If you could change copyright law.....

We recently had a debate about the interpretation of copyright law 110(3). It became obvious that there is room to interpret this law in different (and conflicting) ways. Although my interpretation is correct , I do wholeheartedly agree that many copyright laws are NOT clear cut, especially for churches. It was suggested that we could change copyright law. I'd like to emphasize that mis-interpreting copyright law so you can justify breaking it is NOT changing the law. In other words, just because you think a law is unfair doesn't give you the right to break it or even bend it. That is passive-aggressive.

BUT, if you (or we, the Church as a whole) were to change copyright law, what would you like to see? Here is my list:

1) The artist/producer of any piece of original work should be protected in ALL circumstances. I don't think that churches should have the right to take money out of the pockets of anyone. If they can't afford to use it or take the time to ask permission, then they shouldn't use it. This would include all digital works, whether they are on the web or not.

2) I think churches SHOULD be allowed to show short movie clips in a service. I think this should be covered under fair use for churches just as it is for educational institutions. Maybe have a 3-5 minute limit rule.

3) I think the law that states that no one can edit a film is a good one. There would be too much of a possibility of changing the meaning of the work.

4) I think churches SHOULD be able able to digitize clips to be able to show them from a computer program. Again, maybe a 3-5 minute limit.

5) I think churches SHOULD be able to scan pictures and use them to illustrate points in the course of a service -- as long as the work is not distorted in any way.

Now, a lot of this is covered under the Fair Use Act, but it only applies to educational institutions, not churches. The ramifications of calling a church an educational institution are too great, so I recommend a completely separate act for churches using media. There are enough of us using media to warrant special laws for us.

So, what's your wish list? If we wanted to pursue this, would you be involved?

P.S. Those of us who are also consumers (all of us) should be closely following the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which really restricts consumer's rights.

[tomrwilliams]

My biggest want would be to address use of media found by internet searches. It's often nearly impossible to tell who the copyright holder is, and once you find them, responses from them are rarely timely, and many times there is no response at all. I would vote for one of the following laws:

(1) Media shared on the internet is free to copy and use. If you have produced a work that you don't want copied, don't share it over the internet.

OR

(2) Images found on the internet can only be used by permission. You must seek out the copyright holder and request permission. However, if you ask for permission and do not receive a reply within a timely manner, permission may be assumed. If you have produced a work that you choose to share over the internet, it is your responsibility to reply in a timely manner to those requesting copy/use permission. Failure to reply in a timely manner implies permission granted. In this way, you need not waste time replying to the hundreds or thousands of requests you will likely receive if your work is popular enough to actually be worth copying.

I think this is already addressed, although it isn't very clear on most websites. EVERY website should have some kind of copyright statement. However, just having a (C) on every page officially protects all of CMN. But, according to some people's interpretation, ANY image off of CMN could be used without permission if it's used in the course of a service. I personally think that's taking too much liberty. Now, in the case of the MXC, when you sign up you agree to certain terms. Those terms state that you can use any image in the MXC for personal or church use. Any other use requires permission. So, in effect, we created our own law (really a license). Every site should protect themselves this way.

So, I hear you saying that we should be allowed to use images even if we don't get permission, or the person shouldn't put them on their site. This would really limit the content on a given website, and actually infringe on a person's right to protect their content. And if that were the case, then logos, icons and original web designs would be free to use. However, I understand your reasoning and respect your suggestions (especially since you're an MXC winner ).

[[Admin] PHugger]

I think I'd really like to see it easier to obtain licenses. I'd like to see licensing for videos - so we could edit. Music licensing also needs to be made easier to obtain. Easier = better compliance. The language in the laws need to be very simple and easy to understand. It should be very basic so it can cover new forms as they are developed.



PCH

[stevegoad]

As a songwriter, I want to get any royalities due to me for usage of songs. As a media person, I feel the same of graphic and video works. I have already had one photo ripped off from CMN by a Christian company that I know of (this was back in 2001). While I knew it could be used when I posted it, I didn't expect a high-dollar operation to do it.

But, that said, I also don't want to hold churches back from good media because they are non-profit.

I would think that something like CCLI or CVLI could work for other forms of media. It seems like a stretch, being that there are millions of pictures posted on the net each year, but maybe something like that could help.

[sempei13]

An iTunes-like service for video footage and stock music. You'd have a store/viewer software that enables you to preview video and download and use it (under certain conditions) for very little money. That's not so much copyright, but would solve my problems.

Permission to show clips of TV shows would be covered by CVLI/MPLC (as long as the clip came from a legit VHS or DVD).

DMCA wouldn't counteract my otherwise legal right to make a backup copy of my legally aquired media from DVD or CD (that I burned when I bought a song legally from iTunes).

Paul

[tomrwilliams]

IMO, there are enough tools/methods out there to protect your work when you put it on a website that it should be your responsibility as the artist to protect yourself against stealing. Otherwise, you should know that you are parking your $500 bicycle in front of the public library without chaining it up - why would you do that? Do you want everyone to see it and not steal it? Why in the world would you think this way? I know you want to sell your work, but you need to weigh the benefits with the losses that will surely occur if you do not "lock it up"? Look at Desert Dolphin or similar websites - you cannot steal their work, at least not the high res versions - there are ways to protect yourself and still put your work out there for sale.

The fact that folks can steal your work and then repost it without copyright notice is your fault. However, the fact that this can and does happen is exactly the reason why I the consumer of free internet-available materials want a law that allows me to download anything I find. I'll never find you, the copyright holder, if someone has stolen your work and reposted it. And, I won't know whether I'm violating the law or not. The web is for free sharing, whether we like it or not. We should accept this fact and learn how to protect our work if it's really worth anything to us.

Also, if your work is stolen after you shared it, and then that person sells it, why does this upset you. Did you think by sharing it, someone was going to pay YOU for it? Is this why you shared it? I think not.

Wow. I'll have to respectfully, but strongly disagree that everything on the web is free. It just isn't. If you think it should be free, that's a different story (and more relevant to this thread). If CMN were to someday spearhead a lobby to create new copyright law for churches, however, I would NOT support a completely free Internet -- for churches or otherwise. Just because it can be accessed electronically and remotely doesn't make it free.

I can't walk into a bookstore and rip out some pages of a magazine and walk out with it. It's the same thing on the 'Net, only it's electronic. It belongs to someone.

I paid for this forum software. You can't legally copy button graphics off of my site and use them on yours. You didn't pay for them. I did. That's called "stealing". Electronic or no.

Sure, I could put some Java code to prevent you from right-clicking, but that would mess up other parts of the site -- and you can still get around that. By saying that I should protect my digital assets -- and if I don't it's my fault if they are stolen -- is like saying I can break into a store without a security system and it's their fault that they didn't have one.

This thread could lead to a lot of debates. That's not the purpose of this thread. You should only post what you wish copyright law would be for churches -- even if I think it's wrong -- there's no real "wrong" answer here as long as it's just your desire.

So, let's stay focused and also let people state their copyright wishes without a lot of debate.

[richschmidt]

Originally Posted by tomrwilliams

The fact that folks can steal your work and then repost it without copyright notice is your fault. However, the fact that this can and does happen is exactly the reason why I the consumer of free internet-available materials want a law that allows me to download anything I find.

I think the law already allows you to "download" anything you find. If it didn't, you couldn't view it on your screen. If you're seeing/hearing it on your computer, you've downloaded it.

It sounds like you would like copyright law to then give you the right to do whatever you want with it once you've downloaded it, like repost it on your website, use it as part of a media presentation on a Sunday, use it as a soundtrack under a video, etc. If that's what you want, OK. I think that would be a bad idea, but we're allowed to disagree here, apparently.

I agree with you that media creators need to be careful with their work. That's why most people displaying their creations online for sale will let you preview their work in thumbnail form and/or with all kinds of watermarks on the image/video.

But personally, I don't think that part of copyright law needs to be changed. It's still our responsibility to get permission for the things we want to use. Fortunately, in the existing system, it's not that hard to find media content that is being willingly shared, via generous licensing agreements, for free or cheap.

Tim, I think you've already hit on the main things it would be nice to see change in copyright law. Basically, make it easier for us to do what we do now!

Peace,
Rich

[Brian Busch]

digital signatures and such - each popular format today (and future, smarter ones, say, mpeg4) has meta data capabilities. I know it can be stripped, but if copyright information moved with the media (still, flash, video, audio, etc.) we can all look at it when we need to get permission.

For those who want to strip it, make the law say that web hosts can't post media which isn't "signed". We'd have to grandfather all the lame GIF89 junk we see everywhere - but, look at GIF - From what I recall, Compuserve wanted to copyright the format, they did, they sued, now - who designs GIFs anymore? PNG became the open format the supports transparency, as to the animation - I don't like animations anyway

Originally Posted by Tim Eason

4) I think churches SHOULD be able able to digitize clips to be able to show them from a computer program. Again, maybe a 3-5 minute limit.

I especially think this would be an important change for smaller churches. Of course there is the problem with dropped frames with this format of showing, but as each new model of computer comes out, the ability to do this gets better. If churches were allowed to show a clip why should they not be allowed to show this way? This is not saying collecting clips without copyright compliance and then taking it a step further and editing it. It would sure make getting the start and end point a lot simpler for us small-budget-for-gear guys, and dummy proof which clip from a movie is shown.

Tim,

How would #3 and #4 differ from each other??

And does editing include a "fade in" and a "fade out"?

(I know it does, but just want to hear some feedback)

I have a bit of an issue w/ sync rights and such. I have not read about the topic as much as I should. Maybe I should read more about sync rights before I think they should be changed.