I am a student, and run the campus wide closed-circuit television
station for a state college in New York.
There seem to be so many different opinions on what we, as a
closed-circuit television station can show.
Since we are a completely not-for-profit TV station working out of an
educational institution, can we show whatever movies we want?
If we can't just show them, is it still okay for us to show movies for
an educational purpose (like, to show a film and then have an open
forum where people discuss the film and it's politics or whatnot)?
In both of these cases we would put up a disclaimer I'm sure.
What about music? We get alot of submissions from students, and some
of them contain music which I know is ed. Is that okay?
I guess what I really want to know, in a nutshell, is "Are we cool
showing movies just to show them? Or can we only show them for
educational purposes (with a discussion or whatever)? Can we not show
them at all?"
I'm sorry this question is so sloppy... I don't really know how to be
specific about this. I have more questions, but will ask later based
on the response to this one.
Thanks!
The fact you are a non-profit, state-run, educational entity is good,
for purposes of the fair use doctrine. But that fact alone does not
change the fundamental analysis. As a general rule, if you show a
movie on your TV station, the to which belongs to someone
else, you will need to either (a) obtain a license (permission) from
the owner; (b) determine that the source material is
actually not "ed" and is in the public domain; or (c)
determine that your use qualifies as a "fair use" under law.
Any use outside these three will expose the school and potentially
you individually to liability for infringement.
Fair use contemplates that you ARE infringing --the doctrine
simply gives you a defense if you get sued. Basically, you are potentially
infringing someone's in any content of which the school is not the
actual author that you broadcast from your station.
Under US law, the Fair Use Doctrine, found at 17 U.S.C.
Section 107, holds that no permission is needed for purposes such as
criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple
copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, SUBJECT TO THE
BELOW FACTORS:
Factors:
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use
is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the ed work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to
the ed work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of
the ed work.
So, to answer your question, you have to first ask if your use falls
into one of the enumerated categories [criticism, comment, news
reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use),
scholarship, or research] AND THEN you have to apply the four factors
and see if more of the factors weigh in your favor. It would be
improper to definitively opine here as to whether your use in each
case is a fair use, but as I said, the fact you are a non-profit
educational institution helps, as you can see. If I were you, I would
still try to obtain a broadcast license from the owner in
every case.
So, to answer your questions, "Are we cool showing movies just to show
them? Or can we only show them for educational purposes (with a
discussion or whatever)? Can we not show them at all?", the answers
depend on the outcome of your analysis under the fair use doctrine.
For example, assume you want to arbitrarily show "Hellboy," which was
just released on DVD. So you go rent the DVD and broadcast it. Fair
use? I doubt it. Even though you are a non-profit educational
facility, you had no teaching purpose in broadcasting the movie.
Also, you very likely deprived the owners of money because
when you showed it, those folks that watched it for free will not now
go have to rent it. See how it works?
The analysis is impacted by another issue: a doctrine called sovereign
immunity. Generally, state-owned entities cannot be sued unless you
first get their permission. I would have to do further research, but
the fact you are state-owned may provide additional insulation from
liability under sovereign immunity. But at the end of the
day, the fundamental analysis above does hold true,
sovereign immunity or not.
thanks so much for your comment.
ive been talking to Swank Motion Media who controls the distro. rights
to basically every major production company besides Fine Line and Fox.
They were really nice and basically told me, "yeah, look, if you just
have a 5 minute discussion after the film, and encourage people to buy
the movies themselves by not showing the same movie a million times, I
guess we really don't care" which was completely unexpected.
Otherwise they want $500 a movie per 2 showings, unless I get a whole bunch.
So, it looks like we'll be having alot of discussions about the
political and societal impact of a whole lotta films.
Livin' life on the edge :/
thanks again!!!
sam
 I could use some help again...
 Lost Licences |
Copyright law for campus tv station