If you could change copyright law.....

In #3 I'm talking about taking a 5 minute clip and editing it down to 2 minutes. It could change the meaning of what the filmmaker was trying to portray, and so it would misrepresent the artist. In #4 I'm talking about digitizing 2-3 minutes of a film as-is. I think a fade in/fade out should be allowed given that copyright law would understand why churches show clips (so fades would make the clips fit in more smoothly and digitizing would make it easier to show the clip). Just spitballing....

As the law stands now, digitizing a clip is considered copying (and maybe editing). The Church Media Copyright Act would not consider a clip under 5 minutes to be copyright infringement.

any way to have the freedom to edit out (drop off audio) for bad words? I know, it's changing the original intent of the artist, but if they show the movie on tv, the words are changed anyway...

Originally Posted by Paul Podraza

any way to have the freedom to edit out (drop off audio) for bad words? I know, it's changing the original intent of the artist, but if they show the movie on tv, the words are changed anyway...

I would think that should be covered under a special copyright act for churches using media....

I apologize this is so long after this thread began, but I just discovered this sight. I have to say first, kudos to all involved for such a great community!

On topic, I would have to interject that I'm not sure the law needs to be changed that much. Yes, everyone wants their situation to be the special one with less restrictions, but that's not where I see the problem. I see the problem with copyrights in three areas. 1) ambiguity of wording in the law (kinda like the constitution, huh? ), 2) Lack of ease in obtaining permissions, and 3) Lack of education on ethical practices and basic copyrights.

Ambiguity of wording is probably just my ignorance of legal wording. I can imagine the problems with trying to word things concisely without backing yourselves into a corner. I work at a Christian university and I CONSTANTLY work with students and faculty looking for a "loophole" for everything they want. Very frustrating, but everyone believes they are exempt for one reason or another.

Also, obtaining permission is one of the most ridiculous feats of my day. Our church is small potatoes and not worth the valuable time of those I contact. In fact, I have been told on more than one occassion by a rep that they would "lose the paperwork" because it would be easier for me to just go ahead and use the copyrighted work I wanted than get permission. In this day especially, I don't understand why there aren't groups available like ASCAP or BMI. Performance rights are one thing, but sync, mech, and master use rights are totally other beasts that need to be dealt with. Sure, Harry Fox is great, but again, not when you're small potatoes.

My final observation is from working with youth, especially. It seems there is quite a problem with our youth not being trained how to THINK. They are trained to act and react, but the thought process is usually totally wacked out. Or maybe they're just trained to think improperly. Either way, it's very disappointing to be told the law doesn't apply to them because they are working for a church or because they're a minor or because they are a student. The list is endless. Oh, my favorite is "but as Christians, we're not under the law." I am even more surprised at how often those in authority either go along with these lame excuses or just don't correct them. It's something that truly makes me pray for the Lord's quick return.

Also, I'm positive that Average Consumer has no idea what a copyright is. They paid for the cd so they now OWN that music. They right-clicked the image on the internet so it must be free. A friend of mine has a tongue-in-cheek motto: If it's digital it must be public domain.

Oops. Sorry, Tim. I didn't mean to rant. my suggestion is actually, in conjunction with legislation, to create a group like ASCAP or BMI that will handle other requests. As difficult as that would be. I know I'm asking for the impossible, but I think there has to be a compromise between the integrity of a work and the artist getting paid for it.

My case is that a musical artist doesn't have a say in where or when their song gets played, but they receive a royalty check for how often it is played. By the same token, I think that same artist needs to decide whether they want to be the one to grant permission for whether a song is used in this video or that video or if they will allow their song to be synced to an image for an across the board price. Allowing a musical artist (and more often a record label) the ability to choose both is a major bottle neck.

With a lot of up front work and a little compromise from all artists, we could come up with a streamlined permissions process. Sure, this is simplistic, but I don't want to make this post TOO long (too late).

Mark