Movie/Documentary Dialogue Samples in Music.

Hi folks, its been a long time since i wanted to ask this question, if some of you guys are aware of this issue, id appreciate some words about it.

I wanted to know if there are any laws, whether country specific or internationally, that states when, for example x amount of years, which stipulates when the copyright of a movie ends. I want to try to use some old movie/documentary dialogue samples, chopping up anything in your own room is ok, but if there is some interest in releasing the music, then it would be good to know how it all works from a legal side of things and what could be used.

thanks in advance

Its no good I think. Here is something http://www.unc.edu/~unclng/public-d.htm

Government works, things like NASA and public announcements and what not aren't covered though and there is a pretty good resource of public domain videos at the prelinger archive. I think no matter how shitty or obscure something is, you can get screwed for it like what happened to Nine Inch Nails. You can always hunt down the copyright holders and seek permission.

Thanks for the reply man, "when works pass into public domain" is the list i was looking for. I dont intend to find myself behind bars or something, just looking for information.

  On 8/11/2012 at 4:10 PM, RadarJammer said:

Government works, things like NASA and public announcements and what not aren't covered though and there is a pretty good resource of public domain videos at the prelinger archive.

So is this what can be used without permission or same applies here too? the NASA thing is cool and the prelinger archive looks nice. I also came across "Movie Dialogue" series from Loopmasters

http://www.loopmasters.com/product/details/392 for example, and this what they say...

"As usual with all Loopmasters CDs and download packs, all material contained within this release is royalty free to use in your music - see below for the Creative Commons License.", i wonder how it works in this case since they claim to be selling samples of old movies.

If you're a small-time artist, just go ahead and use whatever. Especially if you give it away for free. The worst you'll get is a cease and desist letter.

If you plan on selling it, don't use any samples from after 1970 unless it's clear that you can use them for free.

thanks a lot for the info guys.

http://forum.watmm.com/topic/73457-please-explain-to-me-the-what-i-can-and-cant-sample

and a lot more

Nice thread tokn, even though the last videos of the thread were about ripping off, for example the songs that Led Zeppelin supposedly 'ripped off'. Its a little confusing subject because if we accept this, then everybody is ripping off everybody. Then Jimi Hendrix ripped off the old bluesmen, Rage Against The Machine ripped off Jimi Hendrix and the list goes on and on and is endless. The best example i think comes from the greatest composer of humanity -> J. S. Bach who never denied using and manipulating other composer's ideas and even big parts of their compositions in many of his own works, that are diamonds and heritage for the whole humanity. Damn, Bach, the rip off...

A little bird told me that copyright law is a giant bumblefuck and that copyrights from the 20s can still be in effect today even if the copyright holder doesn't request a renewal. The public domain post-1920 pretty much doesn't exist. That same little bird also suggested that when a law doesn't make sense, you should break it.

What about sampling random people's youtube videos? I once sampled some guy walking around a mall with a video camera, because I needed some mall sounds. Can you actually do that, or was that super rude of me?

  On 8/12/2012 at 6:45 PM, mollekula said:

Nice thread tokn, even though the last videos of the thread were about ripping off, for example the songs that Led Zeppelin supposedly 'ripped off'. Its a little confusing subject because if we accept this, then everybody is ripping off everybody. Then Jimi Hendrix ripped off the old bluesmen, Rage Against The Machine ripped off Jimi Hendrix and the list goes on and on and is endless. The best example i think comes from the greatest composer of humanity -> J. S. Bach who never denied using and manipulating other composer's ideas and even big parts of their compositions in many of his own works, that are diamonds and heritage for the whole humanity. Damn, Bach, the rip off...

Many composers used to incorporate others' works into their own as an homage. It was meant as a compliment, but today we see it as theft. What a weird culture we have.

I believe that works become public domain 70 years after the creator's death. This of course becomes much more complicated with stuff like film and audio because there's always the creator and the publisher/distributor, they own different rights (ie: musician vs record label, director vs studio).

So yeah.. best not to go there to be safe unless you're giving it away free, no one will care in that case.

Check out Archive.org for some public domain films. Most are pretty shit but famously Night of the Living Dead fell into the public domain because of some legal loophole, probably the best and most well known public domain film. Lots of creative projects centered around that film :)

  On 8/12/2012 at 10:20 PM, Bewarethefriendlyfoil said:

What about sampling random people's youtube videos? I once sampled some guy walking around a mall with a video camera, because I needed some mall sounds. Can you actually do that, or was that super rude of me?

I'm also interested in this because I have sampled someone's youtube video before and I've never really paid attention to anything to do with sampling copyright laws.

The sample is pretty heavily altered beyond recognition I think...

Not that anyone hears my stuff except for me mostly and I certainly don't make any money off of it, but it would be nice to know for the future perhaps.

Don't worry about youtube copyright. Especially in a case like sampling "mall sounds." The gentleman that recorded those sounds and uploaded them to youtube may "own" his video, but it is (IMO) completely ridiculous to say he owns those "mall sounds." The courts may not agree with me here, but I really can't give a fuck about laws that protect peoples "right" to own atmospheric noises or whatever it may be.

  On 8/13/2012 at 9:02 PM, Springymajig said:

I believe that works become public domain 70 years after the creator's death. This of course becomes much more complicated with stuff like film and audio because there's always the creator and the publisher/distributor, they own different rights (ie: musician vs record label, director vs studio).

 

So yeah.. best not to go there to be safe unless you're giving it away free, no one will care in that case.

This is insanity to me. 70 years after the creators death? Why? And the conclusion is "best not to go there"? Perhaps I am alone, but I am concerned primarily with the ethics of IP law, not the law itself. The law is wrong. Did you know Matt Groening can't give you permission to use The Simpsons (his creation), even if he wants to?

i'm pretty sure it's not law's fault matt groening signed some shitty contract.

  On 8/13/2012 at 9:25 PM, luke viia said:

  On 8/13/2012 at 9:02 PM, Springymajig said:

I believe that works become public domain 70 years after the creator's death. This of course becomes much more complicated with stuff like film and audio because there's always the creator and the publisher/distributor, they own different rights (ie: musician vs record label, director vs studio).

 

So yeah.. best not to go there to be safe unless you're giving it away free, no one will care in that case.

 

This is insanity to me. 70 years after the creators death? Why? And the conclusion is "best not to go there"? Perhaps I am alone, but I am concerned primarily with the ethics of IP law, not the law itself. The law is wrong. Did you know Matt Groening can't give you permission to use The Simpsons (his creation), even if he wants to?

You can argue against the idea of the law all you want but telling us ain't gonna change nothing, nor will it change anything to just blatantly break the law. If it bothers you so much, try to do something sensible and mature about it.

Otherwise, just suck it up and take it like a man, Axl Rose.

Personally, I would love to see a reform of copyright law to make it more sensible for the benefit of both artists and consumers but I have yet to find the motivation to get behind a cause outside of my job and put in the time and effort needed to at least be able to say "I'm trying".

I'm still in the midst of reading about, and trying to understand, IP law. I am, in my opinion, "doing something about it", it just takes time. In the meantime, talking about the insanity of these laws is a good start, since awareness has to come before action. Not so sure Axl Rose and I see eye to eye.

  On 8/14/2012 at 6:33 AM, kinski said:

i'm pretty sure it's not law's fault matt groening signed some shitty contract.

He's just an easy example. My point is that content creators don't usually own the full rights to their creations. That's part of why "seeking permission to use" is so difficult and often not worth the effort to many people.

  On 8/14/2012 at 9:37 PM, luke viia said:

I'm still in the midst of reading about, and trying to understand, IP law. I am, in my opinion, "doing something about it", it just takes time.

Well good on ya, that's more than what most do.

I have to admit, the thing that annoys me the most is not people like you but the sense of entitlement from A LOT of younger people today... I feel like I'm JUST past the generation who assume that the world fucking owes them EVERYTHING, and that they deserve it. Why, I don't know.

I guess in a way I'm just as immature, because when I see/hear people acting like that my initial instinct is to want to support the opposite side just out of spite :P

copyright laws seem really confusing and diluted to me, I have no idea how but they are as messed up as they could be. What I'm not certain about is who exactly benefits from copyright laws... Maybe a major artist can benefit but small time people might not see such dividends.

Anyways, this thread cleared a few things up but it really makes me wonder - would people really be that sensitive for taking SFX from their b movies or whatever?

Japan has a really generous attitude about PD

http://www.contactmusic.com/news/japanese-court-rules-pre-1953-movies-in-public-domain_1002318

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_Japan#Public_domain

Japan, light years ahead, as always.