Quantcast
Reply from Warner Bros concerning audio clip licensing - Gearspace.com
The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Reply from Warner Bros concerning audio clip licensing
Old 2nd February 2009
  #1
Lives for gear
 
FeatheredSerpent's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Reply from Warner Bros concerning audio clip licensing

Quote:
Re: Audio Clip Request: V FOR VENDETTA


Thank you for your facsimile request dated January 30, 2009 in connection with the above.


Please be advised, although we appreciate your interest in our motion picture property, we do not wish to license an audio clip from the above-referenced motion picture for use in a song.


Thank you for your interest in our motion picture and I am sorry we are unable to be of assistance.




Sincerely,






Julie Heath
Executive Director


JH/jdp
I'm assuming that if I was someone connected in some way that the response would have been different, or is it normal to point blank turn down such a request?

Is there a reason that they wouldn't license clips from a particular production? This is the first time I have put in such a request so I really don't know what is and isn't normal.
Old 3rd February 2009
  #2
Moderator
 
narcoman's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
no money and no control.

But yes - it's easy to get stuff cleared... you just have to do it through the right people and have a great story to sell into. Simple requests are always turned down.
Old 3rd February 2009 | Show parent
  #3
Gear Head
 
Colonal J's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Agreed. I suppose they just not into the admin here.

If they agree to this, you could release the official V "whatever version". And then would have to be screened and discussed etc. Suddenly their name is connected to this. Warner would have to now follow up on publishing of this track, as they need to gather the royalties for it. So unless you are either in with them already or very famous to start with, there would be no reason for them to follow up on a dead end street.

If it is a dance version, the are bound to see absolutely no royalties whatsoever as most dance labels and DJ's are not registered with their local Music rights organizations.This to their own detriment.
Old 3rd February 2009 | Show parent
  #4
Lives for gear
 
FeatheredSerpent's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
So basically what you're saying is I would have to get the track signed to a well-known/connected label in order to get it cleared, which means being obliged to sign away a lot of rights to the track.

Well how convenient. Nice to keep the money in the family, isn't it

The stupid thing is, that I can use the samples anyway and upload the track to my music hosting site, and make it available for worldwide free download whether they clear the samples or not, so long as I don't charge money for the track, so if it's just a matter of keeping track of sales, so long as I registered myself/the track etc with the appropriate bodies I don't see why Warner Bros should be able to deny useage, seems a bit unreasonable.
Old 3rd February 2009 | Show parent
  #5
Lives for gear
 
FeatheredSerpent's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colonal J ➡️
Agreed. I suppose they just not into the admin here.

If they agree to this, you could release the official V "whatever version". And then would have to be screened and discussed etc. Suddenly their name is connected to this.
But it's not video, it's just audio, millions of sampels have been cleared before and there is no 'official affiliation' between the original publisher and the track, they're just samples, you don't see 'Officially endorsed version of xx track' on songs that use movie samples.

Seems a bit crappy. Ah well, I'll wait til I have a hit on my hands and offer to pay next time heh
Old 3rd February 2009 | Show parent
  #6
Gear Head
 
Colonal J's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Well yeah, as most DJ's have or are doing this, bigger publishers are not interested in that business. It is a numbers game, and the history speaks for itself. These big Publishers are still making their money, as this is where the money lies in the biz. Who owns the music/license.

It isn't really for them trying to keep stuff for themselves, but just that often the admin is not worth the return. Even if you have a great track. The funny thing is, once you have the so called "open door", things are very easy to come by.

Like the saying goes: "When you need the money the banks are reluctant, but when you don't they can't stop trowing the cash at you"....
Old 3rd February 2009 | Show parent
  #7
Gear Head
 
Colonal J's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
You won't have to pay anything, just have a plan that seems worthwhile to them.

If they like you, and think you are talented, there should be no issue clearing anything. But with regards to unofficial releases of movie clips in songs are treading a fine line, and a reason why the "people" releasing these don't register with the local music rights organizations. Cause they would not be able to clear the music. Simple as that.
Old 3rd February 2009 | Show parent
  #8
Lives for gear
 
FeatheredSerpent's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Hmm, free to those that can afford it, very expensive to those that can't

Well, I mean I'm all for paying my dues, but how viable is it to get deals on a trakc by track basis at the moment?

For instance, I have no problem signing my life away for say a couple of tracks, because I'm not scared that I am only capable of writing two good tracks, I'm always going to have the resources to make good stuff.

So a **** deal on a few tracks is no big deal if it gets my name out, which in turn gives me a better bargaining position, and starts opening some of those doors.

I'm assuming that's how it works. But are labels going to let you use and abuse them in this way, or are they going (if youøre talented) to peg you down for whole album deals on ****ty terms? (talking about non-dancefloor oriented electronica here mainly, as well as the floor filler stuff).

I've never sent out a demo because I'm not ready, but there will come a time when I am, and I want to be able to use them just as much as they will want to use me.
But I'm sure they are savvy enough to not let you use their promo and distribution clout temporarily as a means to get a foothold for your own independent venture, or is that actually a viable and 'normal' way to do it?

Edit: Sorry, going a bit of topic there but it's something I need to know!
Old 3rd February 2009 | Show parent
  #9
Gear Head
 
Colonal J's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
I would suggest to form your own label, and release the music yourself, keeping all the rights to it. if you can sign a couple in the meantime go for it at a flat rate. This is how somebody I know got there. Once he had enough releases out there and a decent name, he formed his own label, and are now distributed by a good distributor.
Old 4th February 2009 | Show parent
  #10
CDS
Lives for gear
 
CDS's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
There is no way you can find a voice actor to redo the clip?

This kind of thing happens all the time even with signed acts wanting to use samples in a song.
Old 4th February 2009 | Show parent
  #11
Lives for gear
 
FeatheredSerpent's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Yes, that was the first thing I thought of so I put out an SOS on the SMGSLT forum for exactly that, and luckily have someone who is going to have a go at recreating it for me.

As for my own label, well I write a strange mix of club type stuff and more 'highbrow' electronic stuff, the easiest way to get a buzz going then as I see it would be to get tracks out on the club circuit first, and use that exposure as a lead-in to the stuff that I really want people to listen to.

I'm a firm believer that if the material is good enough, and you're not a complete ****** and know where to send it for maximum exposure, then you can get somewhere, even starting from absolute scratch.
But at the same time I know how hard it is going to be.
There are so many elements still to master though musically and technically so I'm patiently waiting for all the parts to come together.
Like any business, but especially in this one, I think the key is to diversify, and make sure that you're not just relying on sales for income, that is pure fantasy for the kind of market I'm looking at, and I don't mean merch and whatnot.
I have an idea for a music related site that should get some pennies rolling in, plus I have the option to work from home right now and then those two things can fund the more fun stuff.
Old 6th February 2009 | Show parent
  #12
Gear Guru
 
drBill's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by FeatheredSerpent ➡️
The stupid thing is, that I can use the samples anyway and upload the track to my music hosting site, and make it available for worldwide free download whether they clear the samples or not, so long as I don't charge money for the track,
Well sure you can. But not legally. Will they pursue you? Probably not. But using an unlicensed clip is not legal just because you're not charging. It's just done a lot and not prosecuted. Of course, if it becomes popular, you can be sure that Warners attorney's and you will become very "close". It's their property. To do with as they please. Haven't we gone down this road before??? hehheh

Remember copyright?? Even with a "re-creation" you could be in violation. Really, an entertainment attorney is your best bet in this situation.
Old 6th February 2009 | Show parent
  #13
Lives for gear
 
FeatheredSerpent's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
The hosting site pays a license fee which covers us I believe.

They must do, because we can upload mixes of commercial tracks as well, which would be breaking the law too right if it wasn't covered in an agreement?

When you sign up to some sites, you have to confirm that you own the copyright to all the material you publish on that site, but this is not the case with musicv2, that's the info I based my comment on, I'm pretty sure it's legit!
Old 6th February 2009 | Show parent
  #14
Moderator
 
narcoman's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by FeatheredSerpent ➡️
The hosting site pays a license fee which covers us I believe.

They must do, because we can upload mixes of commercial tracks as well, which would be breaking the law too right if it wasn't covered in an agreement?

When you sign up to some sites, you have to confirm that you own the copyright to all the material you publish on that site, but this is not the case with musicv2, that's the info I based my comment on, I'm pretty sure it's legit!

the hosting site is talking boo boo then. You cannot pay a blanket license - the material needs to be cleared at source. All a license covers is legal cleared compositions.

If they wanna argue it they can take it up with me....I clear $millions per year for clients and I can assure you - there is NO blanket license to cover all eventualities - no matter what they say. Haven't we gone over this before somewhere? - the website specifically says you must have cleared all samples and composition....if this is the same company we chatted about before - and if it was with you ! ha!

The other thing is - you've now alerted Warners to your use - whatever you do DON'T put this up for free on ANY site - if they find it they have evidence that it is flagrant infringement which will mean an pretty automatic fine of a couple of thousand dollars PLUs damages (which will amount to zero I suspect).
Old 6th February 2009 | Show parent
  #15
Lives for gear
 
superwack's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 10 years
I used to do a lot of work on soundtracks - clearances, samples, copyrights, etc... it is a very arbitrary process.

Unnfortunately for you, most of the legal cases come down to intent and as you've now posted this on the internet, you have shown intent so if you did a sound-alike or sampled w/o clearance you'd be a much easier target for the legal dept. at Warners. It's one thing if you happen to rip something off/use something but it is an entirely different thing to try to get permission then go ahead and use something anyway.

watch out. tutt
Old 7th February 2009 | Show parent
  #16
Gear Guru
 
drBill's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by FeatheredSerpent ➡️
The hosting site pays a license fee which covers us I believe.
hehheh

Where's the ROTFLMAO emoticon???
Old 7th February 2009 | Show parent
  #17
Moderator
 
narcoman's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by superwack ➡️
I used to do a lot of work on soundtracks - clearances, samples, copyrights, etc... it is a very arbitrary process.

Unnfortunately for you, most of the legal cases come down to intent and as you've now posted this on the internet, you have shown intent so if you did a sound-alike or sampled w/o clearance you'd be a much easier target for the legal dept. at Warners. It's one thing if you happen to rip something off/use something but it is an entirely different thing to try to get permission then go ahead and use something anyway.

watch out. tutt
most? they all do !!

underlined a thousand times.... this be the truth.
Old 7th February 2009 | Show parent
  #18
Lives for gear
 
FeatheredSerpent's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by narcoman ➡️
Haven't we gone over this before somewhere? - the website specifically says you must have cleared all samples and composition....if this is the same company we chatted about before - and if it was with you ! ha!
No I haven't seen that threwad, but I have to say I'm way wrong on this one as youøve just pointed out heh

Quote:
Originally Posted by musicv2.com
The term "Content" means all material that you submit to us. By completing the sign-up process you represent and warrant that:

(a) All samples used in your works are either your own original production, genuine copyright-free samples or are used with all applicable licenses and rights granted. Furthermore you must be able to provide proof that you have the consent of the copyright holder to use any and all samples upon request.


Holy ****.
I've got uncleared vocal samples all over the shop

It's ART dammit, what's their problem heh
Old 7th February 2009 | Show parent
  #19
Gear Guru
 
drBill's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by FeatheredSerpent ➡️
It's ART dammit, what's their problem heh
All those pesky companies concerned about ownership. What's their problem??? BTW, I need to use your apartment next week, and I'm going to make a $500 charge on your credit card, so make sure you note that.

I mean, we should all be sharing, right?
Old 7th February 2009 | Show parent
  #20
Lives for gear
 
FeatheredSerpent's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
The post was tongue-in-cheek, hence the smiley, but while while we're there, it's not really the same thing at all is it?

Illegally downloading the movie and watching it as an end user is hardly the same thing as using samples from a legal copy to create more art.

So yes, being so draconian is stifling creativity. Well, it's not stopping it, it just makes it illegal, which is silly.
Old 7th February 2009 | Show parent
  #21
Gear Guru
 
drBill's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by FeatheredSerpent ➡️
The post was tongue-in-cheek, hence the smiley, but while while we're there, it's not really the same thing at all is it?

Illegally downloading the movie and watching it as an end user is hardly the same thing as using samples from a legal copy to create more art.

So yes, being so draconian is stifling creativity. Well, it's not stopping it, it just makes it illegal, which is silly.
I know it was tongue in cheek, but I also know your take on "copyright".

No, you're right, it's not the same thing, but either scenario is equally stealiing unless you have permission. If your art is hinged on using other peoples works to prop up your own creativity, then your art is in danger of copyright infringement, and at the very least, you should have a good attorney. Sorry to be shining that damned Draconian light into your creative space! Best of luck with those samples!!
Old 8th February 2009 | Show parent
  #22
Lives for gear
 
FeatheredSerpent's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by drBill ➡️
I know it was tongue in cheek, but I also know your take on "copyright".
I wasn't aware I even had a general take on copyright! This is the first time I've really discussed it on here. Maybe you're confusing me with someone else.

Quote:
Originally Posted by drBill ➡️
No, you're right, it's not the same thing, but either scenario is equally stealiing
I'm glad most musicians don't see interpretations of their work as stealing, what a sick artistic world that would be

Quote:
Originally Posted by drBill ➡️
If your art is hinged on using other peoples works to prop up your own creativity
Most of the stuff I've written uses no samples at all, I've just got a taste for the little extra added dimension a well placed and well known piece of dialogue can provide in compliment to the music sometimes.
I don't see that as anything to be ashamed of, as you seem to suggest I should be.
But then you don't strike me as the kind of person that would appreciate DJ Shadow, for example.

Quote:
Originally Posted by drBill ➡️
your art is in danger of copyright infringement, and at the very least, you should have a good attorney.
Well that's my point, if I need a 'good lawyer' just for dropping a couple of vocal samples into an original and non-commercial piece of music, then I think that's a bad thing.

But that's just my opinion.
Old 8th February 2009 | Show parent
  #23
Gear Guru
 
drBill's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by FeatheredSerpent ➡️
I wasn't aware I even had a general take on copyright! This is the first time I've really discussed it on here. Maybe you're confusing me with someone else.
No, I seem to remember quite well your thoughts about other people's copyrights, their property, and theft thereof. Just one of a dozen.....:

Quote:
Originally Posted by FeatheredSerpent ➡️
My point is, if I even have one, is that the general concensus that mp3 sharing is directly responsible for decreased profits is actually largeyl unfounded, it is in itself specualtion, because you will never know how many of those people ever intended to buy the physical media in the first place.
My real concern though is one on a much more basic and fundamental level, one which will never be realised in my lifetime but I hope one day will be:
If everyone focused on eliminating the element of greed that pervades the industry, then we would have no crisis. Labels would turn a profit, artists would see a higher percentage and the consumer would be paying a lower price, because there is in fact more than enough to go aroudn to keep the whole happy boat sailing, it just means putting an end to businessmen lining their pockets off the back of artists, and the only way to do that is for the artists to take full control of the industry.

Art and greed do not mix, it is a vulgar combination, and if there is one industry that really could succeed by abandoning its vile capitalist ideaology, it is the music industry.
Musicians of the world Unite!! Take back what is rightfully yours!!
Down with the Imperialist fascist swine Labels!!


Quote:
Originally Posted by FeatheredSerpent ➡️
I'm glad most musicians don't see interpretations of their work as stealing, what a sick artistic world that would be

Most of the stuff I've written uses no samples at all, I've just got a taste for the little extra added dimension a well placed and well known piece of dialogue can provide in compliment to the music sometimes.
I don't see that as anything to be ashamed of, as you seem to suggest I should be.
But then you don't strike me as the kind of person that would appreciate DJ Shadow, for example.
Not suggesting you should be ashamed at all. Just that if that is how you create your art you should have good legal representation.



Quote:
Originally Posted by FeatheredSerpent ➡️
Well that's my point, if I need a 'good lawyer' just for dropping a couple of vocal samples into an original and non-commercial piece of music, then I think that's a bad thing.
Again, as we covered in the other thread a dozen times, your opinion doesn't really matter to anyone but yourself. If you want to fly in the opposite direction of the law, that's certainly your right and option. I just suggested getting legal representation before doing it - especially since you've told Warners that you want it, then put it out on the internet what your intents are. It's just common sense IMO. Again, good luck with your samples!

bp
Old 8th February 2009 | Show parent
  #24
Lives for gear
 
FeatheredSerpent's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by drBill ➡️
No, I seem to remember quite well your thoughts about other people's copyrights, their property, and theft thereof. Just one of a dozen.....:
Interesting. How on earth did you draw from that the conclusion that I am in support of piracy/theft of copyright? You must be over-sensitive to this issue because you're reading things into that which are clearly not there.
Your posts in this thread have a barely concealed undertone of animosity which seems to be fueled by your misinterpretations of my other posts.

I suggest you go back and read again, but this time try and shake off the paranoia first.

Quote:
Originally Posted by drBill ➡️
If you want to fly in the opposite direction of the law, that's certainly your right and option. I just suggested getting legal representation before doing it - especially since you've told Warners that you want it, then put it out on the internet what your intents are. It's just common sense IMO. Again, good luck with your samples!

bp
I have no wish to flaunt the law, not in this area anyway, I said that based upon my understanding of the system (which I have recognised as being incorrect) that it would be possible for me to upload it anyway, I did not state categorically that I would do it if I knew it to be illegal.
Again you're just (seemingly deliberately) putting words into my mouth for some reason.

I've stated why I think it is unreasonable to bar access to such material when it is to be used within a certain context, and I think I have a point.

Save the aggression for those that deserve it, I actually buy my music.
Old 8th February 2009 | Show parent
  #25
Gear Guru
 
drBill's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by FeatheredSerpent ➡️
I suggest you go back and read again, but this time try and shake off the paranoia first.
I would, but they're watching my house right now......


Quote:
Originally Posted by FeatheredSerpent ➡️
I actually buy my music.
Old 9th February 2009 | Show parent
  #26
Lives for gear
 
FeatheredSerpent's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by drBill ➡️
I would, but they're watching my house right now......
Should try being me, the people staking me out aren't even human

Quote:
Originally Posted by drBill ➡️
I shouldn't even have to say it.

I write music myself, I'm unsigned, and I would of course like to know that if I do release something that there is a small chance I may actually make some money from it. As an artist I appreciate the value of music and I will not try and deprive a worthy artist of their income by copying their music.

But on the other hand, as an artist, I expect there to be some kind of leniency shown for those of us that want to use material in order to change its context or morph it into a new piece of art, and I don't think there is enough of a distinction made in this area, and it is still all driven by opportunities for revenue, rather than opportunities for art.

I think the Creative Commons movement is fantastic in this regard, but you mention that organisation around here and youøre met with hostility because again, people can't seem to appreciate the difference between an end user downloading a shared file, and an artist using it for original creative purposes where no money is involved.

I really shouldn't have to have a lawyer for that, I mean come on. As soon as there is an opportunity for money to be made then the game rules change and I appreciate that, but this is just another case of business ruling art, when in fact the money men should be subservient.
Old 9th February 2009 | Show parent
  #27
Gear Guru
 
drBill's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by FeatheredSerpent ➡️
I think the Creative Commons movement is fantastic in this regard, but you mention that organisation around here and youøre met with hostility because again, people can't seem to appreciate the difference between an end user downloading a shared file, and an artist using it for original creative purposes where no money is involved.

I really shouldn't have to have a lawyer for that, I mean come on. As soon as there is an opportunity for money to be made then the game rules change and I appreciate that, but this is just another case of business ruling art, when in fact the money men should be subservient.
When Ford sells a truck for personal use or for business deliveries, they get the same (relatively) price. They do not give it to me because I am not making a profit with it.

That said, I think that when you ask permission to use music in video's or other musical pieces, the license fee's DO reflect the useage, and whether or not $$ will be made. That's just my personal observation though. Of course every company is different. And they certainly have the right to be. At least in the US.
Old 9th February 2009 | Show parent
  #28
Lives for gear
 
FeatheredSerpent's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by drBill ➡️
When Ford sells a truck for personal use or for business deliveries, they get the same (relatively) price. They do not give it to me because I am not making a profit with it.

That said, I think that when you ask permission to use music in video's or other musical pieces, the license fee's DO reflect the useage, and whether or not $$ will be made. That's just my personal observation though. Of course every company is different. And they certainly have the right to be. At least in the US.
But we're talking about isolated clips of monologues here, no music, no video.
Is it not ridiculous that I can ask some third party to recreate the phrases perfectly and use them instead? It's a farce. Laws need to be contemporary and to be empathetic with the progresses made by humanity, otherwise they become irrelevant.
Even the catholic church has backed off on some hotly disputed issues because the times, they are a changin'.
The music industry is crumbling partly because it let itself become an inflexible model that staunchly refuted change.
This kind of inflexibility is good for no one.
Old 9th February 2009 | Show parent
  #29
Gear Guru
 
drBill's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
We'll just have to disagree.

You feel the laws are in place to hinder the changing waters of humanity.

I feel the laws are in place to protect the creative interests of the artists and musicians - making it do-able for them to create and live at the same time.

People (artists & musicians who make a living doing what they love) generally don't appreciate others trying to take away their livelihood. We see it as an affront, an insult to our creativity, and ultimately as a danger to our families.

Of course, you feel differently.
Old 9th February 2009 | Show parent
  #30
Lives for gear
 
FeatheredSerpent's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
No, I don't feel differently. This is where the glibness of your assumptions shines through.

This is different business.
It's dialogue from a film. The system is different. It's not musicians waiting on a first royalty cheque, it's not the same ballpark.

But if you equate someone using dialogue from a movie to create new music, with someone illegally downloading music, then yes we'll have to disagree.

Forum Jump
Forum Jump