Good music vs. bad lawsuits

What you're asking to do (put a little bit of copywritten music under your submission) is well within the realm of Fair Use Laws. Its not for profit, it's not even really for distribution, and so long as it doesn't harm the commercial potential of the music you're using (say, putting it under offensive dialogue or something), you will NOT end up in court. Unless the copyright holders are vindictive. So don't use any Little Richard. He's a tenacious little chihuahua!

Be Baffled By Bafflegab!-->
www.publicradioquest.com/node/1319

"All I ask is the chance to prove that money can't make me happy" - Spike Milligan

What i did was asked an unsigned, independent artist that i knew and told her that i would cite her on my link. She was more than happy and now hopefully she is getting some clicks on her myspace. Simple enough, and free.

Elizabeth

My entry at Public Radio Quest:
http://www.publicradioquest.com/audio/user/7572

My College Radio Myspace (feel free to friend me!):
http://www.myspace.com/girlsongprimerradio

Did anyone catch Morning Edition today when Steve Inskeep interviewed the Pink Martinis? When the lead singer was asked to sing the theme song to The Jeffersons, she asked, "Can I do that? Are we covered to play that?"

Steve answered, "We're covered under Fair Use. We can use a minute of anything!"

From the horse's mouth. Now, where are the NPR lawyers at when Steve needed them?

I have background music on mine... me and my friend just noodling around one Sunday afternoon. Me playing guitar badly, she on harmonica...
pretty sure no self-respecting artist would claim we gripped his/her music

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
CHECK OUT MY ENTRY:
http://www.publicradioquest.com/node/1149
READ MY BLOG: www.akajesais.com
CONTRIBUTOR: www.SanDiegoBlog.com

Copyright comes down to that. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

If you're a creative person, how would you feel about someone taking your work and using it whole cloth in their work with no nod, let alone cash money, back in your direction. This idea that creative people should be giving their work away is pernicious. We don't expect lawyers and accountants and bus drivers to do what they do solely for the applause. Why do we always seem to expect creatives to do that?

Not right.

Hence, COPYright.

*n*

"The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about" - Oscar Wilde

In this blogroll,four entries address two significant concepts. First off, from an aesthetic standpoint most royalty free musical content and loops are horrible and wouldn't even hold up in elevators, and don't even think about using MIDI loops unless you built the machine, a casual listen of NPR's top tier programs should dissuade anyone from wanting to include such audio slices in their next generation Public Radio (PR) shows. So originality cannot be squeezed out of a paid for tin can. Now, what is considered public domain (PD)?, it takes a bit of a stretch to understand that this is content which the corporations would like to make profit off of. If I am to believe that musical content created before 1922 is worth using, then please tell me which advertisers are using those tunes to push soap on us, they don't for good reason-current trends sell, which also points to one of PR's shortcomings. PR has worked hard in the last decade pushing for supporter dollars with generally the same results which can be evidenced by a dearth of any cutting edge content. Now, don't misread me I fell in love with NPR and PRI 15 years ago when I threw my TV out, no other medium evokes pictures and sentiment, better than radio does. To frame the concept of PD differently think about the Daily Show, they slice and dice the news universe for their content, and I doubt that they retain high-priced copyright lawyers; each time they spotlight the gaffes of various CNN, FoxNews, or MSNBC anchors, whom are already armchair sales staff themselves; and if they do then Comedy Central is just plain dumb.

One can argue that all new art is based upon the concept of Fair Use (FR) because by its very nature, art in all its forms is derivative, it is the originality of the spin that matters the most. Now, I use the term spin without political inflection, because when a new artist interprets current content to her own sensibilities, they are free to lead in new directions, remember that Brian Eno took cues from the Baroque in conceptualizing Ambient Music, listen to Discreet Music. With today's technology one can stretch the notes and melody of a familiar, or copyrighted tune towards infinity, transforming it into something called generic; it sounds and feels the same as the original, but is somehow "different', and does not ooze any cheese. Eventually all uniquely created content goes generic, but it is in the interpretation that counts. I might also add that original content can also sound or become generic without intending to be. Even the Daily Show does not aim to materially defame anyone, they do it to themselves, and Jon Stewart is just holding up the mirror.

What does this all have to do with Web 2.0 or PR in general? My guess is that because PR now knows, through focus groups and polls that it lives in, a quantity based communications universe, and that its best hope is to mainstream or die, so if the multi-platform competitors don't eat it, then the exploding Web will. A new generation of artists will populate the Web with astounding original content, including PR style Web Radio, which is yes, derivative in nature, should these artists ask the media universe to license them?, I think not. An artist with a drive to succeed will employ the public relations value of the Web to do it for them and at the same time they will control all revenue due them, which will not be from GE, Microsoft, Amazon or Phillip Morris, and in so doing will circumvent the copyright issue altogether. Now, back to this contest; PR will only continue to thrive when it can let go of its own notions of what makes great radio, and it has more to do with content than whom hosts various programs, I can tell you that the Ira Glass we listen to now, did not see himself as a great host to begin with, he grew into that role by learning the art of communication, which is 80% contributer content and 20% personailty.

BTW, the "owners" of the music are the persons with whom you must work in order to deal with licensing. Sometimes that is the artist(s), sometimes not.

There are a large number of interesting tunes that are free-license, too. And, there are some artists who will gladly allow you to use their music as background/intro/outgo for free.

Jimmy
-------------

Please listen to my entry at:
http://www.publicradioquest.com/node/197

Thanks for helping to clarify this music mess. As you may have guessed, my main concern was getting disqualified.

I found some royalty free music downloads http://www.pdinfo.com/download.htm and some of them are pretty hilarious. How could you pass up Groove-A-Holic or Fiddlesticks? The downloads are expensive ($24!) but the audio quality is decent and it's recorded by real musicians, not midi.

Too expensive for me this round, but it's good to know it's out there. In the mean time, I think I'll stick with a 10 second intro and outro clip. Thanks again for the advice.

Jen Nathan
www.7NathanArmy.com

Great question. While there are no hard and fast rules, I found the following criteria which play into whether or not something could be considered "fair use":

Fair Use is not a set of laws or rules, but a defense to copyright infringement based on the following criteria:

• Purpose of the use - commercial or private
  
• Nature of the work
  
• Amount and substance of the portion you use compared to the entire work as a whole
  
• Effect of the use on the the value of the original

Again, you can't say that "because I'm using this for non-commercial purposes, it's okay to use." In fact, the above source goes on to say:

"...other than private in-home listening and playing, Fair Use of music is extremely limited."

I think that, even when you consider looping a track that's under copyright, the "amount of the portion you use compared to the entire work as a whole" would be substantial.

So, here are a couple things you might consider:

1) Use public domain music or free music loops.

2) Ask an artist directly to use his/her music in your piece.

3) Use music that people are making available for free download off of the internet (myspace, last.fm and purevolume).

4) As per the contest host's suggestion, think about using only 10-15 seconds of a copyrighted song as an intro/outro to your piece, versus a bed for the entire piece.

Good luck!

--
Pete Moore
Public Radio B-Roll