how does copyright apply to a movie review video

Stack Exchange Network

Stack Exchange network consists of 183 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow , the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.

Q&A for work

Connect and share knowledge within a single location that is structured and easy to search.

Movie footage and fair use for a video review

Thousands of people review movies daily on services such as YouTube. Most of these are by independent, unfunded individuals. So, I doubt those individuals have permission from movies' copyright holders.

There is a large gray area here. On one end, if one were to post an entire movie on YouTube, that would obviously be illegal. On the other, one could post a blank video with only a voice-over review. I believe fair-use would allow this.

Now, what about in between? Some examples, in all cases assume that there is a voice-over talking about the content of the film:

• A review that consists of still images taken directly from the movie.
• A review that consists of short clips taken directly from the movie. I have used sequences of the copyrighted material.

Either way, assume that the videos are monetized, through services such as YouTube Ads.

After several hours of research, I cannot find the answer. There must be a line between legal and illegal, however vague it may be. Is there?

Another factor I have thought about is the source of the content. Not sure how that would play into this.

• united-states

• 2 "There must be a line": Why should there be? Legislatures make general laws, and courts interpret them only as they apply to the specific cases that come before them. –  Nate Eldredge Commented Aug 13, 2021 at 20:43
• 1 That is why I said "however vague it may be." I guess its too hard to determine without a specific example? –  Oliver Commented Aug 13, 2021 at 20:46
• 1 Does this answer your question? Using (presumably) copyrighted materials in reviews –  user4657 Commented Aug 14, 2021 at 0:25
• 1 @Nij UK copyright law is different than US law, so that duplicate is not well-suited. –  Ryan M Commented Aug 14, 2021 at 0:45
• Jurisdiction is at best a suggestion here. The question asks the same thing, and we are meant to avoid creating repeated questions for every individual places that might have laws. –  user4657 Commented Aug 14, 2021 at 6:34

2 Answers 2

The line is not between "legal" and "illegal" but between "fair use" and "infringement". Note that infringement is (usually) a tort, not a crime, and nothing happens unless and until the copyright holder chooses to take action.

Also, the line on fair use is intentionally one of the most fuzzy in law, it is always dependent on the specific facts of the situation.

All that said, commentary and criticism is one of the central purposes of fair use, and is in general quite likely to be a fair use. More specifically, if the review:

• Comments on the movie being reviewed, it does not just summarize the plot;
• Uses only those stills or clips needed to illustrate or support the point(s) that the review is making;
• Makes specific comments on each scene or shot included in the review;
• Clearly credits the movie and its publishers;
• Makes it clear what is part of the movie, and what has been added by the reviewer;
• includes only a relatively small part of the over all movie being reviewed;
• Does not serve as a replacement for the movie. That is, most people will not feel after seeing the review that they have in effect seen the movie, and that they have no need to actually buy a ticket or rent a video to experience it. Because of this including any clip that might be considered "the heart of the work" or the "vital scene", particularly any big reveals, might be unwise.

then the review is quite likely to fall under fair use. It does not matter if the review is formatted as a voice-over, or as a talking head intercut with clips, or in some other way. Monetizing the review will not matter much, unless perhaps the main reason for people to watch the review is to see clips.

I m not sure what you mean by "the source of the content" Surely the source of any clips or stills in=s the movie. If they were obtained via a pirate site, that will probably not matter unless the review links to the pirate site, which it should not do.

I'd say first of all that you're probably making this more difficult than it needs to be.

Movie studios aren't normally going to be interested in shutting down movie reviews. They want you to talk about their movies, and they want you to show clips from their movies -- so much so that many of them will simply add you to their press list just for asking.

If you ask to be put on their list of electronic press kits, the studios will proactively send you stills and clips for inclusion in your reviews. In that case, you're operating under a license from the studio, and there's no need for a fair-use inquiry.

But even if you can't get on to that list, it's pretty clear that what you're talking about would be fair use. You can read more about the standards for a full fair-use analysis here , but the key question in your situation is going to be whether the use is transformative, and it's pretty firmly established that commentary is transformative:

The central purpose of this investigation is to see, in Justice Story's words, whether the new work merely supersedes the objects of the original creation, or instead adds something new, with a further purpose or different character, altering the first with new expression, meaning, or message; it asks, in other words, whether and to what extent the new work is "transformative." Although such transformative use is not absolutely necessary for a finding of fair use, the goal of copyright, to promote science and the arts, is generally furthered by the creation of transformative works. Such works thus lie at the heart of the fair use doctrine's guarantee of breathing space within the confines of copyright, and the more transformative the new work, the less will be the significance of other factors, like commercialism, that may weigh against a finding of fair use.

Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. , 510 U.S. 569, 579 (1994) . See also Video Pipeline, Inc. v. Buena Vista Home Entm't, Inc. , 342 F.3d 191, 200 (3d Cir. 2003) ("The fact that a substantial portion, indeed almost all, of the infringing work was copied verbatim from the copyrighted work with no additional creative activity reveals a dearth of transformative character or purpose.").

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for browse other questions tagged united-states copyright fair-use ..

• Featured on Meta
• Upcoming sign-up experiments related to tags

Hot Network Questions

• Could space habitats have large transparent roofs?
• Cleaning chain a few links at a time
• Co-authors with little contribution
• What stops a plane from rolling when the ailerons are returned to their neutral position?
• Next date in the future such that all 8 digits of MM/DD/YYYY are all different and the product of MM, DD and YY is equal to YYYY
• Do capacitor packages make a difference in MLCCs?
• Why is completeness (as in Gödel completeness theorem) a desirable feature?
• Is it consistent with ZFC that the real line is approachable by sets with no accumulation points?
• Refining material assignment in Blender geometry nodes based on neighboring faces
• Font shape warnings in LuaLaTeX but not XeLaTeX
• How can I take apart a bookshelf?
• What does ‘a grade-hog’ mean?
• A chess engine in Java: generating white pawn moves
• How to make D&D easier for kids?
• Is it possible to complete a Phd on your own?
• Is there any legal justification for content on the web without an explicit licence being freeware?
• Can I tell a MILP solver to prefer solutions with fewer fractions?
• Science fiction movie with one or more aliens on Earth and a puppet of a monster that can turn into an actual monster
• Are the bonuses for infernal war machine weapon stations static, or are they affected by their user?
• Simple Container Class
• Which numbers are sums of finite numbers of reciprocal squares?
• Why did Geordi have his visor replaced with ocular implants between Generations and First Contact?
• Folk stories and notions in mathematics that are likely false, inaccurate, apocryphal, or poorly founded?
• Could a transparent frequency-altering material be possible?

• Help Center
• Fix a problem
• Watch videos
• Manage your account & settings
• Supervised experience on YouTube
• YouTube Premium
• Create & grow your channel
• Monetize with the YouTube Partner Program
• Policy, safety, & copyright
• Privacy Policy
• YouTube Terms of Service
• Submit feedback
• Creator Tips
• Fix a problem Troubleshoot problems playing videos Troubleshoot account issues Fix upload problems Fix YouTube Premium membership issues Get help with the YouTube Partner Program Learn about recent updates on YouTube Get help with YouTube
• Watch videos Find videos to watch Change video settings Watch videos on different devices Comment, subscribe, & connect with creators Save or share videos & playlists Troubleshoot problems playing videos Purchase & manage movies, TV shows & products on YouTube
• Manage your account & settings Sign up and manage your account Manage account settings Manage privacy settings Manage accessibility settings Troubleshoot account issues YouTube updates
• YouTube Premium Join YouTube Premium Learn about YouTube Premium benefits Manage your Premium membership Manage Premium billing Fix YouTube Premium membership issues Troubleshoot billing & charge issues Request a refund for YouTube paid products YouTube Premium updates & promotions
• Create & grow your channel Upload videos Edit videos & video settings Create Shorts Edit videos with YouTube Create Customize & manage your channel Analyze performance with analytics Translate videos, subtitles, & captions Manage your community & comments Live stream on YouTube Join the YouTube Shorts Creator Community Become a podcast creator on YouTube Creator and Studio App updates
• Monetize with the YouTube Partner Program YouTube Partner Program Make money on YouTube Get paid Understand ads and related policies Get help with the YouTube Partner Program YouTube for Content Managers
• Policy, safety, & copyright YouTube policies Reporting and enforcement Privacy and safety center Copyright and rights management
• Copyright and rights management

Frequently asked questions about fair use

We're currently experiencing high contact volumes. If you contact us, you may notice longer than normal wait times.

Fair use is a legal doctrine that says you can reuse copyright-protected material under certain circumstances without getting the copyright owner’s permission.

There aren’t any magic words to automatically apply fair use. When you use someone else’s copyrighted work, there’s no guarantee that you’re protected under fair use.

Fair Use - Copyright on YouTube

Common fair use questions

1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes

Courts typically focus on whether the use is “transformative.” That is, whether it adds new expression or meaning to the original, or whether it merely copies from the original. Commercial uses are less likely to be considered fair, though it’s possible to monetize a video and still be fair use.

2. The nature of the copyright work

Using material from primarily factual works is more likely to be fair than using purely fictional works.

3.  The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole

Borrowing small bits of material from an original work is more likely to be considered fair use than borrowing large portions. However, if it's the “heart” of the work, even a small amount may weigh against fair use in some situations.

4.  The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work

Uses that harm the copyright owner’s ability to profit from their original work are less likely to be fair uses. Courts have sometimes made an exception under this factor in cases involving parodies.

If you upload a video containing copyrighted content without the copyright owner’s permission, you could end up with a Content ID claim . The claim will keep you from monetizing  the video, even if you only use a few seconds, such as short uses of popular songs.

Automated systems like Content ID can’t decide fair use  because it’s a subjective, case-by-case decision that only courts can make. While we can’t decide on fair use or mediate copyright disputes, fair use can still exist on YouTube. If you believe that your video falls under fair use, you can defend your position through the Content ID dispute process . This decision shouldn’t be taken lightly. Sometimes, you may need to carry that dispute through the appeal and DMCA counter notification process .

If both you and the claimant try to monetize a video under dispute, the video will still monetize until the dispute is resolved. Then, we’ll  pay out the accrued earnings to the appropriate party .  

Options you can take to resolve claims outside the dispute process

The easiest way to deal with Content ID claims is to avoid them in the first place. Don’t use  copyrighted material unless it’s essential to your video. Check out the YouTube Audio Library for music that’s free of charge to use in your videos. If you choose to get music from other royalty-free or licensing sites, be sure to read the terms and conditions carefully. Some of these services may not give rights to use or monetize the music on YouTube, so you could still end up with a Content ID claim.

If you get a Content ID claim for music that isn’t essential to your video, try removing it or swapping it out with copyright-safe tracks from the Audio Library. You can also always upload an entirely new edit of the video without the claimed content at a new URL.

Am I protected by fair use if...

Transformativeness is usually key in the fair use analysis. Giving credit to the owner of a copyrighted work won’t by itself turn a non-transformative copy of their material into fair use. Phrases like “all rights go to the author” and “I do not own” don’t automatically mean you’re making fair use of that material. They also don’t mean you have the copyright owner’s permission.

Courts will carefully review the purpose of your use in evaluating whether it's fair. Declaring your upload to be “for entertainment purposes only,” for example, is unlikely to tip the scales in the fair use balancing test. Similarly, “non-profit” uses are favored in the fair use analysis, but it’s not an automatic defense by itself.

If you’d like to learn more about fair use, there are many resources available online. The following sites are for educational purposes only and aren't endorsed by YouTube:

• Center for Media and Social Impact’s “ Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Online Video ”
• Digital Media Law Project's detailed explanation of the Four Factors
• US Copyright Office’s Fair Use Index  

Was this helpful?

Copyright and Fair Use : Showing Films, Videos, and TV Programs

Showing films, videos, and tv programs.

• What is Copyright?
• What is Fair Use?

Adapted with permission from University of Pittsburgh Library System

When you want to perform, display, or show a film, video, or TV program for teaching, training, or entertainment, you have to consider the rights of the those who own the copyright to the work you want to use.

Copyright owners have certain rights, which are commonly known as public performance rights (PPR). When you're using a film, video, or TV program for teaching or educational purposes, this is often considered a fair use under U.S. copyright law. In other cases, especially when the film, video, or TV program is being shown as part of an event, you need permission--often in the form of a public performance rights license--to show the work.

What Are Public Performance Rights (PPR)?

Under  U.S. copyright law , copyright owners have certain "exclusive rights." When you want to show a TV program, video, or film or when you want to broadcast or perform music (whether it's live or recorded), you have to consider the rights of those who own the copyright to the work you want to use.

Copyright owners have certain "public performance rights," such as the right to

• Perform their work publicly--if it’s a literary, musical, dramatic, or choreographed work, or if it’s a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work
• Display their work publicly--if it’s a literary, musical, dramatic, or choreographed work, or if it’s a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work
• Perform their work publicly through digital audio and/or video transmission--if it’s a sound or video recording

There are exceptions to these exclusive rights, allowing faculty, students, and others to use audiovisual works to meet nonprofit, educational needs. These exceptions allow for the  fair use of copyrighted works .

Films, Videos, and TV Programs

In general, any time you plan to show a film, video, or TV show  to the public— that is to say, "anyone attending a film screening/showing in an auditorium, theater, or any other kind of unrestricted open space, either indoors or outdoors" (Tammy Ravas,  Media Resources LibGuide ,  University of Montana)—you must first seek permission to do so from the film’s copyright owner(s). The film’s format or whether or not you are charging admission does not matter: You still need to seek permission. This permission comes in the form of a license from the rights holder called a PPR (public performance rights) license.

There are some exceptions to this rule:

• Faculty and instructors at nonprofit, educational institutions, such as Lincoln University, can make  a fair use defense under U.S. copyright law  to use films, videos, and TV programs as part of teaching. However, what constitutes "teaching" under U.S. copyright law is very specific: It doesn't mean that just because we're at a university, all on- or off-campus uses of films, videos, or TV shows are considered fair.
• If the film or video is in the public domain, you should be able to show the film or video in public. It may depend on whether the work is  really  in the public domain. It can be difficult at times to determine the copyright status of any work, whether text or video.
• If the film or video is licensed under  Creative Commons  or another "copyleft" license, you should be able to show it in public. Pay attention, however, to the specifics of the license. For example, some works licensed under Creative Commons (CC) may have a non-commercial (NC) designation, which may impact how or where you show a film or for what purpose.

In the Classroom

According to the  Section 110 (1) of the U.S. Copyright Act , the performance or showing of films in the classroom (or a similar venue) as part of “face-to-face” teaching at nonprofit educational institutions (such as Lincoln) is covered under the fair use exception. Viewing must be limited to only those enrolled in the course. Showing films in an analogous fashion as part of distance education or hybrid courses also qualifies as fair use under the TEACH Act, which is incorporated in  Section 110 (2) of the U.S. Copyright Act .

There are noteworthy exceptions pertaining to remote locations and unlawfully acquired or made copies of audiovisual materials. See the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) “ Performance of or Showing Films in the Classroom ” for further advice and examples.

Outside the Classroom

The performance or showing of films, videos, and TV programs in a similar venue (i.e., not necessarily a classroom) for face-to-face teaching is covered under the fair use exception of U.S. copyright law. Showing films in a similar fashion as part of distance education or hybrid (both face-to-face and online) courses also qualify as fair use under the TEACH Act, which is incorporated in  Section 110 (2) of the U.S. Copyright Act .

In both cases, the display or performance must be limited to those enrolled in the course. The display or performance cannot be open to the public or freely available via the Internet.

The main point here is that the venue for teaching does not have to be limited to a traditional classroom. However, the film's use for teaching or educational purposes does need to follow the parameters set out by the Copyright Act and the TEACH Act.

When Showing Is Not Part of a Course or Class

In general, the performance or showing of films for public viewing does not fall under the fair use exception. It does not matter whether the showing is free or whether admission is charged; this is not considered a fair use under U.S. copyright law.

Often in this situation, you will need to seek permission from the copyright owner by acquiring a public performance rights (PPR) license in order to show the work. Generally, there is a charge for a PPR license, one that can range from $100 to $1,000, depending on the work and who owns the copyright. The library cannot acquire PPR licenses for films for you or your group.

Student Groups, Clubs, and Organizations

Often the performance or showing of films for by university-affiliated student groups, clubs, and organizations may not fall under the fair use exception of U.S. copyright law. The intent of such showings is generally for entertainment, not for face-to-face teaching.

In such a case as this, you will need to seek permission from the copyright owner by acquiring a public performance rights (PPR) license in order to show the film, video, or TV program.

However, according to copyright lawyer and specialist, Kevin D. Smith in  Owning and Using Scholarship: An IP Handbook for Teachers and Researchers,  there may be a fair use defense for student groups showing a video if the showing is done for truly educational purposes. For example, if a student group is "discussing a topic related to the curriculum or in some other way that is clearly educational" (p. 102), it might be possible to use the fair use exception under U.S. copyright law to show a film to the group without acquiring a PPR license.

Such a group would have to be specific and limited and use must be for educational or curricular purposes.

This, like much in copyright law, is an "it depends" situation. Student groups should consult with sponsors, governing bodies, or university officials and policies to determine what the university allows.

Film Series

The performance of or showing of films for public viewing (whether admission is charged or not) as part of a film series does not fall under the fair use exception.

No matter how educational the setting may be or how tied to the curriculum the showing may be, this is generally considered a showing for entertainment purposes. Even if the showing is conducted by a student organization, such as a film society, this would still not be considered fair use.

Thus, in order to show the films, you will need to seek permission from the copyright owner by acquiring a public performance rights (PPR) license.

Training Programs

According to copyright lawyer and expert, Kevin D. Smith, showing films, videos, and TV programs as part of a training program for professional groups may fall under fair use. (See  Owning and Using Scholarship: An IP Handbook for Teachers and Researchers,  p. 102.)

Again, this may be an "it depends" situation. The group or entity interested in showing the film, video, or TV program may need to consult with sponsors, governing bodies, or university officials and policies to determine what is allowed.

Showing Clips or Excerpts

Using clips or excerpts from films, videos, or TV programs for teaching purposes is allowed under the fair use doctrine of U.S. copyright law. However, to use them, you need to  consider the four factors of fair use  and apply them to the number and amount of video clips being used.

According to  Copyright Law for Librarians and Educators: Creative Strategies & Practical Solutions  (3rd ed.) by Kenneth D. Crews, some of the points that those teaching should consider (pp. 74-75) include--

• The nature of the work:  Is it a feature film or an educational video? Is the film marketed for education? Is the work creative or simple, in the latter case consisting of news events or explanations?
• The amount of the work:  How long are the clips? Are they brief? Do they constitute the "heart of the work," i.e., the main point or thrust of the work? Does the length of the original video matter when considering how much to use?
• The effect of the use on the marketplace for the video:  Is the film or video readily available for purchase by students at a reasonable price? Is it a foreign film that is not easily findable, affordable, or usable (for example, a DVD with a non-North American region code)? Is it an educational film or a general, commercial work? Does the library or the university own a copy of the work (and thus has contributed to the market for the work)?

You can find out more about fair use, including online resources to help you make a fair use defense for your use, by visiting the University of Pittsburgh Library System's  "What Is Fair Use?"  webpage.

Obtaining a PPR License

Educational films and videos.

Some educational films, when purchased, may already have public performance rights. However, just because the film is educational in nature or produced by a nonprofit organization does not guarantee PPR are included. Such films or videos usually cost more than the average movie you'd buy on DVD or online (think a couple of hundred dollars, not $19.95). Educational films or videos with a PPR license generally may allow you to show the video in public on more than one occasion.

In general, the library does not buy educational films with PPR licenses.

Commercial films

While the library purchases commercial films (e.g., Hollywood-produced movies) for university use and educational needs, these films are not purchased with public performance rights. Permission to show or display the film must be acquired separately. Generally, the PPR license to use the film is good for only one time.

Generally, the cost for a PPR for a commercial film one that can range from $100 to $1,000, depending on the work and the copyright owner.

The library does not purchase PPR licenses for commercial films for Lincoln University students, staff, or faculty.

More about PPR Licenses

The section entitled “Showing Media Outside Classes (PPR)” in this  LibGuide  created by a librarian at the University of Montana may provide you with some direction on searching for and acquiring a PPR license for a film you want to show in a non-classroom, non-instructional setting.

There are a number of companies in the U.S. that offer PPR licenses for films. These include Swank Motion Pictures, Motion Picture Licensing Corporation, and others. The University of Montana LibGuide provides contact information for these companies.

Further Reading

Butler, Rebecca P.  Copyright for Academic Librarians and Professionals.  Chicago: ALA Editions, 2014.

Copyright Law of the United States and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the  United States Code .

Crews, Kenneth D.  Copyright Law for Librarians and Educators: Creative Strategies & Practical Solutions .  3rd ed. Chicago: American Library Association, 2012.

Smith, Kevin L.  Owning and Using Scholarship: An IP Handbook for Teachers and Researchers.  Chicago: Association of College & Research Libraries, 2014.

U.S. Copyright Office.  Copyright Basics  (Circular 1). Washington, DC: Library of Congress.

U.S. Copyright Office.  Fair Use . Washington, DC: Library of Congress.

• << Previous: Start Here
• Next: What is Copyright? >>
• Last Updated: Jun 27, 2023 3:09 PM
• URL: https://libguides.lincolnu.edu/c.php?g=992738

LINCOLN UNIVERSITY

OF MISSOURI

PROUD PAST, PROGRESSIVE FUTURE

Connect with us:

• Receive Our Newsletter

Search form

Fair use review for films and videos faq.

Are you a filmmaker? Are you reusing copyrighted works in your film such as clips of news stories, movies, TV shows, music or art? Are you wondering if it’s ok to reuse those copyrighted works? Well you’ve come to the right place! New Media Rights helps many filmmakers every year with fair use and properly reusing content in films and videos.

As you're thinking about fair use for your film, we recommend that all filmmakers read this  excellent best practice guide for using fair use in documentary films. Once you've read through this FAQ, you can request legal services for your film or video using our  our contact form . If we can take your film on, we'll  set up a phone call to discuss fair use with you, especially if you are in the early stages of editing your film and have a few preliminary questions. 

If you are in the later stages of editing(usually between the rough cut and final cut stages) many documentary filmmakers often need more in depth help reviewing their entire film, or specific portions of the film for fair use. Typically these reviews are aimed at preparing a letter for E&O insurance regarding fair use. Here are a few FAQ’s about how we review films at NMR.  

What is NMR's process for reviewing films and videos? NMR works with many filmmakers ever year on fair use reviews. Every project is a little different but most projects involve the following steps

• Fill out a contact form .
• We’ll get back to you and let you know if we have the capacity to review the film.
• Fill out an "E&O Spreadsheet" for the rough cut of the film: So we know what to review in your film we'll ask you to fill out the an "E&O Spreadsheet" for all reused footage, photos, music and any other copyrighted works you reused in the film. The spreadsheet asks for critical information like timestamps of where the clip is reused in your video, the name of the clip, if you have permission etc.
• Things that you have permission for or have very strong fair use arguments.
• Things that aren't fair use at the moment but could be fair use if changed. We'll also provide helpful suggestions on how the clip could be modified to make it a strong fair use argument.
• Things that are not fair use. Some reuses just aren't fair use, even with changes. We'll identify these clips for you and suggest taking them out or getting a license to those works.
• You go back to the rough cut and makes changes based on our suggestions.
• We review the final cut of the film.
• Provided our advice was taken into account, we will write a letter for your E&O insurance that explains why clips that we have deemed to be fair use are fair use if you need one.

How much does this cost? Review of a feature length film is a time-instensive process.  Some film projects that have a particular public interest benefit and significant financial need will qualify for pro bono services and we will do the review for free.  

That said, even if you don't qualify for free services, if you are working on a tight budget you may qualify for reduced fee services.  Under our reduced fee model, we charge $545 to review an entire feature film (up to 50 clips). For shorter films or portions of films it's $225 for every 5 fair use clips to be reviewed.

Since we're experts in the area of copyright and fair use we also can work with larger budget films. If you’re working on a more significant budget but would like to work with NMR, please fill out a contact form and we can further discuss pricing.

But do I need E&O insurance? Probably. If you intend to distribute the film through things like public television, at film festivals or through most major distribution companies you will be required to have E&O insurance.

Where should I go to get E&O insurance? At this time we don't have a list of providers but we're working on one.

How much lead time would you need? Film projects are huge undertakings for our small organization. In most cases a month lead time is sufficient. Please note that we need more lead time to take on fair use review projects during the following times where our capacity is limited.  

• Late April/Early May
• Thanksgiving- The second Week of January
• Late August/ Early September.

You may still contact us during these periods about starting a project but we will not be able to start working on the project until the periods below are over.

How long will the review take? Again it depends. A short targeted review of a few clips may only take a few weeks from the date we get the footage, or even a few days if there’s only one question about one particular piece of content you reuse in your film.

However the initial review of a feature documentary with hundreds of pieces of reused footage may take up to two months. Secondary review, where our recommendations were largely followed, writing an E&O letter may take up to a month.

Why should I come to NMR for help with fair use? New Media Rights has a long history of helping filmmakers and video creators avoid legal trouble by conducting fair use reviews. We've helped everyone from documentary filmmakers Michael Singh on his film Valentino's Ghost to cultural critics like Anita Sarkeesian and Jonathan McIntosh. We're respected in the legal community as experts on copyright law and especially fair use.  We want to help you understand how fair use and copyright law can actually empower your creative work and keep you doing what you do best, creating awesome films.

In addition, since we're a non-profit whose mission includes educating the public on copyright related matters we try to make sure that you as a filmmaker walk away with a better understanding of fair use. In other words, we won't just tell you that something isn't fair use; we'll tell you why it isn't. This increases your understanding of the law, which you can bring into the field on future projects to make the creative process easier in the future.

If you’d like assistance with fair use questions related to your film you can contact us via our contact form here .

Submitted by New Media Rights last modified Fri, 01/24/2020 - 12:28pm

Learn about our legal services for: App Developers , Artists & Graphic Designers , Bloggers & Journalists, Clothing Designers,   Entrepreneurs, E-commerce Business People & Startups, Filmmakers & YouTube creators , Public Broadcasting producers, Game Developer s, Internet users & Smartphone users , Maker s, Musicians,   Non-Profits, Photographers, Scholars, Researchers ,   and  Writers and Publishers.

What's the best way to avoid legal problems for your business or creative work?  Read our book ! 

Paperback |  Ebook  |  Audiobook

The Fair Use App

Ever wonder when you can reuse music, photo, or film clips from other sources? Find out with our interactive Fair Use App .

Check out our videos!

150+ videos to help you create. You can find our video guides here .

Featured Content

Legal Services we provide

Law school IP and entrepreneurship clinics list

Arts & IP Volunteer Lawyer Organizations

Frequently Asked Questions about Copyright Law

Video Games and the law guide: Copyright, Trademark and Intellectual Property

How to find free music, images, and video you can use or remix in your own creative works 

Stop unwanted texts and calls

Guide to Secret Audio & Video Recordings

Events & Competitions

• New Media Rights Hosts Discussion Panel at the 21st Annual MLRC Media & Entertainment Conference
• Legal Considerations for Startups at the REC Innovation Lab
• Event: Algorithmic Justice: The New Frontier

You’ll learn how to form your business, protect your intellectual property, and avoid problems when launching your project. Taking a few simple steps upfront to protect your business or project can save time and money down the road. Don't Panic has also been used in undergraduate & graduate classes nationwide to teach business and legal concepts to non-lawyers. Professors can request a FREE evaluation copy

CHOOSE YOUR FORMAT

Paperback  |  Ebook  |  Audiobook

• Video Marketing
• Live Streaming
• Video Monetization
• Video Management
• Case Studies
• Creator Stories
• Staff Picks
• Pre-production
• Shooting & Gear
• Lighting & Sound
• Creation & Editing
• Post-production
• Vimeo Newsroom
• Investor Relations
• Product News
• Video Tools
• Vimeo Engineering Blog

Video copyright and licensing guide

Copyright and video licensing can seem daunting, but it doesn't have to be. This helpful guide will teach you how to copyright your videos and protect yourself with licensing.

Being a professional video creator involves a whole lot of work. Not only do you have to spend tons of time editing, but also your day doesn’t end in the edit bay. 

There’s a whole other legal side that you need to know about as you create. It’s a little thing called copyright law.   

Copyright is nuanced, so keeping a finger pulse keeps you armed with knowledge — because if you’re blithely creating without an understanding of copyright, the work you create could get you sued.

The views reflected in the article are solely that of the author’s and do not represent Vimeo’s views. While this is valuable information and you should take the time to learn about things like copyright, this article ISN’T legal advice. Legal advice comes only from a lawyer you’ve hired to advise you on your particular situation. So, if you have questions or want to put these concepts into practice, talk to an attorney.

Dealing with copyright might seem overwhelming and scary—but it doesn’t have to be! In this article, you’ll get the 101 of copyright…Basically, the bare minimum you need to confidently run your video production business.

In this guide

Know your copyright…rights .

If you’re a video producer, you’re in the copyright business. Full stop. Before getting into the nitty-gritty, let’s review the basics. Simply put, here’s what copyright does:

Copyrights protect creative work, like books, movies, videos, music, sculpture, choreography, poems, and photographs. 

Copyright law prevents people from stealing and using your creative work as their own. It’s not the same thing as a trademark (that protects your brand), and it’s not the same as a patent (that protects novel inventions). Copyright also doesn’t protect ideas since copyright only protects works that are fixed in tangible form. Ideas don’t become tangible until they are turned into a creative work like a book, film, or anything else that copyright protects.

Now, let’s go deeper.

How to copyright your videos 

Even though your videos have a copyright when you create them, it’s not quite enough protection.

To truly guard your videos under today’s copyright law, you must register a copyright . Without registration, you cannot sue someone for infringing your copyright. Also, copyright registration provides additional benefits, like attorney fees and enhanced damages in an infringement lawsuit.

You can register a copyright online by going to the United States Copyright Office website and filling out the proper forms. These forms can be a little convoluted, so it’s a bright idea—and a major time and energy saver—to seek help from an attorney who can walk you through the steps. 

Note that there are scenarios where the copyright can get a little more complicated. For instance, if you collaborate with other creators to make a video, you will likely have a shared copyright. 

Similarly, if you create a video while an employee, your employer might own the video. It’s important to know that situations like this exist and will affect how you can register your copyright.

Why video pros should know the basics of copyright and licensing

Being a busy video professional means you don’t have time to worry about getting sued for using stock imagery for B-roll. Having an introductory knowledge of copyright helps you avoid legal entanglements, dodge penalties, and skip paying big fees. 

Protect yourself with licensing 

There are many ways to get the rights to use someone else’s work. 

First, start by assuming that you need permission from whoever created the thing you want to use. So even if it’s something little or you’re not using much of it, you should assume that you need permission. In copyright circles, getting that permission is called licensing. 

Licensing means that the creator of a video gives you the all clear to use the footage, image, etc.

If the original creator accuses you of infringement, you point to a valid license as a complete defense against copyright infringement. Without a license, you’re gambling with some big legal problems.

For example, you might have to pay large legal fees and damages when using a video without proper license.

Avoid copyright infringement

There are two words every video professional should dread: copyright infringement.

Luckily, the easiest way to avoid infringement is to get a license for anything you want to use in your videos. 

Using a part of someone else’s video? Get a license. Using someone else’s music? You guessed it…get a license.

Copyright infringement can change your life…and not in a good way. Penalties for infringing someone’s copyright range from a few thousand dollars ($$$$) to hundreds of thousands ($$$$$$). Yikes. 

Not to mention dealing with aggressive attorneys and the time and energy needed to defend yourself. And excuses like “I didn’t know,” “It was an accident,” or “I only used a little!” typically won’t work. 

Now, there might be situations where you don’t need one. Still, you should consult an attorney to understand how these situations work. For example, if you want to use Fair Use to incorporate footage in your video, then you should have legal advice reassuring you it’s appropriate to use.

Another thing to note is that even beyond the financial and legal penalties for infringement, many platforms have policies that kick off repeat infringers (for instance, YouTube’s three strike policy). As a video pro in today’s crowded market, you need as much digital real estate as you can get. Getting blacklisted from YouTube? Not a flex.

Well, what is Fair Use, exactly? 

Fair use is not what many people think it is — and that can cause big problems. 

Fair use allows people to use other peoples’ creative work without permission if they use that work for criticism and commentary on the original work or to transform it into something else. – #blockquote-vimeo-block_e6a17638a44953b0ea863e7ff09b6a9e .blockquote-body-content { /* body */ } #blockquote-vimeo-block_e6a17638a44953b0ea863e7ff09b6a9e { position: relative; } #blockquote-vimeo-block_e6a17638a44953b0ea863e7ff09b6a9e .blockquote-heading, #blockquote-vimeo-block_e6a17638a44953b0ea863e7ff09b6a9e .blockquote-body-content, #blockquote-vimeo-block_e6a17638a44953b0ea863e7ff09b6a9e .blockquote-cta { position: relative; z-index: 5; }

There’s a lot of misinformation out there about fair use. For instance, “If I use less than X amount of something, it’s fair use” is a classic, as is “We’re a non-profit, so it’s fair use.”  

Neither of these misconceptions are true. Fair Use comes into play when a video or creative product is used for: 

• Educational purposes
• Transformative use (this basically means the work is transformed in a new and unexpected way that doesn’t violate the original copyright)

This is just scratching the surface on the topic. If you want to know more about fair use, the US Copyright Office provides an excellent overview. It’s recommended that people consult a legal opinion when considering fair use, as the doctrine can be rather slippery and a mistake can lead to huge consequences.

Then what does non-copyright video mean? 

Certain types of videos have different copyright rules. Here are a few of them.

• Creative Commons videos have specific licenses you must abide by. Creative Commons doesn’t mean it’s a free-for-all. Pay close attention to the rules of each Creative Commons license to ensure you understand what you can and cannot do with this type of resource.
• Stock video makes it easy to license video from a variety of places. Different license structures let you use as much video as you need.
• Public domain videos mean a video is so old that its copyright has expired, making it free to use.

How can you tell if a video is copyrighted?

By default, all video is subject to copyright law. Assume you need permission and seek permission. An exception would be public-domain videos ; these are so old that anyone can use them.

If you’re curious whether a video is in the public domain, you can Google public domain calculators online, which are often databases put together by different universities. However, don’t rely solely on these tools. Even though they offer some idea about whether or not something is in the public domain, it’s not a perfect system. 

Frequently asked questions about video copyright

Can video be copyrighted .

Yep! Since copyright protects creative works and videos are a type of creative work, copyright protects videos. Like books, music, films, and other creative works, videos are protected by copyright law. That means that nobody can use a creator’s videos without permission from the creator.

How long is video copyrighted for?

Video copyrights last for quite a while. Currently, video copyrights last for 70 years plus the life of the author and 100 years from publication for a corporation. (This isn’t set in stone, and is subject to change at any time, which is yet another reason to keep yourself apprised of the latest in copyright law!)

How do I copyright my own videos? 

Good news! When you create something, it’s automatically copyrighted. But that’s not the end of the story. You also need to partner up with a lawyer and register your work. 

Key takeaways

Knowing more about how video copyrights work can transform how you do business, whether that’s: 

• Changing how you source B-roll to make sure it has the appropriate licenses.
• Lawyering up to protect your own videos in the event of an infringement 
• Learning how to get rights to use someone’s creative right the first time, with fewer headaches 
• Knowing how much your own footage is worth, in case you ever want to make a little side money licensing it 
• Not going it alone, which is key for the scrappy video pro just getting started. You can’t know what you don’t know! 

Since copyright law is ever-changing, the work of learning about copyright law is never complete. Even an introductory-level understanding of copyright as a video professional will help your video production business thrive in the long run. 

Remember: this intro to copyright law isn’t legal advice. Don’t use this information without guidance from expert legal counsel who are qualified to help creators with the nuances of copyright law.**

Want to join a community of fellow video professionals? Become a Vimeo Expert.

Share your videos with the world.*.

*Or just your team

Jon Tobin is an attorney focused on helping creative professionals and businesses use the law to succeed. The views reflected are solely that of the author's and do not represent Vimeo's views.

Up next in Video Production

A production pro’s playbook for designing and recording an instructional course.

Here’s a look into our resident video expert’s strategy for creating an instructional video course.  

How to make a video commercial for your business or brand

Want to make a commercial but unsure where to start? We’ve got a step-by-step guide to help you create a killer video commercial for your business or brand.

How to compress video online and reduce video file size

Learn how to compress video without losing quality on Mac, Windows, iPhone, and Android and reduce the video size for MP4, FLV, MOV, WMV, and other video formats.

Your inbox needs more Vimeo.

• Share this article
• General Business

The Ultimate Guide to Fair Use and Copyrights for Filmmakers

• Posted by Ron Dawson
• August 30, 2017
• Updated March 3, 2021

Disclaimer: What you’re about to read is a compendium on fair use and copyrights pertaining to film and video production. I provide plenty of links and references to support the information. But it should not replace consulting an attorney with regard to your particular situation.

What are copyrights and trademarks?

Simply put, a copyright  protects literary and artistic assets such as books, movies, videos, plays songs, photographs, etc. It should not be confused with a trademark  which is a form of protection geared towards words and symbols. Trademarks are predominantly for the protection of a company’s intellectual property surrounding its brands and logos .

Unless explicitly expressed, whoever creates an image (photo or video), owns the copyright to that image. As long as that image does not infringe on another pre-existing copyright. That is why it is so important for production companies to have contracts in place  with both clients and  subcontractors with regards to the videos or photographs they create.

What is Fair Use?

The laws and regulations around fair use and copyrights are among the most confusing aspects of filmmaking. When can you use a song, photo, or movie clip, etc., and be within the bounds of the law? And what about all those thousands of videos uploaded to YouTube and Vimeo every week? How are they able to get away with what appear to be copyrights violations?

Section 107

According to the U.S. Copyright Office , Fair Use is  “a legal doctrine that promotes freedom of expression by permitting the unlicensed use of copyright-protected works in certain circumstances . Section 107 of the Copyright Act provides the statutory framework for determining whether something is a fair use and identifies certain types of uses—such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research —as examples of activities that may qualify as fair use.  Section 107 calls for consideration of the following four factors in evaluating a question of fair use :

• Purpose and character of the use.  Including whether the use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
• Nature of the copyrighted work  (using parts of something more creative in nature, like a movie or book, has a weaker “fair use” argument than news footage or a technical article).
• Amount and substantiality of the portion used  in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole (i.e. do you really  need 3 whole minutes of “Avengers: Age of Ultron” in that video essay about superhero movies? Or will 3 seconds do?)
• Effect of the use upon the potential market for  or value of the copyrighted work (will the use hurt the original copyright holder’s ability to make money from the work that was copied?).

The thing that makes fair use so difficult is that it’s not a clear-cut law. It’s relatively open to interpretation. Unless you’re actually sued or challenged, you may never know 100% whether your use adheres to the law or not. In court, it’s the ruling judge’s discretion based on his or her own interpretation of the law.

Transformative Work

These four factors boil down into two important questions:

First, are you repurposing the material for use in a way other than its original purpose? That is what it means for a  work to be transformative . This is a common term you will hear in discussions of fair use. A classic example would be the use of a movie clip within an educational context. A clip from Saving Private Ryan’s opening scene in a video essay on how Spielberg uses cinema verité is transformative. You’re taking the original media (a piece of entertainment) and using it for education.

Is it fair?

However, if you took those same clips and dropped them into your  WWII short film for the express purpose of being a battle scene, well, in the words of Andrew Garfield to Jesse Eisenberg’s in  The Social Network , “Lawyer up!”

The second question to ask is, “If your use is  transformative, are you using the appropriate amount for that transformative purpose?” Usually, this amount is a small percentage of the whole. In the above example of using clips from Saving Private Ryan , you could probably justify as much as 30 seconds to adequately show use of cinema verité. However, if you uploaded the entire movie to your “education channel,” and you only had a few random voice-over commentaries about color grading or cinematography, that would be a harder fair use argument to support.

The fab four

F our uses of copyrighted material are particularly addressed and often protected by fair use: commentary, criticism, education, and news.  So satires, parodies, video essays, documentaries, etc., will usually be protected by fair use. However, your interpretation of “education” my not be the same as a judge’s. Lots of videos are uploaded to YouTube with a disclaimer like “This video is uploaded for educational purposes.”

But it’s just the full video with no transformative aspect. (Sorry buddy, that doesn’t cut it.)

Remember, fair use is the kind of law wherein a transgression isn’t definitively determined until after  the fact (i.e. you get sued). It’s not like running a red light or shooting a person in cold blood. These are acts that you know are illegal beforehand . So invoking “fair use,” leaves you open to litigation if there are no expressed licenses in place. That’s just a cold hard truth.

With that said, you don’t have to be gun-shy about it. There are resources and past precedents in place wherein you can feel confident in your application of fair use. We’ll get to those later.

No discussion of copyrights and fair use in filmmaking would be complete without addressing to some extent the Digital Millennium Copyright Act  (DMCA). This was a law signed by President Bill Clinton on October 12, 1998 that implements two treaties by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). The law is detailed and contains five titles. In short, and paraphrasing Wikipedia speak, “It criminalizes production and dissemination of technology, devices, or services intended to circumvent digital rights management (DRM).”

These are the technologies used to access copyrighted digital media such as computer programs, movies, etc.  A key aspect is this. DMCA is the limitation of liability for internet companies with regards to copyrighted works distributed on the internet. In other words, sites like YouTube and Vimeo aren’t liable for violations by people who use their services. As long as they respond immediately to copyright holders’ requests for action against violators. We’ll address this later as well.

Documentary Filmmakers’ Statement of Best Practices

I’ve studied and written about the topic of fair use a number of times in the past. A year ago I had the opportunity to interview Patricia (“Pat”) Aufderheide, one of the co-founders for the Center for Media and Social Impact . This is a non-profit organization, based in Washington D.C. It fights for universal copyright and fair use standards for films, videos, photographs, and even podcasts and radio.

My interview was part 2 of a 2-part podcast series on Fair Use in Filmmaking. (You can hear my full interview with her here ). CMSI has worked with legal scholars and media professionals to create a series of PDFs. These aim to standardize fair usage and provide a centralized resource for media makers. One of the documents is The Documentary Filmmakers’ Statement of Best Practices in Fair Use . Pat specifically worked with one of the world’s most renowned experts on fair use, Peter Jaszi , to put this document together.

Driving force

The primary impetus for Pat and Peter creating this document (and leading the research to create it) was their discovery of the number of documentary filmmakers who were avoiding the usage of material they believed would put them at risk. Some recurring refrains from documentary filmmakers included: don’t cover any topics related to popular music; don’t cover any politics that would require you to use news footage; don’t cover anything related to popular culture; etc.

All of these topics would require huge clearance budgets, some even greater than the budgets of the entire films themselves. As Pat puts it, “Filmmakers aren’t waiting for people to censor them. They’re just going ahead and doing it to themselves.”

Based on these findings, Pat and Peter got funding from the Rockefeller and MacArthur Foundations. This was used to fund the extended research and creation of the statement of best practices.

The beauty of the statement of best practices is that it was created in conjunction with working feature film documentary filmmakers  and the world’s leading legal scholars , to define, in simple words, what kinds of uses of copyright works fall under fair use. I used and referenced it in the making of my short film documentary “Mixed in America: Little Mixed Sunshine.”

I even had Pat watch the short to get her take on it. The prologue, in particular, contains a number of clips from music videos, old movies, and contemporary movies. Alongside the credits for the clips used, I also reference the Fair Use statement. So technically, could Disney or HBO come after me? Yes. But I followed the guidelines and went the extra mile to credit the clips used. So, I’m not losing any sleep over the “Mouse House” giving me a call.

The Big Five Filmmaking Scenarios

Now I want to address the top five areas where filmmakers run into trouble when using other people’s copyrights. This is based on my discussion with Pat and additional research. I’ll be using a combination of case studies where copyright violators went afoul of the respective copyright holders. And cases where the fair use appears to be categorically intact.

We’re also planning to produce some more articles on the business side of filmmaking.

[one_line_cta]

Trademarks and logos

You know how some reality TV shows blur out the logos on clothes? I used to think that was because the reality show didn’t want to give free advertising to the brand. But that is not the case. It turns out that it’s because of copyrights.

The first part of my aforementioned podcast 2-part interview was with New York documentary filmmaker Salima Koroma. I was interviewing her for something completely different, and I asked her how her morning was going. (You know, regular pre-interview chit chat.) She said it was hectic because she was meeting with her lawyers to go over all the clearances she had to go back and get for her documentary “Bad Rap.” Clearances she had no idea were needed. This pre-interview “small talk” led into a 15+ minute conversation that became its own separate episode .

For example, there’s a shot of Times Square in her film. In the background are all of these logos, musical posters, billboards, etc. According to Salima’s attorneys, they ALL needed clearances.

This seemed crazy to me. If anything seemed to fit under fair use, a 2-second shot of “The Lion King” billboard in the background of  a documentary seemed it.  Not only was it brief, but it was also incidental. These types of occurrence helped to inspire the work behind the CMSI-created document of best practices. Salima’s attorney’s response was that it’s better to be safe than sorry and get the clearances. Even if something technically fits under “fair use.”

In 2011 I participated in The 48 Hour Film Project. To this day it remains the most challenging and one of the most rewarding filmmaking experiences of my life. One of the rules of the festival was making sure you had clearances for any copyrighted material in your film. Including paintings and photographs.

“But Ron, didn’t you allude to the fact that incidental appearances of copyrights or trademarks might be okay?” That is true. But 1) these weren’t documentaries we’re making, they were narrative pieces of fiction. And 2) the 48HFP distributes the winning films online and internationally. So they’re covering themselves. And in case you’re wondering, no, my film didn’t win. We missed the deadline by 30 minutes because needed to re-export the project.

Stock photos and footage

But it’s just not the use of photographs or paintings as incidental appearances you need to be mindful of. If you’re using them in  the video (i.e. you’re dropping the image on your NLE timeline), you need to make sure you have clearances. There are many resources for legally licensing stock photos and footage (e.g. Pond5 , Getty Images , Video Blocks , and Shutterstock , to name a few).

There are also plenty of resources to obtain free  stock imagery. Sites like Unsplash  and StockSnap  have utilized Creative Commons Zero licenses. This is the most permissive of the creative commons licenses (see below for the full description of Creative Commons). It’s essentially just one “notch” below the public domain. A CC0 license allows you to use the copyrighted work any way you want. Without the need to even credit the copyright holder . I’ve frequently used Pixabay  to find free stock video footage. (Keep in mind, you get what you pay for.)

Movie and television clips

As I mentioned above, I used clips from various movies and TV shows for my short film documentary. Perhaps the most common area where you might see this example of fair use is in video essays . Essayists like Tony Zhou (“ Every Frame a Painting ”) and Evan Puschak (“ Nerdwriter ”) garner millions of views from their respective video essays. And they all include movie clips, photographs, television clips, and in some cases, even music .

Yet, YouTube has not invoked DMCA rules to take their videos down. And, on top of that, these guys are making thousands of dollars per video (as of this writing, Tony’s Patreon campaign for “Every Frame a Painting” yields over $7,700 per video).

One of the tests for fair use adherence is whether the copyrighted material is used for commercial gain. It’s clear here that these guys have a commercial benefit from their use. Evan not only makes a few thousand dollars per video from his Patreon, but he also gets corporate sponsorship from companies like Squarespace.

But video essays are the quintessential example of fair use in terms of both education and critical commentary. That is the essence of a video essay. Based on the transformative use, the amount of the copyrighted material used, and the fact that this use is not hurting the commercial viability of the copyright holders, they’re protected.

Now, I cannot say for 100% certain those guys don’t actually have licenses with all parties whose copyrighted works are being used. But, I’m going to go out on a limb and say that a guy from Philly making videos in his living room and earning $3,000 per video has not  paid licensing fees to a dozen or so different conglomerates.

I have another perfect example of this usage where I do know for sure the filmmaker did not have license or permission.

Kirby Ferguson is the filmmaker behind “ Everything’s a Remix .”

https://vimeo.com/14912890

This short film series has garnered millions of views and Kirby has even spoken on the TED stage. Back in 2010 I interviewed him for one of my older podcasts, and I later contacted him about his use of Tarantino movie clips, as well as music usage (where he used parts of famous songs to illustrate, coincidentally, how musicians sample songs). Kirby told me he did not get permission from the studios or labels to use those clips.

You know what he did  do? He followed the guidelines of the CMSI’s The Documentary Filmmakers’ Statement of Best Practices in Fair Use . In fact, he was the first person to ever refer me to the work of Pat and the CMSI.

Intellectual Property

Intellectual Property (or “IP”) is a physically intangible item of value based on ideas, computer code, trademarks, copyrighted stories and characters, etc. For many companies, their IP is their primary product. So, it stands to reason, they go out of their way to protect that IP.

But filmmakers are nerds. (You’re reading an article by a huge one. A nerd that is). And we love our sci-fi and fantasy. Hence the fan film .

Fan service

YouTube contains tens of thousands of fan films. Media created by fans of a piece of IP wherein they use that IP to make their own films. (Some have jokingly argued that this season of “Game of Thrones” is a glorified “fan film” vs. an adaptation  because George R.R. Martin hasn’t finished the final two books in his famous Song of Ice and Fire  series upon which the HBO series is based. But, again, don’t get me started.)

Based on my understanding of fair use and copyright law, just about every single instance of a fan film is a copyright violation . They are not necessarily making money from these films; but for the most part, the films are not making any kind of commentary or critique on the IP. They are not transformative in purpose either (i.e. education). They are entertainment for entertainment’s sake, just like the original IP.

Now, some IP holders encourage fan films and allow a vibrant fan film community to flourish. Fan films keep the culture alive and fans excited about the traditional IP. Lucasfilm is a perfect example of that in how they’ve responded to and embraced the “Star Wars” fan film community. (One of the most celebrated “Star Wars” fan films recently was last year’s “Darth Maul – Apprentice” with over 14 million views as of this writing.)

However, some IP holders of sci-fi space stories are not as forgiving.

The Battle of Axanar

Earlier this year, after a legal battle that lasted nearly a year, Paramount Pictures and CBS (the owners of “Star Trek”) won a judgment against Axanar Productions . Axanar had raised over $1 million in crowdfunding to produce a feature-length version of it’s popular short film “ Prelude to Axanar .” Axanar claimed fair use. A U.S.  district court judge said no .

Axanar and CBS/Paramount eventually reached a settlement whereby Axanar agreed to substantially change the length and content of their film (which naturally put them in a bit of a bind as they raised over a million dollars to make a feature).

What made this case particularly stand out was the fact that there have been “Star Trek” fan films literally for decades. Dating back as early as the 80s. Even Axanar’s original film “ Prelude to Axanar ” was made with no objection from CBS/Paramount and as of this writing has over 3 million views.

Don’t get them started

What set the studio off, in this case, was the scope of this new project. In addition to the feature-length and the $1 million+ budget, it stars well-known actors like Richard Hatch (Apollo from the original “Battlestar Galactica” and Tom Sarek in the SyFy Channel remake), Gary Graham, and Kate Vernon (also from SyFy’s “BSG”). In the eyes of CBS/Paramount, the feature-length fan film with those production values and cast, was too much. (especially with the new “Star Trek:  Discovery” series on the horizon).

The uproar from the fans was huge. Needless to say, they were pissed. The fan community is what kept “Star Trek” alive, going as far back as the 70s. So many saw this lawsuit as an affront on the fan loyalty and devotion to the franchise.

In an effort to support the fan film community and encourage the continued production of fam films, CBS/Paramount created a set of guidelines for future fan film productions . They put limits on things like the amount of money raised (must be less than $50,000), the running time (less than 15 minutes), and that films must star and be produced by amateurs. Many feel that those guidelines are too limiting. Only time will tell how it all plays out.

The Wrath of Kahn

Joseph Kahn is one of the most prolific music video filmmakers on the planet. He is the go-to guy for Taylor Swift. He’s insanely talented and has the attitude to match.

About 2.5 years ago, he and producer Adi Shankar released what some have described as the most epic Power Rangers film ever made. Based on the popular children’s series owned by Saban Entertainment, Kahn and Shankar’s version is dark, gritty, and absolutely NOT FOR KIDS. This is due to sex, graphic violence, drug use, language, dark themes—pretty much everything you can put in a film that makes it NSFW.

Recognizable talent

The production values are top-notch, from the CGI to the choreography; and even the acting is very good. It too stars well-known actors, namely Katee Sackhoff (yet another SyFy BSG alum), and “Dawson” from the WB hit “Dawson’s Creek”, James Van Der Beek.

A quick response

It did not take long for the short to go viral. Saban, who at the time was in pre-production for a new Power Rangers film (released last year), ordered to have the video removed from Vimeo. Kahn was pissed.

Remember the DMCA I mentioned above? This is where it came into action. Under the regulations of the DMCA, Vimeo was required by law to remove it at the behest of Saban. And they retorted as such to Kahn on Twitter.

They released a formal statement on their blog  where they said:

“The video creator feels that the video is covered by Fair Use based on the fact that it is non-commercial and satirical. We agree that an argument for fair use can be made, but the DMCA law does not give content hosts (like Vimeo) permission to disregard a takedown notice simply because of the presence of one or more fair use factors. This is a legal matter between the copyright holder and the video creator.”

Making a case

Kahn and Shankar were making the case that this video falls under Fair Use because they were not making any money from it, and they saw it as a satirical commentary on kids and violence. IMHO, I called B.S. on both, and I think Saban had a strong case against Kahn regarding this film.

• Kahn may not have been paid for the film, but you don’t have to be a Harvard business graduate to know that a film like this, and the publicity it was getting, will be worth more to him long-term than any director fee he would’ve earned. Filmmakers make these kinds of films all the time precisely for the marketing value they bring. All an attorney has to do is add up the press impressions Kahn had gotten on sites like Mashable, i09, HitFlix, and pretty much every major tech, sci-fi and movie website and calculate what ads on those sites would cost to come up with a figure.
• It’s obviously not an educational or “news” item.
• Lastly, I don’t think this kind of film really qualifies as a “commentary” on Power Rangers, or even a parody. It is a serious drama using the characters from the universe. In Kahn’s own words, he made it because he wanted to see a “good” Power Rangers film; not as a critique or commentary. Shankar released a video which gives his reasons why he made it . But the comedic nature of this video clearly shows there was no sincere desire to make a serious commentary about children and violence. At the end of the day, they wanted to make a kick-ass Power Rangers film. And without a doubt, they did.

Split decision

I loved that Power Rangers “fan film.” It was truly a marvel. But it really wasn’t fair use. As fan fiction, few reach the level of sophistication of the Kahn film. But if that fiction goes against the brand of the art in question, the copyright holder should have the right to have it removed, no matter how annoying or frustrating it might be even to the very fans for which it was made. IMHO, we as artists should actually be defending that right, not fighting against it (as many people did when Vimeo first took it down).

Ultimately Saban and Shankar/Kahn reached an agreement to reinstate the film if a disclaimer was added. I actually think that’s was pretty generous on the side of Saban. (And based on the dismal performance of their official Power Rangers movie, they may want to look into Kahn doing a feature-length version of his  fan movie. One that is more kid-friendly, of course).

The last of the big five areas of fair use scenarios for filmmakers I want to cover is music. Oh boy. This will be fun.

No area of confusion on this issue is perhaps more misunderstood than music . You need look no further than the hundreds (if not thousands) of professionally shot wedding videos edited with copyrighted music. Or the countless epic short films on YouTube with Hans Zimmer or Michael Giacchino “scores.” Many novice filmmakers assume that if a video is “not for commercial purposes” and/or if the music was purchased on iTunes, then that clears them or their conscience. Unfortunately, it doesn’t (well, it may  clear their conscience, but it definitely doesn’t clear them legally).

Within parameters

Music does indeed fall under fair use, and so your use of it must also fit within the parameters mentioned above. The problem is, most of the use of music in such film and video is a copyright violation. They use someone else’s music, unlicensed, in the manner for which it was originally purposed. There is no transformative use or commentary on the music itself.

In order to legally use music in your film or video, you need two types of licenses: a master (also known as mechanical) use license  (controlled by the record label) and a synchronization (or sync) license (controlled by the publisher). The mechanical use license gives you rights to the song from the originator; the sync license gives you the right to the specific version of the song and set it to a film or video. In many cases, the same company represents the publisher and the label. But if they don’t, you’d have to arrange for licenses with each entity separately.

Years ago, The Harry Fox Agency  was a centralized resource for getting all the appropriate licenses for use in films. They have since given up managing sync licenses and focus on mechanical use licenses.

Raising the stakes

Within the past 7 years, record companies have raised the stakes when it comes to illegally using their music . Two wedding videographers I know personally had rather high-profile public lawsuits by EMI when wedding videos they produced for celebrities went viral. As most wedding videos do, theirs had copyrighted music. Each settled out of court for amounts in the 5-figure range; that’s A LOT of money for a small wedding filmmaker to shell out. If you are a wedding and event videographer, don’t risk it. Fortunately, there are alternatives to using music illegally.

Music License Alternatives

Unless you have a huge budget, you will not be able to get popular music for that really cool short film or feature film. Thankfully, there is  a growing number of sites where you can legally license music from a wide variety genres . Some of these sites even have mainstream popular music.

The length and cost of the license will depend on factors such as the intended audience (wedding, corporate, personal), the size of the audience, and the intended distribution (theatrical, online, DVD/Blu-ray, broadcast). For theatrically-released features, you will typically need to arrange some sort of custom license (which undoubtedly will cost you an arm and a leg).

Royalty-free? Or rights-managed?

The most important thing to keep in mind is that some of these sites have royalty-free licenses, and others have what’s called “rights-managed” licenses.

• Royalty-free is essentially “buy once, use indefinitely.” You can use royalty-free songs in just about all manners of production, for as many productions, for as long as you like. A few of the most popular royalty free sites I’m familiar with include Pond5 , PremiumBeat , and AudioJungle . You’ll notice that the rates on these sites can be as little as $12 to $40.
• Rights Managed licenses are more restrictive. They are typically for one song and one production. Whereas royalty-free sites have one price per song, rights-managed sites will change the price based on the license. The same song my cost $60 for use in a wedding video, but $500 if used in a local cable TV commercial, or a corporate promo video for a company with 50 or more employees. The rights managed sites I come across more often are Marmoset Music , Song Freedom  (now FyrFly), MusicBed , and Triple Scoop Music .

As an avid podcaster who pretty much does it as a passion project, I don’t have the budget to license music for the episodes I produce. So I’ve turned to a resource that is not only great for music but applicable to all forms of copyrights: creative commons .

Creative Commons

Creative Commons is an organization dedicated to providing worldwide licensing for copyright holders who want the ability to freely and easily license their work to others. When you use a copyrighted work under Creative Commons, you agree to one of six types of licenses.

Creative Commons licenses

• Attribution  (CC BY):  This license lets others distribute, remix, tweak, and build upon the copyright holder’s work, even commercially, as long as they give credit for the original creation.
• Attribution-ShareAlike (CC BY-SA): This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon the copyright holder’s work, even for commercial purposes, as long as they give credit and license their new creations under the identical terms. All new works will carry the same license, so any derivatives will also allow commercial use. This is the license used by Wikipedia and is recommended for materials that would benefit from incorporating content from Wikipedia and similarly licensed projects.
• Attribution-NoDerivs  (CC BY-ND): This license allows for redistribution, commercial and non-commercial, as long as it is passed along unchanged and in whole, with credit to the copyright holder.
• Attribution-NonCommercial  (CC BY-NC): This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon the copyright holder’s work non-commercially, and although their new works must also acknowledge the copyright holder and be non-commercial, they don’t have to license their derivative works on the same terms.
• Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike  (CC BY-NC-SA): This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon the copyright holder’s work non-commercially, as long as they give credit and license their new creations under the identical terms.
• Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs  (CC BY-NC-ND): This license is the most restrictive, only allowing others to download the copyright holder’s works and share them with others as long as they give credit. They can’t change them in any way or use them commercially.

As I mentioned earlier, I use CC music in my podcasts, but I also used it in my documentary short.

Creative Commons does extremely important work. It allows content creators to share and use copyrighted material in a way that is fair and equitable to both the copyright holders and the users of those copyrights. You can learn more about them at CreativeCommons.org .

As a filmmaker (documentary or otherwise) who wants to use other people’s copyrights in your work, there are a number of things you can do to protect yourself:

• Use the Statement of Best Practices : When CMSI did a study two years ago of documentary films over the previous ten years that had implemented the guidelines of fair use outlined in this document, they found the overwhelming majority of them had no problems with broadcasters, insurers, or lawyers.
• Where budgets allow, go ahead and get the clearance . You may recall my recent interview  with the editors of HBO’s documentary series “The Defiant Ones”, about the careers of Dr. Dre and Jimmy Iovine. The music licensing budget for that 4-part series was the highest in HBO’s history.
• CC Yourself : when looking for music, photos, or even stock footage for your video needs, if you don’t have the budget, start with Creative Commons sites. You can even start your search directly from the CC Search Engine .

I’ve tried to give you an exhaustive list of resources and case studies related to fair use and copyright usage so that moving forward, you can make informed decisions. But I’m sure there are other resources I may have missed. What are some of your favorite sites for finding and using copyrighted material legally in productions? Please share.

[Header image Photo by  Claire Anderson  on  Unsplash ]

Ron is an award-winning video producer with over 25 years experience telling stories in the video medium. He's a coach, speaker, and author of “ReFocus: Cutting Edge Strategies to Evolve Your Video Business." Ron was also the host and producer of Radio Film School a podcast described as " This American Life for Filmmakers." You can follow him on Twitter @BladeRonner .

You might also like...

The ten commandments of working with editors.

• Posted by Zack Arnold
• October 29, 2018

Essential Organization Habits for The Successful Editor

• Posted by Clara Lehmann
• December 20, 2017

What 15 Years of Writing Videography Contracts Has Taught Me

• April 21, 2017

• Stream Live Video
• Live Streaming Platform
• Online Video Platform (OVP)
• Over-the-Top (OTT)
• Video on Demand (VOD)
• RTMP Streaming Platform
• HTTP Live Streaming platform

• Broadcast Live Online
• China Content Delivery
• HTML5 Video Player
• Worldwide Delivery Solutions
• Expo Video Gallery
• CDN Live Streaming

• Online Video Hosting
• Privacy & Security

• Video Analytics
• Video Monetization
• Video Marketing

• Live Events Streaming
• Broadcast Live Sports
• Live Fitness Classes
• Production and Publishing

• Video for Enterprises
• Video for Marketing Professionals
• Video for Sales

• Churches and Houses Of Worship
• Governments and Municipalities
• Education and e-Learning Institutions

• Creative Agencies
• Live Streaming for Musicians
• TV and Radio Stations

• Video API Documentation
• Player API Documentation

• Developer Tools
• Video Transcoding
• Pay-Per-View Streaming
• Secure Video Upload

• Case Studies
• Latest Features

• 24/7 Support
• Phone Support
• Professional Services

• Knowledge Base

How to Copyright a Video – The Definitive Guide [2024 Update]

As an organization professionally broadcasting unique video content, protecting your creative work is paramount. Many bad actors are willing to take an uploaded video and pass it as their own without explicit permission. Especially today when video content is so ubiquitous, with research indicating that video content will make up a huge 82% of all consumer internet traffic by 2025.

Everyday security measures such as password protection and encryption are crucial, many overlook copyright infringement. However, with video content becoming more important for businesses, the prevalence of copyright infringement will likely increase. You must understand fair use, copyright-protected material and copyright law in the context of copyrighted content.

In this article, we cover some of the most important aspects of your video copyrights. We’ll define copyrighting and divulge what you need to know about it to protect your video content. Furthermore, we’ll tell you how to copyright your videos with the U.S. Copyright Office. We’ll look at the costs involved in registering for video copyrights and wrap up with a guide on how to add copyright to YouTube Videos . By the end, you’ll have a greater understanding of how you can upload videos with peace of mind knowing they’re protected against copyright infringement.

Table of Contents

Table of Contents:

What is copyrighting, video copyrights: what you need to know, how to copyright a video.

How Much Does It Cost to Copyright a Video?

An Alternative Method to Copyright Video

Can you lose your video rights, how to copyright a youtube video.

When you create something, whether it be a video, book, product, or other intellectual property, you likely want the rights to your creation. By copyrighting your creation, you are establishing that you own it and nobody else has the right to reproduce or use it.

Some implied characteristics of copyrighting are assumed upon the materialization of your creation, but this varies by the medium. For example, a video is automatically  copyrighted  from the moment it is created, so these things automatically apply. This is an important component of video copyright laws.

These characteristics include exclusivity, designation, duration of protection, limitations on applicability, and international adherence.

Exclusivity 

Exclusivity in copyrighting means that the owner of the content (and copyright) has sole rights that cannot be claimed by any other person or organization without explicit permission. This is an important component of video copyright laws.

Designation

Copyrights can be traded, bought, and sold. That means that you can transfer ownership of your content to another designated person, or you can receive rights to another person’s content with their permission.

You can  transfer ownership  by putting the request in writing and having it verified by the abiding organization. To make the  transfer official , the original owner can file for recordation with the U.S. Copyright Office . If you want to follow video copyright laws, always work with the U.S. Copyright Office .

Please note that the original owner can also file to terminate the transfer in some circumstances.

It is also worth noting that the owner must assign ownership to another person. Somebody cannot just take someone else’s ownership without permission, except in very rare circumstances.

Copyrights vary in  access duration  from country to country. Under U.S. Copyright Law,  copyright protection  extends for your lifetime plus 70 years. Other countries have different copyright laws, but the United States has treaties with most of them requiring mutual recognition of each other’s copyrighted works. That means you have video copyright protection for the duration of your lifetime.

International Adherence 

Thanks to several treaties and laws that are respected at the international level, copyrights typically have reciprocity across borders.

Three of the most significant treaties and laws that are relevant to this include the  Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988 , the Uruguay Round Agreements Act of 1994 and the  GATT/Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) Agreement

These treaties help to make video copyrighting less confusing across international borders, which is especially important with online video content that can be easily shared around the world.

Applicability 

Some laws in place allow people to use copyrighted materials in some situations. These  “Fair Use” laws  apply to people who are using copyrighted material for criticism or commentary. It is important to understand how fair use applies to video copyrighted material you may produce.

For example, if someone is reviewing a movie, they can legally use clips or quotes from the movie. The same applies to written work and audio, as well. However, if the owner of the content believes that the person using their content is wrong for doing so, the copyright owner has the liberty to legally dispute the use. That is why it is also important to understand how to copyright claim a video, which can vary from platform to platform.

From the time that you have created your video and put it into a “tangible form,” the video is legally yours. This applies to a file on your hard drive or a file uploaded to the Internet. No matter where it is stored, a video is protected by copyright law from the moment of its creation. There isn’t a complicated process for how to put a copyright on a video; it exists as soon as you create it.

You have the option to register the work with the  Copyright Office , but this is not a legal requirement.

Although registering your video with the U.S. Copyright Office isn’t necessary or required to have it covered by copyright law, it is a good idea to take the extra step to protect it.

This is especially true if you’ve spent a lot of time and money creating a specific video. For example, a YouTuber probably doesn’t need to copyright a 5-minute vlog, but a filmmaker probably would want to copyright the documentary that they’ve spent years making. Working with the U.S. Copyright Office is the right step for time-intensive video content.

The fastest way to copyright a video is to register it on the  U.S. Copyright Office  website. Registering it with this official entity removes any ambiguity about the copyright video status. It provides prima facie evidence in any lawsuit you may bring for copyright infringement, and it makes collecting damages in such a case much easier. It is a clear way to establish your video rights.

Want to know how to copyright claim a video? Copyrighting a video in the United States is easy. Here are the simple 5 steps to make copyright claims on a video and retain video rights to your content with the  U.S. Copyright Office

• Go to the  Electronic Copyright Office website  and click on “Log in to eCO.”
• Sign up by choosing a username and password.
• Fill out an electronic form registering your video.
• Upload a copy of the video file and attach it to your completed form. You can also mail it afterward on a disc.
• Pay the fee (broken down in the next section)

The Copyright Office is powered by the government, so processing your registration may take a while. The Copyright Office says to allow up to eight months. The entire time your application is processing, your video is copyright protected.

Video creators also have the option to mail their videos to the Copyright Office in disc format.

However, if you find yourself in a legal conflict, immediate completion of the registration process by the Copyright Office isn’t necessary. Once you’ve filed your registration, you’ve exercised due diligence.

If by chance you need to take legal action in regards to the specific video, the court should recognize your effort to copyright the content even if the Copyright Office has not processed your registration.

We’d like to reiterate that registration with the Copyright Office is not necessary to copyright your video. Your content is automatically yours upon the creation of your video, but registration provides clear evidence to use if you need to take legal action against infringement.

There are a variety of fees involved with copyrighting a video. Here is a basic rundown of the fees that you can expect :

• Online Electronic Registration: $45-$65
• Paper Filing: $125
• Renewal claim: $100-$125
• Restored copyright claim: $100
• Preregistration of certain unpublished works: $200

With those figures in mind, let’s dive a little deeper into some of the most important fees to take into consideration.

These fees are the most up-to-date as of 2024 .

Registration Fees

The most important fee to consider when applying for video copyright is the registration fee. Within this category, there are a variety of fees to consider. Most applicants will only need to pay one of these fees.

For online electronic registration, the rate ranges from $45 to $65. Registration for single authors, same claimants, one work, and not for hires is $45. All other filings are $65. Paper filing of forms PA, SR, TX, VA and SE cost $125. All of these fees are for the initial registration.

There are also registration fees that are applicable when you’re copyrighting your work that has not yet been published.

• Registration of a claim in a group of unpublished works costs $85
• Registration of updates or revisions to a database that predominantly consists of non-photographic works costs $500.
• Registration of a renewal claim with form RE costs $125 without an addendum.
• If you are amending the claim, it costs an additional $100 fee.
• A restored copyright claim with a GATT form costs $100.

Miscellaneous Fees

There are a variety of other fees for different actions that you might need after you’ve registered for your video copyright. These include fees for retrieval and copies,  recordation of documents ,  Licenses Division services , and special services.

For more details on these and other copyright fees, check out the complete  copyright fees schedule  from the U.S. Copyright Office.

If you decide not to copyright your video through the U.S. Copyright Office,, we recommend taking some action to make sure your right to the content is recognized and protected. The most basic way to go about this is to include a  copyright notice  in the first minute or so of your video.

The standard form of the copyright notice is structured as follows:

Copyright (or ©) [year released] by [name of owner]. All rights reserved.

As an example, if a fictitious broadcaster named John Smith is releasing a video in 2015, the notice should read “© 2015 by John Smith. All rights reserved.”

This is the most minimalistic style most broadcasters would use. You can also add further language such as “No part of this video may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, without the written permission of the copyright holder.”

That additional verbiage reiterates the point and makes it clear that the broadcaster does not grant permission for transmission or reproduction from  unauthorized users is a great way to ensure copyright video protection.

Depending on the nature of your video content, using a watermark is also a good idea to make sure that it is not wrongfully used. Also, if somebody steals your watermarked content, it will be easily identifiable as yours.

Many free, consumer-grade  video hosting services  require that you forfeit some or all of your rights to your videos. The terms of an agreement on each platform spell out those details, so it is important to completely understand what you are getting yourself into.

Some  streaming platforms  take more rights to your video than others, especially platforms that don’t charge you any upfront fees to use their platform.

On the other hand,  professional-grade video hosts , like Dacast, are much less restrictive. In most cases, they claim no ownership over your  video content you retain the copyright video protection your video was granted as soon as it was created.

No matter which way you go, it’s wise to read the fine print on any agreement a platform wants you to accept.

YouTube automatically copyrights  your content as you upload it, so there is no extra action that you need to take on your part. However, YouTube copyright rules require you to grant them a non-exclusive right to do almost anything they want with your YouTube videos, which could affect your YouTube Channel. 

“Non-exclusive” means that you still own the video and can do whatever you want with it, too, but you must allow Google the same privilege. In exchange for making it easy to know how to add copyright to YouTube videos, YouTube also permits themselves to use your content as they see fit.

YouTube also is pretty strict about using copyrighted content in videos that are posted to their platform. That means if you use music or a video clip within your content that you don’t have rights to,  YouTube  will either remove the sound or take your video down. Or they may monetize your video for the copyright holder, or make you share in any monetization on the video with other copyright holders.

If you are worried about your content not being recognized as your own, we recommend adding the copyright notice that we mentioned above to give yourself that standard layer of protection.

As a broadcaster of video content streaming live video , you want to maintain as many rights and protect your content as much as possible. Fortunately, as we’ve discussed, your video content is automatically copyrighted material once produced and saved as a file.

With that said, there are additional steps you can take to ensure further protection. However, this is only necessary if there is a possibility of copyright infringement and needing to take legal action. This is where registering your video content with the U.S. Copyright Office comes in. And as we’ve outlined, the process is simple and inexpensive.

To summarize, know that as a video creator, you automatically own all rights to it. You are the copyright holder. No specific video format is needed. Also, to avoid signing over the rights to your content, we encourage you to exercise extreme caution when agreeing to any terms of use on a video hosting platform — especially free ones.

Speaking of video platforms, Dacast’s live-streaming platform is one of the best. Dacast has been optimizing video content for broadcasters of all shapes and sizes for many years. With Dacast, uploading and broadcasting video is fast, safe and easy. The best part is you can try it for free with our 14-day trial. No credit card is required.

Get Started For Free

For regular live streaming tips and exclusive offers, you can join our LinkedIn group .

Thanks for reading, and don’t forget to share your questions and feedback by contacting us here. We love to hear from our readers!

Emily is a strategic content writer and story teller. She specializes in helping businesses create blog content that connects with their audience.

• LOGIN SIGN UP

• Skip to primary navigation
• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar

Certification Answers

We help you to pass your exams

EN FR ES DE IT PT RU PL NL TR JA

Home » Youtube Content Ownership Assessment Exam Answers » How does copyright apply to a movie review video?

How does copyright apply to a movie review video?

December 22, 2018 By CertificationAnswers

• May be considered fair use (or fair dealing) to use a very short movie clip to support commentary about the plot or characters.
• Allows a review to add as many pieces of footage from the movie if it’s listed as a movie review.
• Video footage may be used as long as the sound is disabled.
• Prevents any footage from being shown without written consent from the actors who have dialogue.

Related content

Related posts:.

• Hootsuite Social Selling Certification Exam Answers
• Which of the following best describes why approaches…
• Jo Wants To Use Analytics Data And Visitor Surveys…
• Mo Has A Plumbing Business. He’s Noticed That Other…

Privacy Overview

Stack Exchange Network

Stack Exchange network consists of 183 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow , the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.

Q&A for work

Connect and share knowledge within a single location that is structured and easy to search.

Are trailers copyrighted or not?

Are trailers copyrighted? Is it allowable to freely use a movie trailer in one's own works or website?

Here is a screenshot of an example where they had given the name of the publisher and an amazon.com link to sell the movie. The application references Walt Disney Pictures and is linked to this Amazon page . Is this a fair usage?

• 5 I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because this question is specifically asking for legal advice, which is off topic. –  Catija Commented Sep 9, 2016 at 10:59
• 4 not too off topic. –  Rıfat Erdem Sahin Commented Sep 9, 2016 at 11:22
• I tried to improve the question a little, based on what I think you seem to be asking. –  Napoleon Wilson ♦ Commented Sep 9, 2016 at 13:02

2 Answers 2

Yes, essentially all produced art is copyrighted simply by being created.

Is it fair use? I am not a lawyer, but in the US " fair use " covers typically low fidelity reproduction for the purposes of parody, criticism, news or education.

However, on one hand publishers want trailers to be distributed as widely as possible because people being interested in the movie makes them money, especially if you direct traffic to a legal purchase method.

On the other hand, Disney is known for being very protective of its IP and may decide to send you a cease and desist, which you would be wise to comply with. If you make significant income from your use of their property you may also find yourself sued for royalties.

Bruce Calvert found the definitive answer:

The defence of 'fair use', where reporters or teachers use copyrighted material for socially valuable purposes, does not apply to movie trailers.

Take note in your risk calculations that is was in fact Disney that was the winning party in that case .

• if we are focused on "education" can we call it fair use. Even we are selling it for profit ? –  Rıfat Erdem Sahin Commented Sep 9, 2016 at 10:21
• 3 IANAL, but there's nothing that will stop Disney bringing a lawsuit if they want to, unless you have agreed a license with them. An education fair use example would probably be as part of a University Film Studies course. If you don't know, you need to ask a lawyer. –  OrangeDog Commented Sep 9, 2016 at 10:26
• I understand that they can always sue me even if i show their trailer with a sales link in Amazon.com. It is unlikely but it is possible. It is a risk i guess in business –  Rıfat Erdem Sahin Commented Sep 9, 2016 at 10:42
• 4 Making a profit off of it is going to likely increase your odds of getting sued and seriously hurt any fair-use defense. –  KutuluMike Commented Sep 9, 2016 at 11:56
• I highly disagree with that final quote. Everything qualifies for fair use, if it meets the four tests for it. It's just that specific usage, repackaging trailers completely just to advertise that's not fair use. –  cde Commented Sep 9, 2016 at 23:20

Yes, they are copyrighted. The precedent-setting case was filed by the Walt Disney company, so you should definitely get their permission first.

See Trailers are not ‘fair use’ of movie copyrights

On the other hand, I have heard that very old trailers, say earlier than the 1970s, were never issued with a copyright notice and are usually Public Domain. However, I cannot find a page on the Internet to confirm this.

• 4 A work is still copyrighted regardless of whether there is a notice. It's only in the Public Domain if a PD license was issued, or if the duration has expired . –  OrangeDog Commented Sep 9, 2016 at 17:12
• 1 @OrangeDog: was that the case prior to 1970? –  Steve Jessop Commented Sep 9, 2016 at 17:19
• @SteveJessop look up the relevant jurisdiction in the table at the link I just gave. –  OrangeDog Commented Sep 9, 2016 at 17:21
• Ooh, there's some text on there suggesting that in the US it's the ratification of the Berne convention in 1989 that ended the requirement to explicitly claim copyright in order to hold a US copyright. So presumably what Bruce is saying is that prior to the 1970s, movie studios commonly failed to do that and (he further claims) therefore do not hold a copyright on the trailers issued without doing so. –  Steve Jessop Commented Sep 9, 2016 at 17:26
• "The Berne Convention specifically forbids (in article 5) that a member country can require any formality for getting copyright protection. In 1989, the Berne Convention became effective in the U.S., and from that moment on also U.S. authors automatically obtained copyright on their works" –  Steve Jessop Commented Sep 9, 2016 at 17:27

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for browse other questions tagged legal copyright trailers ..

• Featured on Meta
• Upcoming sign-up experiments related to tags
• What does the community want to do with identification questions?

Hot Network Questions

• Visit USA via land border for French citizen
• Tubeless tape width?
• Font shape warnings in LuaLaTeX but not XeLaTeX
• Integration of the product of two exponential functions
• Is it consistent with ZFC that the real line is approachable by sets with no accumulation points?
• An alternative way to solve a classic problem of combinatorics
• What to fill in the document number while applying for Schengen visa "C"?
• What is the translation of misgendering in French?
• Do IDE data lines need pull-up resistors?
• Can a planet have a warm, tropical climate both at the poles and at the equator?
• Old book about a man who finds an abandoned house with a portal to another world
• How to Pick Out Strings of a Specified Length
• Less ridiculous way to prove that an Ascii character compares equal with itself in Coq
• How can a landlord receive rent in cash using western union
• Could a transparent frequency-altering material be possible?
• Did James Madison say or write that the 10 Commandments are critical to the US nation?
• Is it possible to complete a Phd on your own?
• Do countries at war always treat each other's diplomats as personae non gratae?
• How to Draw Gabriel's Horn
• Clip data in GeoPandas to keep everything not in polygons
• adding *any* directive above Include negates HostName inside that included file
• Why only Balmer series of hydrogen spectrum is visible?
• Reconstructing Euro results
• How does one determine if something is "Modern" or not?

Copyright Guidelines for Showing Movies and Other Audiovisual Works

(Adapted for W&L with permission of the author/creator, Steven McDonald, General Counsel for the Rhode Island School of Design)

When you buy, rent, or borrow a DVD or videotape of a movie (or any other audiovisual work) made by someone else, you normally obtain only the copy, and not the underlying copyright rights to the movie. You certainly are free to watch the movie yourself, but, beyond that, your rights are very limited by law. In particular, you do not have the right to show the movie to "the public." In most cases, doing that requires a separate "public performance" license from the copyright owner. To determine whether you need such a license, you must determine whether what you want to do would constitute a "public performance", and, if so, whether there are any exceptions that would allow you to proceed legally without a license.

First, is it a "public performance"?

The showing of a movie will be considered to be a "public performance" if either of the following is true:

• You will be showing the movie to people other than members of your family or a small group of your friends.
• You will be showing the movie in a place that is open to people other than members of your family or a small group of your friends (for example, a classroom or the Commons Theater), whether or not any such people attend.

(Generally speaking, then, showing a movie in your home or dorm room will not constitute a public performance, as long as you limit attendance to family and friends. Most other showings will constitute public performances.)

If so, is there an applicable exception to the license requirement?

Even if your proposed showing will constitute a "public performance", you still will not need to obtain a license if any of the following is true:

• You will be showing the movie in the course of "face-to-face teaching activities" (that is, not through Digication or other forms of electronic transmission) that will take place in a classroom or similar place devoted to instruction (that is, not in an auditorium or other public venue, unless it is being used for, and restricted to participants in, the teaching activities), and you have a legitimate copy of the movie (which, in general, does not include one that you have videotaped yourself from a broadcast).
• The film comes from one of W&L's approved distributors or filmmakers.  A list of approved distributors and filmmakers may be found at http://library.wlu.edu/services/#PPR .
• Your copy of the movie came with an express license authorizing the particular manner of showing. (For example, some educational movies, such as those purchased directly from California Newsreel at the "institutional" price, come with licenses to show the movies for certain noncommercial institutional purposes.)
• The movie you wish to show is in the "public domain." (Determining whether a particular movie is in the public domain can be difficult, and even movies that are quite old can still be protected by copyright. The Public Domain Movie Database publishes a list of movies it believes to be in the public domain, but it is neither complete nor authoritative.)

Note, however, that there is no general "educational," "nonprofit," or "free of charge" exception. Even a showing that is all three of those things will require a license if it constitutes a "public performance" and does not fall within one of the exceptions listed above. Thus, most showings outside of the class context will require licenses.

If you do need a "public performance" license, you can obtain one in one of the following ways:

• By renting the movie directly from a distributor that is authorized to grant such licenses, such as Swank Motion Pictures, Inc., rather than from a video store.
• By contacting the copyright holder (generally the studio) directly.

In most cases, you will be eligible for a "non-theatrical" public performance license, which is considerably cheaper than what a commercial cinema must pay. Still, the cost is likely to be at least several hundred dollars, especially for the most recent movies. That may seem unreasonable, but keep in mind that inability or unwillingness to pay is not a valid defense to a copyright infringement lawsuit. Student organizations showing films for entertainment are responsible for paying royalties.

If members of the W&L community have any questions about movie licenses or about copyright law generally, please contact the Office of General Counsel at x8940 or refer to Section IV of the University Policy for the Use of Copyrighted Works .

In reading these materials, please keep in mind that they do not constitute, and should not be considered a substitute for, specific legal advice. The resolution of legal issues frequently hinges on slight changes in the facts and circumstances, and your particular situation may well be different from those described in these materials. Members of the W&L community who have questions are encouraged to contact the Office of General Counsel at x8940. Note: The Office of General Counsel does not provide guidance to individuals or groups outside the University.  Such individuals or groups may wish to contact their local library for assistance.

• Digital Publishing
• Outsourcing

Broad Your Payment Horizons with Alternative Payment Methods

Roman Semiokhin: Marketing Your Business Through Digital Overlay LED

Coldplay: The Harmonious Journey of Lyrics, Growth, Performances, and Social Impact

4 Best Robotic Process Automation Software For Small Businesses

Why Portable Solar Generators Are a Good Solution for Farming Operations?

How does copyright apply to a movie review video?

• May be considered fair use (or fair dealing) to use a very short movie clip to support commentary about the plot or characters.
• Allows a review to add as many pieces of footage from the movie if it’s listed as a movie review.
• Video footage may be used as long as the sound is disabled.
• Prevents any footage from being shown without written consent from the actors who have dialogue.

Editor Picks

Easy ways to end copyright confusion, the online entrepreneur’s complete guide to ghostwriting – part i, what is a mood board and how to get one for your business, why do the sports industry make so much money, which ebook publishing platform is best, sell more books on amazon – understanding keywords, categories, and amazon’s algorithms, how to avoid work-from-home scams: a list of wake-up calls to identify fraudsters, three ways to improve the working environment at your company, top 10 self-publishing blogs: the 2012 winners, how to use facebook to reach your exact target audience [video], the art of social media for writers, 4 video editing tips for better social media content, 11 juicy opt-in offer ideas your readers will love, 16 types of videos you can create, 5 latest trends for your company blog, what are the different phases of managing a project to completion, microcontent – what is it and why should you care, digital marketing exams questions & answers.

• Google Analytics Individual Qualification Exam
• Google Analytics for Power Users Assessment Exam
• Google Tag Manager Fundamentals Assessment
• Google Web Designer Assessment
• Google Ads Video Certification Exam
• Google Digital Garage Final Exam
• Google My Business Basics Assessment
• Google Ads Search Certification Exam
• Google Ads Display Certification Assessment
• Getting Started With Google Analytics 360 Assessment
• Google Educator Level 1 Exam
• Google Ads – Measurement Certification Assessment
• Google Analytics For Beginners Assessment
• Google Digital Garage Quiz
• Hootsuite Social Marketing Certification Exam
• Hootsuite Platform Certification Exam
• HubSpot Inbound Certification Exam
• HubSpot Sales Software Certification Exam
• HubSpot Growth-Driven Design Certification Exam
• HubSpot Frictionless Sales Certification
• HubSpot Sales Enablement Certification Exam
• HubSpot Inbound Marketing Certification Exam
• HubSpot Content Marketing Certification Exam
• HubSpot CMS for Developers Certification Exam
• HubSpot Inbound Sales Certification Exam
• HubSpot Social Media Certification
• HubSpot Contextual Marketing Assessment
• HubSpot Growth Driven Design Agency Certification Exam
• HubSpot Email Marketing Certification Exam
• HubSpot Sales Management Training Strategies for Developing a Successful Modern Team Certification
• HubSpot Marketing Software Certification Exam
• Campaign Manager Certification Assessment
• Optimize bids and creatives Assessment
• DoubleClick Search Campaign Management Assessment
• Bid Manager Optimization Assessment
• Woorank Certification Exam
• Search Ads 360 Certification Exam
• Bid Manager Brand Controls Basics Assessment
• Shopping Ads Certification Assessment
• Dynamic Creatives Assessment
• Klipfolio Partner Certification Exam
• Scaled Partner Management Exam
• Yandex Direct Certification
• Campaign Manager Brand Controls Basics Assessment
• Optimize performance in DoubleClick Search Assessment
• Bing Accreditation Exam
• Creative Certification Exam
• Display & Video 360 Certification Exam
• Klipfolio Expert Certification Exam
• Introduction to Data Studio Assessment
• Display & Video 360 Basics Assessment
• Waze Ads Fundamentals Assessment
• Programmatic and Ad Exchange Assessment
• Search Ads 360 Basics Assessment
• Yandex Metrica Certification
• DoubleClick Campaign Manager Assessment
• Doubleclick Studio Assessment
• SEMrush Advertising Toolkit Certification Exam
• SEMrush Site Audit Exam
• SEMrush Affiliate Program Terms Certification Exam
• SEMrush SEO Fundamentals Certification Exam
• SEMrush SMM Fundamentals Exam
• SEMrush PPC Fundamentals Exam
• SEMrush Competitive Analysis and Keyword Research Test
• SEMrush Social Media Toolkit Certification Exam
• SEO Toolkit Exam for Advanced SEMrush Users Certification Exam
• SEMrush Content Marketing Toolkit Certification Exam
• SEMrush SEO Toolkit Certification Exam
• SEMrush Technical SEO Certification Exam
• YouTube Music Assessment
• YouTube Channel Growth Assessment
• YouTube Asset Monetization Assessment
• YouTube Creative Essentials Assessment
• YouTube Content Ownership Assessment
• About The Future of Ink
• Got a Question or Comment?
• Privacy Policy

• Motion Pictures

• Preview the Standard Application for Motion Pictures and Other Audiovisual Works

Motion Pictures are works that contain a series of related images that are intended to be shown with a projector, digital display, or other device. When the images are shown in successive order, they create an impression of movement that is perceptible to the eye. Examples of motion pictures include movies, television shows, video games, animations, and similar types of works.

Statutory Definitions

The Copyright Act defines “motion pictures” as “audiovisual works consisting of a series of related images which, when shown in succession, impart an impression of motion, together with accompanying sounds, if any.” 17 U.S.C. § 101

The Copyright Act defines “audiovisual works” as “works that consist of a series of related images which are intrinsically intended to be shown by the use of machines or devices such as projectors, viewers, or electronic equipment, together with accompanying sounds, if any, regardless of the nature of the material objects, such as films or tapes, in which the works are embodied.” (17 U.S.C. § 101)

• Audiovisual Works
• Television Commercials
• Concert Videos
• Documentaries
• Multimedia Works
• Music Videos
• Powerpoints
• Slide Presentations
• Sporting events (videos)
• Television Shows

Video Tutorials

• Standard Application (Video: 10m 28s)
• Submit Your Work to the Copyright Office (Video: 2m 46s)
• Group Registration of Unpublished Works (Video: 11m 50s)
• Supplementary Registration (Video: 6m 28s)

Other Services

Paper applications.

• Works of the Performing Arts (Form PA)

Group Options

• Unpublished Works

Preregistration (Restrictions Apply – Not for Majority of Applicants)

• Video Games

Supplementary Registration

Update on deposit requirements.