3 ms·

There's no such thing as a "blanket license" that term is nonsensical. Rights to footage, or sync rights to audio, are always case by case. Presumably you've g

by CPLX 8y ago

There's no such thing as a "blanket license" that term is nonsensical. Rights to footage, or sync rights to audio, are always case by case. Presumably you've gotten yourself confused with what are called mechanical licenses, which only cover songs, and only the music and lyrics (not original recordings) and have basically nothing to do with this at all.

TimTheTinker 8y ago
Blanket use licenses do exist. For example, CCLI licenses allow churches and certain non-profits to use a large body of copyrighted works (many of them under ASCAP) in several different ways (but definitely not the equivalents of mechanical and sync licenses — those are always case-by-case).
- CPLX 8y ago
  There's no such thing as a blanket license, in the sense that you get to use any and all copyrighted footage you'd like for a TV broadcast. There's nothing kind of like that either. A CCLI would allow you to use footage from rightsholders that have chosen to allow such usage. The confusion here appears to be with what are called compulsory licenses for music[0]. In those circumstances, people are allowed to pay songs on radio stations and in live music venues, etc, without having to negotiate with each individual rightsholder. A person who wrote a song has no choice about who is allowed to play one of their songs in a stadium, or on a radio broadcast, once they've publicly released the work. [0] There is an exception for live broadcasts, which don't apply here either.
  - TimTheTinker 8y ago
    > There's no such thing as a blanket license, in the sense that you get to use any and all copyrighted footage you'd like for a TV broadcast. No argument with you there. My point was that there do exist some types of blanket licenses (for specific purposes, of a limited body of works).
maxlybbert 8y ago
You’re right: https://www.ascap.com/help/career-development/a-checklist-for-using-music-in-film https://www.ascap.com/help/career-development/a-checklist-fo... suggests that the kind of license I would expect a producer to need wouldn’t come from ASCAP. So all four claims are relevant, but Disney’s alleged hypocrisy doesn’t seem to me to serve any purpose in the complaint (other than to get the thing noticed by the media).
- yjftsjthsd-h 8y ago
  I suppose one reason for hypocrisy to matter is that it proves they knew what they were doing. If I do $FOO, I could think that $FOO was okay. If I do $FOO while actively suing other people for doing $FOO, then it's obvious that I'm knowingly doing something wrong (or perjuring myself, I suppose).
  - vageli 8y ago
    Yeah in law this is called estoppel and it could be very relevant to this case. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estoppel https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estoppel

by CPLX 8y ago

TimTheTinker 8y ago

Blanket use licenses do exist. For example, CCLI licenses allow churches and certain non-profits to use a large body of copyrighted works (many of them under ASCAP) in several different ways (but definitely not the equivalents of mechanical and sync licenses — those are always case-by-case).

CPLX 8y ago
There's no such thing as a blanket license, in the sense that you get to use any and all copyrighted footage you'd like for a TV broadcast. There's nothing kind of like that either. A CCLI would allow you to use footage from rightsholders that have chosen to allow such usage. The confusion here appears to be with what are called compulsory licenses for music[0]. In those circumstances, people are allowed to pay songs on radio stations and in live music venues, etc, without having to negotiate with each individual rightsholder. A person who wrote a song has no choice about who is allowed to play one of their songs in a stadium, or on a radio broadcast, once they've publicly released the work. [0] There is an exception for live broadcasts, which don't apply here either.
- TimTheTinker 8y ago
  > There's no such thing as a blanket license, in the sense that you get to use any and all copyrighted footage you'd like for a TV broadcast. No argument with you there. My point was that there do exist some types of blanket licenses (for specific purposes, of a limited body of works).

maxlybbert 8y ago

You’re right: https://www.ascap.com/help/career-development/a-checklist-for-using-music-in-film https://www.ascap.com/help/career-development/a-checklist-fo... suggests that the kind of license I would expect a producer to need wouldn’t come from ASCAP. So all four claims are relevant, but Disney’s alleged hypocrisy doesn’t seem to me to serve any purpose in the complaint (other than to get the thing noticed by the media).

yjftsjthsd-h 8y ago
I suppose one reason for hypocrisy to matter is that it proves they knew what they were doing. If I do $FOO, I could think that $FOO was okay. If I do $FOO while actively suing other people for doing $FOO, then it's obvious that I'm knowingly doing something wrong (or perjuring myself, I suppose).
- vageli 8y ago
  Yeah in law this is called estoppel and it could be very relevant to this case. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estoppel https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estoppel