Real songs in porn

So I'm watching some old porn and pretty soon I find myself totally not paying attention to the sex but focused on the music that's playing because the song sounds really familiar. After sitting there thinking about it some more I realize it's a Steppenwolf song. Not just some cover of an old Steppenwolf song but the actual song.

Mind you, this was some old 70s/80s vintage porn.

But what'd they used to do back then? Just put any old song in a porn and not care about rights or license or anything? And if that movie's streaming on a VOD site like AEBN or MaleFlixxx or NakedSword or someone else, just for examples, can they get in trouble today? I can't imagine whatever old porn studio back in the day got permission to use Steppenwolf's music for their pornos. How'd they get away with that? Just hope to fly under the radar on all of it?

I imagine they were just flying under the radar back then. I can't imagine the drummer of Steppenwolf admitting to his bandmates that he heard one of their songs in a gay porno. Steppenwolf would have been looking for a new drummer. :D

Yikes.

I'm guessing they got away with it out of ignorance, in much the same way that today I still see amateur porn with a radio playing in the background (but loud enough to hear the song playing...) After all, older porn was of somewhat questionable legality to begin with so what's a little music piracy when you're producing content that, prior to Miller and the subsequent state decisions resulting therefrom, might have been illegal in the first place?

From what I know, there's no statute of limitations on this sort of ongoing infringement, and the interesting part is there's a statutory fine that's something like either $10,000 or $50,000 per infringement. I know when I was in the music business, the Windham Hill permissions department made more money going after people who had used their music without licensing in advance than they did for licensing requests that came in to them.

My guess is that AEBN et al wouldn't be liable unless they failed to respond to a DMCA takedown notice. I suspect this sort of infringement would be no different than theft of a video or image. The studio, on the other hand... could be left holding the bag. Now the REALLY interesting question is what happens in the case of, for example, Bijou Video, or AMVC.com, both of which apparently bought up rights to various video lines when the producers got tired of messing with them. I doubt the agreements had "purchase assets without liabilities" clauses, and I doubt even more than many of the original producers could even be found, let alone have assets to defend these cases.

So if I were whomever owns these old titles, I'd be going through all my old videos looking for infringing music.

(One of our scenes, shot in a porn store, was shot with the ambient sound of the porn store, which included music that was playing in the background. During editing, we had to replace the ambient sound with a combination of some royalty-free music we had mixed in with road noise from outside the store. It was pretty convincing, and I doubt anyone listening would ever notice.)

Old porn is so funny to me.


Wow were people ugly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SPACE GLIDER

Old porn is so funny to me.


Wow were people ugly.

---

I beg to differ! Imo, some of the hottest men ever were the 70's/80's porn stars. The old Colt guys make me melt. :D

Those were the days of the "Wild West" in the porn business, before the days of 2257... when even CP wasn't illegal. Porn producers were "outlaws" on the edge of society and they didn't really care about things like "copyright" because porn was pretty much underground. I grew up on 70's and 80's porn. I remember buying my first VCR back in '78 or '79 and buying a box full of film-to-tape transfers because nothing was shot directly to video at that time. Before that, I was buying 8mm films and sneaking the movie projector into my bedroom at night. Those were the days :-)

In vintage porn, they actually used more copyrighted music than non-copyrighted music.

Sometimes a famous song by Bowie or someone will just be dropped in completely out of context. But there is a classic scene that was shot purposely to go along with the Beatles' "Why Don't We Do It In The Road".

But shhh. Don't tell anybody! We don't want those videos pulled!

The next wave of lawsuits will be against You Tube's deep pockets for allowing all the unlicenced music in amateur videos there.

Actually, unless the song has a REGISTERED copyright, there is no fine for using it...the copyright owner can only get a cease and dissist order from a judge. There are no fines or penalties.

However, a REGISTERED copyright entitles them to sue for lawyers fees, damages, etc. etc. etc.

Please note, that I used to run a chain of music stores, and I read in Billboard one week that they did a report and 99.9% of all music on the charts were not REGISTERED. (Now that may have been fixed since then...) But in 2003, when the article came out, NONE of the Backstreet Boys, NSync, Madonna, and other High Profile artists had taken the time to get actual Registered Copyrights from the Library of Congress.

That being said...I would never use music that I did not have a clearance for...

I guess the point I really wanted to make was if you create content, do yourself the favor and take the time to register it with the copyright office. That way if someday you find your stuff online at somewhere you can sue the pants off them!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LavenderLounge

In vintage porn, they actually used more copyrighted music than non-copyrighted music.
.

---

All music is copyrighted by the mere fact that it is created. Copyright is implied at creation for all things.

However, if you read my above post, there is a HUGE difference between copyright and REGISTERED copyright.

Ever wonder what that little "R" in the circle on the Coke Can meant? Ever wonder why some CD's just say "Copyright 2006" and others say (R) Copyright 2006?

Ah...college....and I thought it would be a waste...

Keep in mind that the adult movies in the 70's were only shown in theaters, so if a record executive or an artist wanted to sue over licensing issues they would have to admit that not only were they watching an adult film but that they had gone into one of those kinds of theaters, and back in the day this was simply not ever talked about in public. It's not like they could say they ran across it on a website or accidentally rented it on home video. There were no computers or VCRs back then.

And the people weren't ugly back then it's just the way things were filmed and the production values at the time often left people looking greasy or washed out, and you're not used to seeing the hairstyles or facial hair that people were wearing back then (although a lot of it's coming back now), so it might look odd to the young'uns today.

things haven't changed that much...

you don't have to look to the past for rif offs, these days, its common to see © infringement in all forms - print too

a recent video release shows the Beverly Hills sign on the cover and I doubt that the city gave approval for this blatant rip off

the sign is copyrighted by the city of Beverly Hills and was created by Warner Brothers in the '30s...

this is mostly due to the attitude that "if they don't see it or hear it, we can't get in trouble" which runs rampant throughout society these days and the "they are doing it why can't I?" attitude - basically, no sense of responsibility...

just look at the numbers of pirated products from wallets and purses to DVDs and CDs - its outrageous!

I remember at the end of Catalina's In Tense Heat, a Jeff Stryker, Mike Henson extravaganza from John Travis, there was a commerical to "Join the Jeff Stryker Fan Club"

Whoever at Catalina produced that saw fit to use music from New Order's Substance album of dance remixes.

Ummmm.....Would this have amounted to possible Substance abuse at Catalina studios?

Oh and back in my closet somewhere is a movie, where one of the previews is this Mark Jennings movie called Winners... and the music to that preview is an unapologetic, complete track of Depeche Mode's Master and Servant.

This actually at the time inspired me to take out my Radio Shack Realistic video/audio mixer and make a VHS copy of my favorite scene from this Paul Norman bisexual video using music from Depeche Mode's Pleasure Little Treasure. That combination made for quite a fun video.

Steve

ahhh...depeche mode , such wonderful memories (interpreted: i am truly impressed with the longevity of vinyl!)

sincerely ~ ..."your own personal jesus , someone to hear your prayers...someone who cares!"...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TropixxxStudios

Actually, unless the song has a REGISTERED copyright, there is no fine for using it...the copyright owner can only get a cease and dissist order from a judge. There are no fines or penalties.

However, a REGISTERED copyright entitles them to sue for lawyers fees, damages, etc. etc. etc.

Please note, that I used to run a chain of music stores, and I read in Billboard one week that they did a report and 99.9% of all music on the charts were not REGISTERED. (Now that may have been fixed since then...) But in 2003, when the article came out, NONE of the Backstreet Boys, NSync, Madonna, and other High Profile artists had taken the time to get actual Registered Copyrights from the Library of Congress.

That being said...I would never use music that I did not have a clearance for...

---

Almost, but not quite true. If the song, image, video, etc. has been *published* then it must be registered within, if I remember correctly, 1 year of publication in order to be eligible for statutory infringement and attorneys fees. If the work has not been published (and, according to case law as of 2004, posting on the Internet did not, for copyright purposes, count as "publishing" according to our copyright/trademark attorney), it can be registered at any time prior to 1 year from publication. So theoretically (again, according to our attorney but we haven't tested this), as long as the work hasn't been published "offline" (as in, DVD or print) you can register a work years after it's been posted on the net, wait for confirmation of registration, and then still go after the infringer and get the statutory infringement.

However, even without registration, you can still go after someone, but you would have to be able to prove actual damages. So, most likely, if you threaten to sue, the infringer will still likely make a settlement with you to avoid the expense of a trial. But you are totally correct that the statutory infringement per-occurrence and the provision for attorneys fees and costs only applies if the copyrights are registered.

Quote:

---

Ever wonder what that little "R" in the circle on the Coke Can meant? Ever wonder why some CD's just say "Copyright 2006" and others say (R) Copyright 2006?

---

Actually you're mixing up two different things. the "R" with the circle refers to a trademark (protection for a trade name, such as "Coca Cola) for which registered trademark status has been granted. A trademark in use for less than 5 years would typically use the "TM", and once the mark is granted, then the use of the "R" replaces the "TM".

If you see an "R" on a compact disc, it will be in connection with a trademark registration either for the label's name or the band's name or something like that. It has nothing at all to do with copyright. There is a "P" in a circle, which is a phonogram copyright; since copyright to the composition itself and the recording of the composition are separate, the (c) refers to copyright of the composition, while (p) refers to copyright of the recording, or phonogram. Both symbols are used regardless of whether a work is registered with the copyright office; there is no separate symbol or notation used when copyrighted works are registered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by desslock

Ummmm.....Would this have amounted to possible Substance abuse at Catalina studios?
Steve

---

OMG, a pun to match the exceptionally bad quality of my own!

I just double checked, and I was wrong on the timeframe after publication. It's 3 months after, not 1 year, in order to retain statutory relief (fines and attorney's fees).

Also, "publication" is a little more complex. From the US copyright regs:

it is clear that any form of dissemination in which the material object does not change hands, for example, performances or displays on television, is not a publication no matter how many people are exposed to the work.

So, according to the above, if you shoot content and post it on a Web site that you run, it wouldn't be considered publication.

HOWEVER,

when copies or phonorecords are offered for sale or lease to a group of wholesalers, broadcasters, or motion picture theaters, publication does take place if the purpose is further distribution, public performance, or public display.

So if you're a content producer who sells content to webmasters that are going to post the content or sell it, then publication apparently occurs when you license it to the webmaster or wholesaler or reseller.

They should really update this 30 year old interpretation of "Publishing" :(

also wasnt a lot of porn controlled by the mob or at least businesses connected to the mob?

I remember seeing this stupid movie on cable with Charlie Sheen and Emilio Estevez as these brothers from San Francisco who had a porn movie theater and produced the legendy, hetero flick "Behind the Green Door"

Other XXX movie theaters started pirating their film, and when they went to a theater owner in New York asking for cash, they were told to shove off... the guys had protection.

not to mention, porn was not the multi-million dollar business it is today, and intellectual property owners weren't as rabid about enforcing their copyrights outside of the mainstream media.

this is an area in which there should NEVER be any guess work...

have I got copyright info for you...

our guy litterly wrote the book (well at least his father did) and it goes for about $1,700 or so, last time I checked

you want to have a copy of NIMMER ON COPYRIGHT to get the low down on what really is right and wrong

David Nimmer practices here in LA and HE KNOWS copyright - we're glad to have him on our side...

http://bookstore.lexis.com/bookstore/product/10441.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaybucks_chip

Almost, but not quite true. If the song, image, video, etc. has been *published* then it must be registered within, if I remember correctly, 1 year of publication in order to be eligible for statutory infringement and attorneys fees. If the work has not been published (and, according to case law as of 2004, posting on the Internet did not, for copyright purposes, count as "publishing" according to our copyright/trademark attorney), it can be registered at any time prior to 1 year from publication. So theoretically (again, according to our attorney but we haven't tested this), as long as the work hasn't been published "offline" (as in, DVD or print) you can register a work years after it's been posted on the net, wait for confirmation of registration, and then still go after the infringer and get the statutory infringement.

However, even without registration, you can still go after someone, but you would have to be able to prove actual damages. So, most likely, if you threaten to sue, the infringer will still likely make a settlement with you to avoid the expense of a trial. But you are totally correct that the statutory infringement per-occurrence and the provision for attorneys fees and costs only applies if the copyrights are registered.



Actually you're mixing up two different things. the "R" with the circle refers to a trademark (protection for a trade name, such as "Coca Cola) for which registered trademark status has been granted. A trademark in use for less than 5 years would typically use the "TM", and once the mark is granted, then the use of the "R" replaces the "TM".

If you see an "R" on a compact disc, it will be in connection with a trademark registration either for the label's name or the band's name or something like that. It has nothing at all to do with copyright. There is a "P" in a circle, which is a phonogram copyright; since copyright to the composition itself and the recording of the composition are separate, the (c) refers to copyright of the composition, while (p) refers to copyright of the recording, or phonogram. Both symbols are used regardless of whether a work is registered with the copyright office; there is no separate symbol or notation used when copyrighted works are registered.

---

I stand corrected. Perhaps I should have paid better attention in class.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TropixxxStudios

I stand corrected. Perhaps I should have paid better attention in class.

---

Only reason I happen to know it is we had an issue that we almost litigated a couple years ago so, being as we were paying $300 an hour for our "private class" with the attorney in the form of a consultation... I took some notes :) Why I remember this stuff, I have no idea.