WJM's Ted Baxter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have a copyright/Fair Use question.....
>
> Mike's podcasts regularly contain copyrighted
> material... like clips of dialogue from movies, tv
> shows, newscasts, music, you name it. Is that a
> violation of copyright laws? Or does this fall
> under the Fair Use doctrine? As an example, you
> see YouTube disabling musical audio tracks on
> people's home videos because they are copyrighted.
> I don't hear any other podcasts (at least the
> ones I listen to) lifting dialogue/music from
> movies, tv shows etc.
>
> If Robbbbbbbb lifts a sizable clip of dialogue
> from the movie Goodfellas, (i. e. the Raw show)
> shouldn't they have to get a clearance, permission
> or pay a fee from Warner Bros to use it? After
> all, supposedly they are making money from
> "fundraising"... and Warner Bros would probably
> want a slice of MOM's said "fundraising" (no
> matter how small) for running the clip on the
> show. I think the boys are treading a legal
> slippery-slope here and could find themselves in
> trouble when it comes to intellectual property
> laws.
Answering my own question..... LOL..... They are likely violating copyright laws as noted by the arrows:
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Podcasting_Legal_Guide#Fair_Use_Under_Copyright_Law_And_Its_Application_To_Podcasts.
Examples of Fair Use and copyright infringement. MOM Show is guilty of copyright infringement.... see examples 2 & 3.
Examples Of Fair Use That May Apply In Podcasting.
To help illustrate the way these factors may play out in the podcasting context, it may help to consider a few examples:
•Example 1: A book group organized by a high school teacher podcasts its meeting discussing J.D. Salinger's Catcher In The Rye. The members discuss the book, read short portions of it aloud, and criticize and comment on the author's style, the storylines, and the like. The podcast is posted on the book group's blog site, which is hosted by the high school. The site includes no advertising and generates no revenue. Conclusion: This would likely be a fair use.
•Example 2: A podcaster uses the copyrighted music of pianist George Winston for the intros and outros of her podcast that is about yoga and meditation. The podcast has nothing to do with commenting or critiquing the music played. Conclusion: >>>>>>>>>>>>>This is likely not a fair use.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
•Example 3: A 10-minute podcast includes a group of music fans discussing a recent copyrighted article in Rolling Stone magazine about a new band. One fan reads 4 paragraphs of the 6-paragraph article and comments on its analysis of the band. Another fan plays a 1-minute segment of the band's copyrighted song, which is 2 minutes in length. The fan then discusses the music as it compares to other music in the genre. The fans post the podcast on a fan website where advertising is sold, and the fans receive revenue for their podcast. Conclusion: This commentary/criticism by the fans in response to the article and song suggests a “fair use”, but the commercial/profit aspect of the site where the podcast is being distributed raises concern, as does the amount of the article and song taken in comparison to their overall length. Any negative effect on Rolling Stone magazine's market or the band's market for its music could cut against the fair use argument, though the podcasters might argue that the podcast promotes the Rolling Stone magazine article and band's song, and that it is not a replacement for either (of course, this would likely be costly and difficult to prove in a trial setting). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Given the flexible application of the fair use doctrine, and that the burden lies on the podcaster to prove fair use, podcasters in this situation could be found to infringe.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<