[A2k] Question for Paris Accord, regarding uses of music performances and films in other works

[Volker Grassmuck]

Jamie, I agree that the question you raise is crucial. It figured
prominently in a resent symposium by documentary film makers who were
talking about mind-boggeling experiences with official archives of
Nazi footage blocking usage in documentaries.

The traditional answer to it is the quotation exception. And that's a
pretty strong one. As Ricketson has pointed out it's the only
mandatory exception in Bern, therefore much stronger than any other
exception. From which he draws the quite revolutionary conclusion
that it should be made enforceabel against DRM. And since it does not
have a specific beneficiary but everyone can make use of this
exception, mandating that DRMs should routinely allow digital
excerpting would blow DRM out the window. So let's include that,
referencing it to Ricketson's WIPO Study. Look for the last two
pages:

Sam Ricketson, WIPO Study on Limitations and Exceptions of Copyright
and Related Rights in the Digital Environment (WIPO SCCR/9/7),
Geneva, June 2003,
http://www.wipo.int/documents/en/meetings/2003/sccr/pdf/sccr_9_7.pdf

A quotation to my understanding can not interfere with the moral
rights you mention. But then again, a kid hopping up and down in her
bedroom singing along to her favorite popsong and uploading the video
recording to youtube would probably not be considered a musical
quotation.

Volker

On 10 Jun 2006 at 11:23, James Love wrote:

> Today there are huge problems in addressing copyright clearances for
> using music in new musical works,  music if films, films in films,
> etc....
>
> Article 27.2 of the Declaration of Human rights says that authors can
> protect their moral and material interests in certain works.   To
> what extent should the Accord address the ability of creative
> communities to use create works of others, to make new creative works?
>
> To me, this is quite important to address.
>
> In my view, authors and performers of music should have some say over
> the use of their works in commercials selling products (candidates?),
> but when works are used in new creative works, their interests are
> narrower..... I don't think they should expect to be paid when works
> are used in strictly non-commercial ways, but they would have some
> expectation to benefit economically when works are used in some
> commerical ventures.  But here, I don't find the exclusive rights
> model as interesting as one of compensatory liability..... where you
> can use works, so long as a certain percentage of your revenue stream
> is shared with the persons whose works you have used, without
> permission.
>
> If you look at youtube, myspace, google video, etc.... (works created
> by amateurs, but hosted by firms that that sell ads), it would seem
> that copyright owners might want to share in the revenue stream from
> the site, but not restrict the ability of the amateurs to create the
> works and share them.
>
> Addressing also the problems facing documentaries, commentary, etc,
> are quite important, in terms of making sure that works can be used,
> without these absolute requires to clear rights of works used in new
> works.
>
> Jamie
>
> ---------------------------------
> James Love, CPTech / www.cptech.org / mailto:james.love@cptech.org /
> tel. +1.202.332.2670 / mobile +1.202.361.3040
>
> "If everyone thinks the same: No one thinks."  Bill Walton
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> A2k mailing list
> A2k@lists.essential.org
> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k


--
   WOS 4. Information Freedom Rules
      14-16 Sept. 2006, Berlin, http://wizards-of-os.org
   iRights           http://iRights.info
   copy = right    http://privatkopie.net
   home:   http://waste.informatik.hu-berlin.de/Grassmuck