Has anyone ever obtained a license to show a movie publicly?

[Zippa D Doodah]

Yes, I have done gotten licensing to publicly play movies. The fees vary by distributor/producer.

The idea that a religious discussion somehow negates licensing fees is utterly false. In fact there is a whole licensing network -- Christian Video Licensing Inc -- which exists to help facilitate the licensing of films for religious purposes and that service is most certainly not free. (It is an off-shoot of CCLI -- Christian Copyright Licensing -- which handles music.) I did a religious conference and the movie, Crash, was shown for the sole purpose of discussion. Crash was not part of CVLI and I had to deal directly with the producer's company and pay a fee of a few hundred dollars depending upon the number of people expected to attend (less than the cost of seeing it in the movie theater, but not by much).

Yes, this has been my experience with licensing as well. A lot of religious organizations don't get proper licenses and companies issuing licenses really don't crack down on them. Yet it is the right thing to do to obtain proper licensing for what you want to show in any public setting. CCLI (the company I know most about) offers different levels of licenses for different needs.

 

[bicker]

The idea that a religious discussion somehow negates licensing fees is utterly false.

Someone should inform the folks who print up the US Code.

TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 1 > § 110

§ 110. Limitations on exclusive rights: Exemption of certain performances and displays

Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, the following are not infringements of copyright:

(3) performance of a nondramatic literary or musical work or of a dramatico-musical work of a religious nature, or display of a work, in the course of services at a place of worship or other religious assembly;

 

[LisaNJ25]

Yup, I was told that the Disney license to show movies to a group is rather expensive. Which is why our little Title1 school has not renewed theirs yet.

So, no Disney movies for our kids during downtime until the economy improves.

We use http://www.movlic.com/ I want to say it was $75 for one movie and $225 covers unlimited movies for a 12 month period. All movies are the same price if its a new disney release or an old movie from 30 years ago.

OP I know it says for school and libraries but maybe you can email them to let you know what your doing.

 

[Rupert B Puppenstein]

We use http://www.movlic.com/ I want to say it was $75 for one movie and $225 covers unlimited movies for a 12 month period. All movies are the same price if its a new disney release or an old movie from 30 years ago.

OP I know it says for school and libraries but maybe you can email them to let you know what your doing.

That one is really just for schools and libraries. The fee is a lot lower for those groups with every licensing company I checked out which I believe is fair. Now, I just have to decide what Disney movies we show.

 

[Geoff_M]

Someone should inform the folks who print up the US Code.

You seem to be offering up a unique interpretation of that statute. If you survey church legal resources you'll see that the intent of the exemption is aimed at the performance of music and the use of copyrighted translations of religious texts (and other written works) used during routine religious services. It's not intended to negate the need for permission from the rights holder for for such things as dramatic performances in place of a sermon or the showing of films during a service (even if it's to illustrate a point in a sermon, or have a religious discussion afterwards).

 

[bicker]

you'll see that the intent of the exemption is aimed at the performance of music

and dramatico-musical work of a religious nature.

... in place of a sermon ...

Which is not what I wrote. I said that there were exclusions. There are.

Regardless the main point I made was that in the OP's situation a license is required. If folks are interested in what the specifics are of the religious exclusions, it would be appropriate to discuss them in another thread, don't you think?

 

[Geoff_M]

and dramatico-musical work of a religious nature.

That would still be a type of musical work, right?

Which is not what I wrote. I said that there were exclusions. There are.

Yes, but you also stated "If the movie is something that touches on religious issues, and there is a discussion of the implications of the movie afterward, perhaps, then that is protected (no license is needed)." Andtototoo then stated that such a protection, "perhaps" or otherwise, doesn't exist. The people, lawyers, church hierarchies, and licensing agencies that advise local churches on how to avoid copyright legal sanctions seem to agree that the exemption you point to cannot be used to show films, blanketed in religious context, in a service without the consent of the rights holder.

If folks are interested in what the specifics are of the religious exclusions, it would be appropriate to discuss them in another thread, don't you think?

Well, you didn't have a problem debating the particulars with Andtototoo... so, why can't I add a comment or two? I suppose we've reached the point where we'll "agree to disagree", and people can decide if they want to take the consensus view of the legal community on this issue, or decide to accept the alternative of what "could" theoretically happen if current understanding is rejected in the future.

 

[bicker]

Yes, it would have to be nondramatic literary or musical work or of a dramatico-musical work of a religious nature... in the course of services at a place of worship or other religious assembly... that's correct... that is indeed the exclusion that I was referring to.

 

[Rupert B Puppenstein]

Just FYI for anyone who may be setting up a movie in the future for their community, etc. For HOA's smaller than 200 homes, Swank charges $150 to $250 for the movie (they send whatever format you need to you a few days before the event) and you must set your date up in advance. You can charge admission if you wish, but then you must either pay the up to $250 or 50% of ticket charges whichever is greater. You can raise funds for most movies, except for any Buena Vista ones (Touchstone, Disney, etc.) as it is prohibited in their contract. So if you do any fundraising with selling concessions, etc. make sure it is a non-Disney movie.

MPLC charges HOA's less than 200 houses a licensing fee of $750...but that is for unlimited movies for a year. They do not send the DVD's to you, but provide a list of all the distributors, movie studios, etc. that they cover, including Disney. You are still held to the same requirements for Disney though and you cannot charge admission for any of the movies. So, it all depends on the budget of your HOA, and how many movies you will show which option works better.

 

[mickeysgal]

So, if a movie is shown to a school organization...like the football team on school property...and they are not charging anything for admission, and are just doing it in order to get together with players and families (fellowship), then a license should be obtained?

 

[Geoff_M]

The last link I posted above contains a pretty good answer to your query:

What does the Law say?
The Federal Copyright Act (Title 17 of the U.S. Code) governs how copyrighted materials, such as movies, may be used. Neither the rental nor the purchase of a home video copy of a movie carries with it the right to show the movie outside the home. No additional license is required to view a movie inside the home by family or social acquaintances and in certain narrowly defined face-to-face teaching activities. Taverns, restaurants, private clubs, prisons, lodges, factories, summer camps, public libraries, daycare facilities, parks and recreation departments, churches and non-classroom use at schools and universities are all examples of situations where a public performance license must be obtained. This legal requirement applies regardless of whether an admission fee is charged, whether the institution or organization is commercial or non-profit, or whether a federal or state agency is involved.

...However, the legal requirement for a license and the rate of actual compliance with the law are two different things entirely.

 

[golfgal]

You surely do need a license to publicly show any movie or television show - any copyrighted work. The only legal means of publicly displaying any copyrighted work, for profit or non-profit, is by getting a license (or having one automatically granted, as it the case for certain programming, such as "Cable in the Classroom" and other E|I programming).

DVDs are sold solely for home use, so you cannot even get a license to publicly show DVDs. It is, unequivocally, illegal, regardless of how many people do it and get away with it because enforcement is so impotent. Even our town, which shows movies on Friday nights on the common, must secure licenses.

There are a few exclusions in the law, such as religious events (not simply religious organizations - but rather actual religious services or other events that are well-established reflections of the religion's expression, only). In addition, libraries have certain rights with regard to video presentations that protect them in the case of several people watching the same video from the library collection.

I may not know how to get the licenses anymore, but I do know that they are absolutely required.

So, if we have a party and invite the neighborhood and show a movie, from our own collection that we bought, "legally" do we need a permit???

I don't believe that there is an absolute "indoors" vs "outdoor" rule. The difference is "private" viewing vs. "public". In the OPs case, it appears that the home owners' association wants to have a neighborhood movie night where the "public" would be invited. They'd clearly need a license to avoid possible civil action from the copyright holder of the movie. There are no clear cut rules, but I think most courts wouldn't rule against a family and a few friends watching a DVD projected onto the side of a house as a "public" viewing in and of itself.

But this post brings up the fact that most people don't realize that there are a lot of limitations on what you can do with a $9.99 DVD of a movie. The next time you board a bus that has TV monitors and an on-board DVD/VCR player, if you look you'll likely see a license sticker by the door or driver's side window that states that the bus is licensed to show movies to passengers. This is similar to a blanket ASCAP license that allows businesses to play music (even off of the radio) in their establishment. The blanket license payment allows the bus company to legally show movies and other copyrighted materials using the same pre-recorded VHS tapes and DVDs we use at home.

There are also limitations on showing things found on broadcast TV. In past years the NFL has cracked down on large "Superbowl Parties" in church (usually concentrating in the towns of the participating teams) and similar events. Just avoiding using the trademarked "Superbowl" in the name of the event isn't enough to offer legal protection. There are actual legal limits on the size of the TVs (55 inches), and numbers of TVs used, at such out-of-home parties that allow the rights holder to sue you if you violate. In addition, asking people to bring a snack to donate to the party, asked for a charitable donation to cover the cost of the food, or any other such thing can automatically land a church in legal trouble with the NFL (though in recent years the NFL has backed off their right to enforce that right with church that do so).

Sooo, what't the difference if those 50 people watch the Superbowl at home vs as a group in the church basement Sorry, but this is just plain silly. I understand that Superbowl is "licensed", etc. but having a "Superbowl Party" is free advertising for them AND promotes more people to WATCH--thus increasing revenues by being able to charge even more for commercials.

 

[Geoff_M]

Sooo, what't the difference if those 50 people watch the Superbowl at home vs as a group in the church basement

The difference doesn't matter. What matters is it's actually codified in the US laws(*). Strange, but true. But if you want to ask "What's the diff?", I can only speculate this: a church can leverage the event as a means to promote itself to possible new potential members that might come to the event, and the NFL has the right to take exception to other entities using their event to market themselves. I'm not defending that speculated view... I'm only going on the reputation of the NFL's aggressive protection of their trademarks and copyrights.

USC Title 17, Sec 110 Limitations on exclusive rights: Exemption of certain performances and displays
(The following lists the requirements for something like a church Super Bowl party to be exempted from claims by exclusive rights holder of broadcast "performances" such as the Super Bowl)
...(B) communication by an establishment of a transmission or retransmission embodying a performance or display of a nondramatic musical work intended to be received by the general public, originated by a radio or television broadcast station licensed as such by the Federal Communications Commission, or, if an audiovisual transmission, by a cable system or satellite carrier, if—
(i) in the case of an establishment other than a food service or drinking establishment, either the establishment in which the communication occurs has less than 2,000 gross square feet of space (excluding space used for customer parking and for no other purpose), or the establishment in which the communication occurs has 2,000 or more gross square feet of space (excluding space used for customer parking and for no other purpose) and—
(I) if the performance is by audio means only, the performance is communicated by means of a total of not more than 6 loudspeakers, of which not more than 4 loudspeakers are located in any 1 room or adjoining outdoor space; or
(II) if the performance or display is by audiovisual means, any visual portion of the performance or display is communicated by means of a total of not more than 4 audiovisual devices, of which not more than 1 audiovisual device is located in any 1 room, and no such audiovisual device has a diagonal screen size greater than 55 inches, and any audio portion of the performance or display is communicated by means of a total of not more than 6 loudspeakers, of which not more than 4 loudspeakers are located in any 1 room or adjoining outdoor space;

This is the law that the NFL had used to try and stop large church-based "Big Game" parties even if they didn't directly use any NFL trademarks in their advertising.

 

[cornflake]

I understand that Superbowl is "licensed", etc. but having a "Superbowl Party" is free advertising for them AND promotes more people to WATCH--thus increasing revenues by being able to charge even more for commercials.

It doesn't promote higher ratings, it actually contracts ratings, which is one of the issues with it. Ratings are counted by household/set turning in. If there are 15 families worth of people watching at a community rec center instead of their own homes, it's fewer sets tuned in. Extrapolate and you see how it actually can contract ratings.

 

[golfgal]

It doesn't promote higher ratings, it actually contracts ratings, which is one of the issues with it. Ratings are counted by household/set turning in. If there are 15 families worth of people watching at a community rec center instead of their own homes, it's fewer sets tuned in. Extrapolate and you see how it actually can contract ratings.

True--if those people were going to watch it at home in the first place. I still think the NFL, if they enforce this widely, is going to shoot themselves in the foot

 

[Rupert B Puppenstein]

All the situations above do necessitate getting a license. They have different categories with different rates. HOA's are among the highest rates because they usually have fairly high turnout. Schools gets licenses as do libraries. It is about doing the right thing. If people were using your product without your authorization, wouldn't you be peeved about it? Just like people illegally downloaded music and then were caught and prosecuted eventually, couldn't the same thing happen to movies? I am so surprised that people don't read the FBI warning at the beginning of a DVD. Just because you own a copy does not mean you own the movie. Just like if someone owns a copy of the book you wrote does not actually mean that they own the rights to your book.

 

[golfgal]

All the situations above do necessitate getting a license. They have different categories with different rates. HOA's are among the highest rates because they usually have fairly high turnout. Schools gets licenses as do libraries. It is about doing the right thing. If people were using your product without your authorization, wouldn't you be peeved about it? Just like people illegally downloaded music and then were caught and prosecuted eventually, couldn't the same thing happen to movies? I am so surprised that people don't read the FBI warning at the beginning of a DVD. Just because you own a copy does not mean you own the movie. Just like if someone owns a copy of the book you wrote does not actually mean that they own the rights to your book.

Is there a law on the books that I can't pass my books around from one friend to another??? No different in my eyes then inviting 50 people over to watch a movie in my backyard--I can't honestly believe that I REALLY need a permit to do that...

 

[Rupert B Puppenstein]

Is there a law on the books that I can't pass my books around from one friend to another??? No different in my eyes then inviting 50 people over to watch a movie in my backyard--I can't honestly believe that I REALLY need a permit to do that...

Can you fit 50 people in your living room? If so, you don't need a permit. But, the moment you need to have the event outside of your home is the moment you must obtain a permit. The good thing about Swank is that they actually provide a better copy of the movie than you could buy at the store so you get much better quality with that version. Sharing a book is completely different...unless you are making copies of it and giving them to 50 people. Copyright law may be tedious but it is what it is and frankly I don't see why people look at it as such a horrible thing to get a simple license. The rates differ depending on how many people you will have, and what type of viewing you are having...so not everyone pays the $150 to $250 that I will be for my neighborhood to have a movie for all residents. Plus, I can recoup the costs by charging for concessions or admission. Not a big deal in my book. It is following the law.

 

[golfgal]

Can you fit 50 people in your living room? If so, you don't need a permit. But, the moment you need to have the event outside of your home is the moment you must obtain a permit. The good thing about Swank is that they actually provide a better copy of the movie than you could buy at the store so you get much better quality with that version. Sharing a book is completely different...unless you are making copies of it and giving them to 50 people. Copyright law may be tedious but it is what it is and frankly I don't see why people look at it as such a horrible thing to get a simple license. The rates differ depending on how many people you will have, and what type of viewing you are having...so not everyone pays the $150 to $250 that I will be for my neighborhood to have a movie for all residents. Plus, I can recoup the costs by charging for concessions or admission. Not a big deal in my book. It is following the law.

I think you are reading into the law too much. I 'could" fit 50 in my living room and defiantly 50 between my family room/kitchen which are open to each other. Our son had close to 50 kids here for his 16th birthday party. They watched a movie projected on a sheet hanging from our deck in our backyard. There is NO WAY I should need to pay $400 or whatever to do that.

 

[tlbwriter]

There is NO WAY I should need to pay $400 or whatever to do that.

Are you saying you think the law is wrong, or are you saying you think this isn't what the law actually says?