth the copyright holder's time to sue you?

-Rick

MOD PARENT UP

[Anonymous Coward]

The parent post is the only one so far that actually has truthful, helpful information.

And how, here's a bunch of my rambling based on a high 'A' grade in a single communication law class that I very much enjoyed:

Fair use is a legal defense that you can attempt to argue if someone takes you to court for copyright infringement and you did use their work, but you don't think your use infringed on their rights (to sell, distribute, etc).

There are four "tests" in fair use, which are listed in the parent. A judge's ruling in a fair use case is based on how well the use in question passes the four tests.

For example, if a public school teacher uses a copyrighted work to illustrate a point in class, but does so just once (that is, not repeatedly each year as part of the curriculum), they have a very good chance of winning a fair use case, because they very strongly pass part 1, and depending on specifics, probably have at least a weak pass on 2, 3, and 4. However, if it becomes part of the curriculum, their argument is weakened, for a variety of reasons.

Now, in the original submitter's case, we look at the four tests:
1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
1. You fail, and rather strongly. Although it may be an educational 'workshop', if you're selling tickets to the workshop, then you're most likely for-profit. You may be able to slightly better your case by pointing out the educational level of the workshop, especially if it is -very- educational and there aren't ads and actively-selling vendors everywhere, but that's iffy. Note: not using the clips in relation to your product in order to distance yourself from using them commercial is no good, because then you lose educational argument.

2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
2. Ehhh...probably a medium-strong fail. Although this test used to deal mostly with facts and ideas being separate from copyright, it now also takes into consideration the current availability of the work. That is, has the work already been published once by the copyright holder, and how available is the work currently (however, this part of this test overlaps with test 4 a little, as well as covering areas that might be better covered by privacy laws). The clips you want to show are not facts or ideas, and chances are that the videos are still an active copyrighted material used by the copyright holder. The only possible thing in your favor is that the videos have been publicly released...but that's not enough to do anything for you, really.

3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole;
3. I'm going to say somewhere between neutral and medium-pass, depending on the clips, their length, etc. The shorter they are, the better you'll do here. And, entertainingly, the worse the clips are, probably the better you'll do: if the best jokes/points/moments of the movie aren't in your clip, I would imagine you could do a little better here.

and 4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
4. I'll say neutral to strong-pass, depending a lot on the clips, their length, your audience, and what you say about the clips, the movies the clips are from, etc. The more popular the movies are and the stronger the market for the movies is, the worse off you are. The longer the clips are, the worse off you are. If the clips are shown in such a way that your audience will relate to them and possibly be interested in the movie, you might do a little better, although I imagine that as hard to show. The main thing is that you aren't showing such long clips or such chopped up, misleading clips that people won't want to buy the movie.

Later note: But hey, if you use clips from tailers, you might have a much stronger case on some of these points, since the trailers were released specifically for promotion; depending on when the movies came out, much of your audience has likely already seen the trailers; etc etc.

oops, forgot.

[Anonymous Coward]

oh yeah, read the damn wikipedia article on fair use, it explains everything excellently.

Easier to get forgiveness than permission ...

[aggiefalcon01]

ergo, do it.

nasa videos

[aberson]

I think you're trying to use specific clips, so this is OT, but if all you need is to demonstrate video capabilities of something, you could download NASA videos. They are pretty boring, and not a lot of motion (i.e. it's not really a great demo to show how fast your processor is), but they are openly licensed.

Re:nasa videos

[greenlead]

Or other public domain videos, such as those from the Internet Archive. The Prelinger Archives, in particular, is really good.

Pop quiz

[egon]

Pop quiz hotshot. When faced with a legal question that could potentially cause the MPAA to come calling on your company like a pack of rabid wolves, should you:

A) Go to that great legal authority on the net, known as Slashdot
or
B) Hire a fscking lawyer

I'll give you a hint ... you have chosen poorly.

"wan't"? "WAN'T"? Jesus Fucking Christ

[Anonymous Coward]

they wan't to avoid a lawsuit

"want".