Copyright on speeches and spoken word

[(Sinelanguage)]

So I've recently been having some fun sampling from YouTube, speeches, news reports, religious talks etc and using them in my songs.

Thing is I have no idea about the copyright implications in this area, I'm a hobbyist but if one day my tracks got some attention I'd like to know I wouldn't find myself facing a lawsuit. It's also a lot of work and if I had to pull down track that's I'd slaved away at that would really suck. I'm sure someone must have asked already but I only found posts relating to sampling from songs.

Does anyone have much experience or knowledge in this area?

A few of the things I can't seem to answer are:



Does the copyright for samples taken from speeches/spoken word differ to the copyright for samples taken from a song?

If so, how do various types of spoken word vary in their copyrighting, would a speech by a philosopher differ to a sample taken from a news broadcast?

Would it make a difference if words were sampled individually to create sentences as opposed to using whole phrases?

I've seen terms like 'fair use' and 'parody' used regarding sampling from songs, would these apply to spoken words as well? And I can't seem to find any specifics on what would constitute either fair use or parody.

Does it make a difference if the speech was by someone alive or dead?

I've heard a lot of tracks that include sampled spoken vocals, Boards of Canada are a good example (I know they have their own tape recorders which they give to their friends to create stuff but other stuff sounds like it's straight out of a documentary), and a couple of tracks lately which sounded like they'd been sampled straight out of a self help audio book, which i would have guessed had the same copyright as books.

Also, if it's the case that all or some sampled spoken word does require permission to use, can anyone advise how I'd go about finding out who owns the copyright and how you'd go about getting permission?

Any help in shedding some light on this area is much appreciated!

Cheers

[KBSoundSmith]

Fair use applies to things like using no more than 10% of something as educational materials (eg, copy a paragraph or two out of a book as a reading example for a classroom), or for things like reviews, criticism, etc. Using it for your own artistic usage wouldn't fall under fair use.

As for parody -- are you making a parody? If not, it doesn't apply.

Rule of thumb: if you didn't write the text, didn't make the recording, and don't own the copyright, you are probably violating someone else's intellectual property. If you sample a recording, fully expect the need to get authorization from the copyright holder to use every single sample. Don't hope or assume otherwise. Assume everything you sample is owned by someone else and requires authorization, except where it is clearly indicated otherwise.

Now, I'm not a lawyer, this isn't legal advice. If you insist upon using those samples, get a lawyer who specializes in the areas of copyright and entertainment to guide you through it. Otherwise, you are probably walking on thinner ice than is worth while.

[Frantz]

KBSoundSmith is correct. To be 100% safe you should recreate the speech clips yourself or find someone with the right voice to help you do it. Although unless your track becomes successful, odds are no one will notice.

You could also look at public domain films and recordings for stuff to sample.

[(Sinelanguage)]

Thanks for the quick replies, great idea to check for public domain recordings, it hadn't occurred to me to simply look specifically for ones that are public domain. Do you know if government speeches are automatically public domain? Seems like they couldn't aim to make money from them. Or I suppose could they be the property of the person or company that actually recorded them?

Also does anyone know how you would go about finding out who owns what/how to approach them for permission? Anyone with experience doing this?

As for the question about parody, some of what I'm doing is certainly cutting up words to make people say things they weren't otherwise saying, ala cassetteboy, but I read an interview of theirs earlier which says they never made any money from their YouTube videos because any money made went to the people who produced the original recordings! So Alan Sugar, Donald Trump etc make money from cassetteboy's work! Money certainly isn't the motivating factor for my music, but if I'm following correctly I assume in this case money ultimately equals ownership? Finding this all very interesting. But not really sure if any of this would fall under parody anyway? Seems like a vague term.

[jancivil]

Fair use applies to things like using no more than 10% of something as educational materials (eg, copy a paragraph or two out of a book as a reading example for a classroom), or for things like reviews, criticism, etc. Using it for your own artistic usage wouldn't fall under fair use.

If it's the news, and you say 'this is criticism', how exactly does an entity sue you for damages when there is Fair Use. In the US, anyway. I don't think this distinction 'artistic use' is a very good distinction if you assert 'critique', let alone 'parody'.

Fair use when it's definitely an artistic or entertainment product that is not in the Public Domain pretty much has to be an insignificant duration sample of it and not compete with the original. In the US. I used several things in a music video, one of which is from a movie copyrighted in some way by Warner's Group or whatever they go by nowadays. I claimed fair use and they backed down. Way less than 10% and non-competitive. HOWEVER if yer in the UK and try to look at it, no go. I don't know how that works. They probably own the material and the mechanical rights, ie., as a recording or print. I used to see a claim by some bullshit entity and I got rather hot about it, because they own fvck-all here. There is a lot of that going around, btw.

If it's actual government speech, someone actually employed by the government in the US, the taxpayers are the owners. You do not get to own it as a private entity just because it came out your mouth.

[jancivil]

Does it make a difference if the speech was by someone alive or dead?

Not if it's copyrighted and that is still true, dead don't enter into it. It's 70 yrs posthumous in the EU or something like that now. I forget. In the US it used to be you'd have to re-up your / / every 28 yrs.


I would say if it's government speech, even if some entity comes out of the woodwork and says 'We own the mechanical rights to the recording' I would assert, "I'm criticizing it (on the basis of __)/"Parody" (cut-up) along with "Obviously I am not competing with it, and besides, it's only (x amount of time)."

[(Sinelanguage)]

Thanks for clearing some of that up. I actually am in the UK so I guess I could really do with finding out the rules here (sorry for not mentioning that earlier)

That brings me to another interesting question though, since I live in the UK and the US government speeches are owned by the taxpayers, could I sample a US president's speech, for example? If not surely that would suggest the absurd (to me at least) situation where I would need to pay an American tax payer to sample it for me, or risk engaging in an 'American taxpayers vs me' type lawsuit for sampling it without permission?

Hmm, also, if a critical piece of music could be considered both 'artistic' and 'critique', would this mean it wouldn't be considered fair use because it is art, or would be considered fair use because it is critique?

One other thing I haven't asked is if I sampled a speech several times and it went through most of a track, would that have different copyright implications to using similar samples for only a small part of the track?

[nineofkings]

Most US federal government media is public domain by default. This is the case with presidential speeches recorded by the government, C-Span coverage of the legislature, and most material released by NASA.

Other speeches (anything made by a private business) aren't public domain by default.

Source: http://www.newmediarights.org/business_ ... lic_domain

[jancivil]

absurd (to me at least) situation where I would need to pay an American tax payer to sample it for me,

I didn't mean that so literally; I'm indicating the impossibility of a speech which is made under employment of the government aka The People, constitutionally, to be private property.

so far

[(Sinelanguage)]

Sure, just thought I'd take those implications to their somewhat logical conclusion!

So to sum up on presidential speeches to make sure I'm getting this:

1. Anything I sample from a government speech recorded by that government should be fair game.

2. Anything I sample from a government speech recorded by someone else, I would need to approach the company or person who made the recording for permission.

What about if I sampled that same government official before they were in government? At a rally etc (annoyingly this is something I was having some success with the other night before getting into the copyright implications) I'm guessing I would need to approach the person or company which made the recording for permission? But would the individual that I sampled hold copyright over the spoken word as well?

And can anyone chime in with the implications of sampling news coverage? I.e just the presenters voice relaying a story, not any of their recorded coverage of other content. Would that be a matter of getting permission from the news company or does it fall under public domain?

I've been reading more about parody and I wonder if all of the sampling I'm doing would actually be considered parody. If what I sample is edited so a political figure's words are used to comment on their own actions in a 'humourous' way, would this negate the above permissions needed? And also negate the 10% fair usage?

Also I'm guessing the country in which the copyright is held determines which country's definition of 'parody' would apply. I.e if I sampled a US president who had been recorded by a UK news company, then the UK's parody law would apply?

Sorry to drag on these posts! Just really good to hear from people who know what they're talking about and have some experience of what all this means in the real world.

[aMUSEd]

Thanks for clearing some of that up. I actually am in the UK so I guess I could really do with finding out the rules here (sorry for not mentioning that earlier)

That brings me to another interesting question though, since I live in the UK and the US government speeches are owned by the taxpayers, could I sample a US president's speech, for example? If not surely that would suggest the absurd (to me at least) situation where I would need to pay an American tax payer to sample it for me, or risk engaging in an 'American taxpayers vs me' type lawsuit for sampling it without permission?

I've sampled GW Bush several times - couldn't give a toss about who owns it though. It's social commentary.

[(Sinelanguage)]

Yeah that's what I'm hoping, that somewhere between social commentary/parody/criticism I'd be alright. Just wanna be sure before I put anything out, but it's sounding a bit like you can't really be sure unless you get all the permissions, or else take a little gamble that you're in the right.

Did your tracks with Bush on them get much attention? And I assume you had noone sniffing around after lawsuits?

[jancivil]

Yeah, that would absolutely be my position. The case scenario where an entity would ding you say on youtube for an upload would look like that 'presenter on TV' model, the TV network does copyright and I have seen things removed like that. Whether that means the uploader declined to dispute and assert Fair Use or not, I have no idea.


As to my experience, I was not shocked exactly to see Warner's claim but there is no sign of me making much money by using that. They are just that avid about ownership.

[jancivil]

Frank Zappa sampled Ronald Reagan numerously in 1988, there was no problem I ever heard of.
The Ravel estate shut down his recording of Bolero in Europe though.

[aMUSEd]

Yeah that's what I'm hoping, that somewhere between social commentary/parody/criticism I'd be alright. Just wanna be sure before I put anything out, but it's sounding a bit like you can't really be sure unless you get all the permissions, or else take a little gamble that you're in the right.

Did your tracks with Bush on them get much attention? And I assume you had noone sniffing around after lawsuits?

No but they wouldn't have a hope in hell if they did