Video Copyrights and Fair Use in Churches

All,

I have a couple questions for you veteran video producers out there.

1. A CVLI license does not authorize a church to make a copy of a video and show it to an audience, even if the copy is only a 3-5 minute portion of the entire video. This is illegal. True or False

2. A CVLI license does not authorize a chuch to edit the copy of the video they intend to show to an audience for purposes of removing vulgar language, or removing scenes that do not apply to the churches purpose. This is illegal. True of False

3. The "Fair Use Law" (http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fairuse.html) covers a not-for-profit organization's showing a portion of a motion picture for instructional purposes. It also allows the organization to copy the original footage for their purposes, but they must destroy the copy immediately after using. True or False

Please no guesses! I would like to know if anyone has some clear interpretation of the copyright laws as they apply to non-for-profit religous groups using videos for instruction. If someone has particular government webpages to cite or court cases to cite that would be helpful.

Thanks,
KK.

1) True. Under no circumstances can you transfer a copyrighted piece of material to another medium without permission from the copyright owner.

2) True. You can not alter copyrighted material in any way. Besides, you would have to copy it to do it.

3) In my opinion, the fair use law is used as an excuse by many churches to bend or break copyright laws. It is an abused and mis-understood law. I researched it for a full 8 hours and I still don't understand it.

I had to investigate copyrights for my book. There is a chapter in the book called "Top 20 copyright questions". I may release that chapter privately if anyone wants to read it. You can PM me if you want to take a peek (PM means "Private Message", BTW. Use the PM button below).

I know they sound like silly laws, but they are laws nonetheless. And we as churches shouldn't make any compromises.

Cheers!

http://fairuse.stanford.edu/rice.html

The highest ranking legal expert in the country comments on fair use inthe above link. I find the following comments interesting:

"The "fair use" doctrine allows limited reproduction of copyrighted works for educational and research purposes. The relevant portion of the copyright statue provides that the "fair use" of a copyrighted work, including reproduction "for purposes such as criticism, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research" is not an infringement of copyright. The law lists the following factors as the ones to be evaluated in determining whether a particular use of a copyrighted work is a permitted "fair use," rather than an infringement of the copyright:

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

• the nature of the copyrighted work;

• the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, and

• the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Although all of these factors will be considered, the last factor is the most important in determining whether a particular use is "fair." "

It seems that a church using a video clip to teach a congregation a certain principle would meet all of the requirements of "Fair Use". Any comments?

KK.

The question is: Is a church considered an educational institution?. I've always heard people refer to fair use in a religious setting. E.G. If you have a religious assembly and pray before a meeting you are covered.

I, too, am struggling to understand this law...so anyone who can edu-ma-cate me and show me exactly where it is (not just hear-say) would be my hero. Then I could pretend like I always knew the answer

The following is an excerpt from:
http://www.wyomingconference.org/Wyo...copyright.html
and is the Wyoming Conference of the United Methodist Church's take on if a church service is a educational institution and how that applies to the fair use act:

"Face-to-Face Instruction: The second exemption from the right to regulate performances concerns face-to-face instruction in the classroom. Schools and colleges, including Christian and parochial schools, have a special exemption in Sect. 110(1) that permits teachers and pupils to perform copyrighted works in face-to-face instruction, without a license. This permits teachers to use any videocassette in the classroom, if the following criteria are met:

1. The performance must be made from a legitimate copy;
2. The performance must take place in a classroom or similar place devoted to instruction;
3. Attendance at the performance is limited to the teacher and pupils in the course;
4. The performance must be part of a "systematic course of instruction" and not for the entertainment, recreation or cultural value; and
5. The performance must be part of the "teaching activities of a nonprofit educational institution."
To comply with Sect. 110(1), all the above criteria must be met. The first criterion is easily met, so long as the videotape was not illegally duplicated. The second criterion can be met by holding the performance in a classroom, meeting room, library or other room where classes meet. The third criterion indicates the performances are to be seen only by the teacher and enrolled pupils. The presence of other viewers appears to invalidate the exemption. The fourth criterion requires the performances to be part of a "systematic course of instruction," which should not be a problem for Christian or parochial schools. The fifth criterion specified that the performance must be part of the teaching activities of a nonprofit educational institution. The guidelines were written for public and nonprofit private schools, so Christian or parochial schools should have little difficulty meeting the requirements."

So...basically it is saying that a video clip in a church service would not be an appropriate place, but a parochial school classroom would be. Interesting. Almost as if the size of the room and class dictates use.

The Music Pubisher's Association also agrees that fair use does not apply to churches (http://www.mpa.org/church.html):
"WHAT IS FAIR USE?
Fair use is not generally applicable to churches. Fair use permits portions of copyrighted works to be legally reproduced for purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, classroom teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use does not apply to performance. "

The ministry "Media and Ministry" (www.ministryandmedia.com) pushes for a broader definition of the fair use act by saying:
"Copyright Laws: The copyright doctrine of fair use permits certain uses of very brief excerpts from copyrighted materials for not-for-profit teaching purposes without permission. (All the video clips suggested at MinistryandMedia are less than three minutes long, unless noted.) "
...sooooo if its less than three minutes than its ok to show? Where did they get that? Boy! This IS confusing.

I really want to make sure our media team is obeying the law, but the law is so confusing I am not sure if I am obeying it or not. I recently tried to get permission from ABC to show a clip from a news program and I can't get them to answer the phone or respond to my fax. Very frustrating.

KK.

(Editor: Fixed a link)

[David Reddel]

Tim and KK-

As any good lawyer will tell you, there is no black and white, only grey. With that said, Tim is right on questions 1 and 2. On question 3, the answer is "it depends".

The defense of "Fair Use" is a mixed question of fact and law. You have already noted the several factors that courts look at in deciding "Fair Use" defense cases. Federal courts and the circuits that they are part of are not always consistent on the interpretation of the various factors, nor the emphasis of any one factor.

The Supreme Court has noted the following in the famous Sony case:

"The author's consent to a reasonable use of his copyrighted works had always been implied by the courts as a necessary incident of the constitutional policy of promoting the progress of science and the useful arts, since a prohibition of such use would inhibit subsequent writers from attempting to improve upon prior works and thus . . . frustrate the very ends sought to be attained." [Ball, Law of Copyright and Literary Property 260 (1944)]. Professor Latman, in a study of the doctrine of fair use commissioned by Congress for the revision effort, see [ Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417, 462-463 n.9, 78 L. Ed. 2d 574, 104 S. Ct. 774 (dissenting opinion)], summarized prior law as turning on the "importance of the material copied or performed from the point of view of the reasonable copyright owner. In other words, would the reasonable copyright owner have consented to the use?"

It is not an easy question to answer. You can see from the highlighted text that the purpose of the doctrine is to allow a progress of the sciences and useful arts. Again, more terms that lack precise definitions, left open to intepretation.

I am not a intellectual property lawyer. However, if you really want to pursue this further, I would suggest that if you have a lawyer in your congregation, discuss the matter with him or her and seek a referral to an intellectual property lawyer that may be willing to discuss your situation. A detailed description of what you are proposing to do may be enough for him or her to give you a cursory "comfort" answer.

In practicality, enforcement in this area is not high. But as Tim says, churches should take lengths to make sure that they are complying with the Copyright Act, let alone potential violations of federal trademark law. You might also want to take a look, for informational purposes, at www.mplc.com in addition to the website that you mentioned.



David
In-house lawyer by trade

I think David is right. There is lots of grey here. My wife attended a Willow Creek Arts conference last spring and brought home notes from a seminar on "Copyrights in the Church". The seminar addressed the "Fair Use" problem head on. They encouraged any Church who is basing their copyright decisions on this clause to contact an intellectual property rights lawyer to see what their advice is for their church's situation. This also coincides with what David is saying. They did not say it was right or wrong to use this clause.

David, as a lawyer, do you have access to a searchable database of case law? Can you search for "copyright" and "church" and see if there is any history of cases in our judicial system that can shed some light on all this? A big favor I know, but if it is an easy thing to do, it would be great!

KK.

[David Reddel]

KK-


As I mentioned before, I think you are better off consulting with an intellectual property attorney on this issue. I am not in a position to provide legal advice in this area. I do want to help, but going down the road that you suggest is tantamount to providing legal advice.

In addition, access to Westlaw and Lexis legal databases is a paid subscription through my employer and it would not be right or ethical to use it for other than business purposes. I hope you understand. Willow Creek has it right: talk to a competent attorney in the area. It will be well worth your time and many attorneys in the area might be willing to give you a free consultation if they feel that they can do some future paid work for your church.

Blessings!

[dljordaneku]

I also attend the Willow Creek Arts Conference last June and sat in on one of the Copy Right classes. It really opened my eyes on what copyright really means to churches in the way videos and music are presented. I didn't know how precise it can be, i.e. if the congeration sings along or not. Sometimes I think I got more confussed than helped

Anyway, I can't wait to see Tim's book on this matter along with everything else.
dj

Just an interesting and disturbing tag to this thread. I get a copy of all emails that go through "Email this product to a friend" in our store. Most of the time there is not a message with it. When there is, it's usually positive. But, here's the message a church member wrote to someone regarding Digital Juice graphics. I also know he/she happens to be a graphic designer (not one of mine, luckily), which scares me even more. Here was the message:

------------------------------------------

How would you like to go half and half on this DVD Collection. There's some really cool things we can do with this you know.

What do you say, we'll split this cost, since we are going to get it for about half the cost, and we can go half and half on a DVDBurner together... USB - External for our laptops.

------------------------------------------

What a travesty! It literally turns my stomach. They are not just implying that they will share the graphics (which is against DJ's license), but actually COPY the disc! To think that someone involved in church work would knowingly and willingly steal -- not only from me, but from Digital Juice -- and ultimately from God. Remember, there is ALWAYS a real person on the other end when a purchase is made. We struggle to stay afloat sometimes. This kind of activity literally takes food out of my kid's mouths!

I considered whether or not I should let the community know about this, but I feel that everyone needs to know that stealing is stealing. As a business, CMN will fail if this type of activity happens often. And I fear that it happens more often than I want to know.

Thanks for the shoulder. I promise the next post will be more cheery .

[tgodby]

It's all right to share, Tim. It is a sobering reminder to us all that we need not assume those in the faith are above this sort of thing. The other thing that angers me is that Digital Juice, among other, is finally beginning to realize their pricing scheme is way out of most people's budgets. The very collection you referenced has been reduced hundreds of dollars. It's now a GREAT bargain. We should all be a part of policing ourseleves and making this subject part of the public forum every time we gather for conferences (denominational or otherwise), seminars, etc. Just my 2cents. -tg

Yikes. I think it was very appropriate to post that info here Tim. Somebody(s) took a lot of time to put together Digital Juice. It isn't something you can whip up in a day. They deserve to get paid.

Anyways, God very appropriately had the tv tuned to PBS when I flicked it on Friday night. Low and behold, Bill Moyers was doing a special on Copyrights in America. Huh. Imagine that. See a synopsis and order the tape at:
http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/copyright.html

Good show. Very informative. I learned a lot. Might be something people want to have in their library. Most of the transcript is readable at this URL.

By the way, that ABC news show I was looking for...(see this thread several posts up)... I found that you can by the tape/dvd from ABC for $30 and the right to show it to an audience for $40. What a racket! What makes it worse is that the footage I want to show is of our own church. We let the camera crew in to film our service, now we have to pay them to show the footage to the congregation. Hah! Oh well...maybe there is a copyright release form I can prepare so this doesn't happen again.

Take care all,
KK.