So I like to play the Zero Punctuation clips on my radio, one day i decided that it would probably be a good idea to get permission I actually got a reply email Russ Pitts himself who if I am correct is the editor for the escapist, I got a very nice email back saying that if they gave me permission they'ld wind up in jail but could redirect me to Fair Use statues to find out under what circumstances I could use it.
These are 3-4 minute clips I am not doing any advertisements on my show or making any money of any form so I am not using it for commercial purposes.
So far upon reading I need to meet 4 criteria, Purpose, Amount, Effect, Nature.
However its very ambigious and i can't make head or tails of the legalese.
How could I make it so that playing a 3 minute clip as part of my video game reivew portion of my show to educate the plebs erm I mean student body constitute fair use?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Three minutes is probably too long to play on your show, even under the slightly more lax Canadian copyright statutes.
However, there are ways you might get lucky. First, talk to the radio station. Ask what they do re: music licensing. Being a college radio station, they might have some cheap blanket license (for musicians who are members of the appropriate licensing group, which almost certainly includes the guys you mention). Alternatively, they might be paying some very low per-usage statutory fee, in which case one song every now and then with low listenership (most college radio has low listenership) might cost you a few dollars.
If the college radio station doesn't know, ask them who does know (assuming they broadcast any music, ever, someone they know of better).
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
we are apparently a part of the CRTC which alegdly gives us a license to play copyright works. I've also looked up fair dealing somewhat and even a full work can be considered fair use.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
I don't know if a non-musical performance like the Zero Punctuation reviews would fall under the blanket license.
Regardless of the legal issues, I'd be a little uncomfortable rebroadcasting the reviews for ethical reasons, as doing so effectively strips them of the ads that appear embedded in the video as well as those displayed on the page in which the review is presented. Even if you aren't making any money, The Escapist is potentially losing money.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yes, a full work can be considered fair use, but that's almost always when using it for personal purposes.
You are broadcasting it over the air.
I misunderstood what zero punctuation was. So, your musical license won't cut it. How long is the typical review?
The bit about landing in jail is nonsense if the Escapist holds the copyrights, which seems likely.
However, what I'd suggest doing is the following: play a snippet (a few sentences, perhaps; less than a minute, preferably less than 30 seconds) of a review, then discuss your opinions or other thoughts on it. Rinse, repeat. Doing that, three minutes of content interspersed with your own thoughts is pretty definitely fair use.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Actually, I bet the creator holds the copyright (he goes by the handle Yahtzee), but that he has a contract (exclusive or not) with The Escapist to show them on their web page. I think originally he published them on his own.
In that case, The Escapist could certainly be sued for giving consent to Blayne, since it's not their consent to give.
-Bok
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
If that's the case, I'd suggest emailing him.
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
I assumed it was escapist that holds the rights to it as Yahtzee's work.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
You never really know. For all we know his grandmother's neighbor's lawyer's cousin's corporation holds the copyright.
In this case, the likelihood is either the escapist or the creator. Given that it was pre-published elsewhere, the creator seems most likely.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
On a side note, often people think they hold copyright they don't. For instance, we've recently had Harvard librarians demanding a substantial copyright fee for a book they hold one of the few extant copies of . . . that was published decades ago by a different university press by an author who never worked for Harvard. The real kicker is, because the publisher for the book it would be in has copyright paranoia, and no one else was willing to assert copyright (on another aside, I've had publishers who almost certainly hold copyright in something published long ago say that they don't, because they don't have any surviving records), and Harvard wanted more than we were willing to pay, we ended up having to scrap that image from the book.
Note: they weren't asking for fees for making a copy of the image (and if they were and we lacked a copy, we would have just ILL'd it and made our own image); we already had a copy of the image in question.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
Nothing to contribute on topic, but wanted to say "ROCK ON!" for creating a thread with a title that accurately describes its contents, is properly spelled and isn't offensive.
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: You never really know. For all we know his grandmother's neighbor's lawyer's cousin's corporation holds the copyright.
In this case, the likelihood is either the escapist or the creator. Given that it was pre-published elsewhere, the creator seems most likely.
On YouTube, his actual website doesn't have any of the reviews I think only the links.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm thinking that about half the humor of any Zero Punctuation episode would be lost if it were audio-only.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Just email the guy and ask him if he holds the copyright, and if so, if he'd give permission for your use (and be explicit about how much and under what circumstances).