Copyright, or wrong? beware...

When I worked in Copyright in the UK in the early 90s, my agency’s CEO was in a copy shop and while waiting he saw a staff member making multiple copies of an entire book for a customer. He quietly noted the name of the book, its publisher and the customer for whom the copies were being made and then left. When he got back to the office he informed the publisher of what he saw and asked if they had given permission to the customer. The publisher said no and subsequently sued the copy shop and the customer.

You see, it’s illegal to make multiple copies of any publication without a license or the express permission of the rightsholder, in this case, the publisher, and the author of the book. This comes under the aegis of copyright law which is pretty much universal and applies to everything that is created. The arts, painting, movie making, singing, dancing, writing in any form, even computer programmes, are all subject to copyright protection.

But creators often forget this, especially if they’re new to creating. Many years ago, Robbie William released a song called ‘Millennium’ and if you listen to that song, it very boldly begins with part of a Nancy Sinatra song from the Bond Movie, ‘You Only Live Twice’. It’s famous and people often thought how bold it was of him to use such a recognisable theme throughout his song. But here’s the thing. Very likely, he got permission from the composer of the music to use it and every time the theme plays, a royalty goes to the composer and to Nancy Sinatra’s estate. The key thing here is that he received permission to use it.

But there are many instances where permission is not sought and the work goes live, and that’s when things get messy.

For example, an American singer and Rapper is being sued because the rightsholders’ claim her song ‘I’m Goin’ in Till October’ is an infringement of their song ‘Win or Lose (We Tried)’. Apparently they were in talks for her to use a portion of the song but those talks fell through and then this song appeared.

In terms of copyright law, even if you take one line from a song or a few clearly recognisable notes, you are infringing copyright in that sound. It’s not just about the quantity you use but its quality. Other famous singers who’ve been sued for copyright infringement are George Harrison of the Beatles, Pharrel Williams (from the song Uptown Funk You Up) and Ed Shearen.

But you know copyright protection and infringement doesn’t just apply to songs. It applies to written material, such as books, and it applies to movies, paintings, photographs and plays. In fact, it can apply to anything that is recorded in some form.

There is apparently a generally accepted rule that if you use 30 seconds of a song, you can do so without having to pay or risk being sued. But I do wonder if this ’30 second rule’ only applies to material for fair use. Fair use is a law that allows people to use a portion of a work without seeking permission, provided that it’s for research or private study, for the purposes of review or for the purposes of reporting current events. I do not think it would apply to something made for commercial purposes. So if a clearly recognisable 30 second piece has been used without permission, for commercial use, is it okay? I don’t think it is because it’s for commercial purposes.

YouTubers, therefore, use background sounds that have blanket permissions and often don’t require a license or attribution. These sounds sometimes can even be used for commercial purposes. And there are specific sites for this purpose. However, if you use a sound that’s copyright restricted you immediately get a copyright strike and you’re asked to take down the video.

The take away is if a creator is in doubt about using a photo as a reference source or part of a sound that’s clearly recognisable, it’s best to get express permission from the owners failing which, avoid that material altogether.