0

I have recently created an animation/parody of famous song and have added about an 8 second clip of the song as the background audio for my animation. However, I would like to post the animation (with background audio) to Instagram and YouTube but have heard that because I am using some of the original song that this could infringe on the copyright and I could potentially be sued. Is this true? Is there any way I could post the animation (with the song clip) without infringing on the copyright laws?

Just to clarify, I will not be making any money from the animation/video as I will not be advertising on it, etc. Does that change this situation?

Thanks for any helpful advice.

user7495
  • 1
  • https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-1292.ZO.html – user3344003 Jul 25 '16 at 15:41
  • Thanks for this. I'll read through it. Do you know if this applies to UK law too? – user7495 Jul 25 '16 at 16:33
  • @user7495 It doesn't. The test in the UK is similar, but with some important difference. –  Jul 25 '16 at 16:38
  • @Dawn Thanks again for your detailed answer. I'll read up on the fair dealing policies to see if my content is acceptable in any of them. Thanks again. – user7495 Jul 25 '16 at 16:59
  • Just a factoid, making money or not doesn't factor into whether or not you're infringing. If you're sued then, and I might be wrong here, your profits could impact the judgement. Generally speaking though, copyright holders seek to recover the amount that they lost due to people getting access for free instead of buying. In other words, assuming you were infringing (an assumption that I wouldn't make for your case) a copyright holder would say that 300 people got access to a song that they charge $1 for so you owe them $300. If you made $500 in the process then you might owe that instead. – Dean MacGregor Jul 25 '16 at 18:52
  • @DeanMacGregor Thanks for your great answer, that explains a lot actually in terms of why copyright holders would want to sue. Would they still count "access" as an 8 second recording because it technically is, albeit very brief access? My animation really is made as a parody only and the audio track helps make it more humorous. However, I really don't want to be out of pocket, by any financial sum, just because my animation "was a bit more humorous". Thanks again. – user7495 Jul 25 '16 at 19:03
  • I see you're talking about the UK so I know nothing with respect to details and my aforementioned comment might be wrong too. That being said "parody" is a fair-use claim in the US. – Dean MacGregor Jul 25 '16 at 19:08
  • @DeanMacGregor That's fine, I just wondered if it would be similar in the UK to the US. Although Dawn has linked me to information on fair dealing in the UK which is similar to fair-use in the US. Do you know if it matters where the content is used e.g. A specific country, like uploading content in the UK which would be viewed in the US? If I changed the pitch of the song would that still be considered copyright infringement? Thanks. – user7495 Jul 25 '16 at 19:53
  • Assuming that you aren't covered by fair use or fair dealing, there is likely no transformation (changing the pitch, tone, speed, etc) you can make to the song to make it not infringing. Look at it this way, if you owned the song, would you be satisfied with a copyright system that allows someone to prevent you from profiting from your song simply because they changed something as trivial as pitch in the song? – Dean MacGregor Jul 25 '16 at 20:10
  • Ah right, the point you mention is a good one as I probably wouldn't be too happy that my work could be replicated as long as there was only a slight change (such as pitch, tempo, etc). However, using only 8 seconds when the song lasts about 3 and a half minutes wouldn't really stop the artist from profiting, or would it? Haha I think I'm overthinking things a bit now, all for a simple animation. Thanks again for you help. – user7495 Jul 25 '16 at 20:19

1 Answers1

1

The situation you describe could be protected under law.

For details see In the US, when is fair use a defense to copyright infringement?

Community
  • 1
feetwet
  • 21,795
  • 12
  • 80
  • 175
  • Thanks for your helpful answer. I'll have a look at the other question. Do you know if fair-use is applicable in the UK too? Thanks again. – user7495 Jul 25 '16 at 16:32
  • @user7495 The UK has fair dealing instead of fair use. (UK gov. description). It is also an affirmative defence. It is less permissive than the fair use standard in the US, requiring that the re-use be from one of four categories of use, and then that that use also be fair (this second step roughly follows the US test). –  Jul 25 '16 at 16:33
  • @Dawn - You should post that info as its own answer! (Especially so we can link to it from the tag's "canonical answers.") – feetwet Jul 25 '16 at 16:49
  • @feetwet I probably will :) –  Jul 25 '16 at 16:59