# Legality of screening videos?
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-screening-videos/336684
**Category:** Factual Questions
**Created:** [December 21, 2005, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-screening-videos/336684 "2005-12-21T20:53:51Z")
**Posts on this page:** 8
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)
#### Post date: [December 21, 2005, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-screening-videos/336684/1 "2005-12-21T20:53:51Z")
Note: I know that the mods are very sensitive about copyright questions, and this is one. However, I believe it’s an area with a lot of confusion, and I am not in any way asking a question that is going to help folks break the law. So I hope it can remain open.
The question is this: under what circumstances may I **legally** show a copyrighted video (say, _The Lion King_) to a group? Note that in most of these cases, the chances of my getting busted are just about zero; I’m asking about the letter of the law, not the practicality.
1. May I show it to a slumber party that I invite people to via written invitation, and if so, may I mention the video on the invitation?
2. May I show it to my second-grade class at a public school?
2a) What about at a private school?
3. May I show it to college students as part of a club?
4. May I show it to attendees to a nonprofit event?
5. May I show it to attendees to a for-profit event?
I’m pretty sure the answer to #1 is yes, and the answer to #5 is no, but I’m not sure about the ones in between. Can anyone help me out?
In all cases, does the legality change if I publicize the fact that I’ll be showing the movie?
Thanks!
Daniel
---
### Author:  [@Sunspace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sunspace)
#### Post date: [December 21, 2005, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-screening-videos/336684/2 "2005-12-21T21:22:32Z")
I would say that only #1 (private showing, not for pay) is permitted by the Average Movie.
I know that this applies to most of the movies that we can borrow from the public library; a few of them are specifically marked that they may be publically exhibited.
---
### Author:  [@Valgard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Valgard)
#### Post date: [December 21, 2005, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-screening-videos/336684/3 "2005-12-21T21:32:55Z")
IANAL.
Here’s some info from Movie Licensing USA which handles a lot of this stuff:
[http://www.movlic.com/qaschool.html](http://www.movlic.com/qaschool.html)
[http://www.movlic.com/copyschool.html](http://www.movlic.com/copyschool.html)
The first section says
"What constitutes “public performance” of an entertainment movie?
Basically, any exhibition of an entertainment movie to groups outside the privacy of a home setting is construed as a public performance."
And then goes on to state that pretty much any public performance is a violation of copyright. Based on this, I’d say that your #1 is OK and your school events (2a and 2b) are OK if there’s a teacher in attendance and the movie is an essential part of the curriculum. The others (3-5) would be in violation.
Again, I don’t have any special knowledge and I’m just going by what a licensing company says which may be like asking Sony about copyright laws.
---
### Author:  [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)
#### Post date: [December 21, 2005, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-screening-videos/336684/4 "2005-12-21T21:44:45Z")
Here is a good start:
[http://www.film-center.com/ppr.html](http://www.film-center.com/ppr.html)
The issue is whether the showing constitutes a “public display” or “public performance” of the work.
> [@17 USC section 106](#):
>
> Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
> (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
> (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
> (3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
> (4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, **to perform the copyrighted work publicly** ;
> (5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, **to display the copyrighted work publicly** ; and
> (6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.
(Emphasis added.)
The standard verbal formula is:
> [@](#):
>
> Public Performance or Performance Rights
> A public performance is one that occurs “in a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered.” A public performance also occurs when the performance is transmitted by means of any device or process (for example, via broadcast, telephone wire, or other means) to the public. In order to perform a copyrighted work publicly, the user must obtain performance rights from the copyright owner or his representative.
[http://www.ascap.com/licensing/termsdefined.html;](http://www.ascap.com/licensing/termsdefined.html;) [http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc\_sec\_17\_00000101----000-.html](http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000101----000-.html)
---
### Author:  [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)
#### Post date: [December 21, 2005, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-screening-videos/336684/5 "2005-12-21T22:01:16Z")
Of course, items 2-5 might be covered by fair use. [http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc\_sec\_17\_00000107----000-.html](http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000107----000-.html)
> [@](#):
>
> 1. May I purchase or rent a film and use it in my class?
>
> Yes. Using tapes licensed for “Home Use Only” is considered a fair use in a face-to-face teaching situation. A face-to-face teaching situation implies a classroom setting with only the instructor and students present. It does not extend to showing tapes for entertainment or to students or others not in the class. The “classroom” can be an auditorium or other suitable space, as long as the activity is still a part of the established curriculum.
[http://www.stfrancis.edu/lib/copyright/](http://www.stfrancis.edu/lib/copyright/)
---
### Author:  [@flight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flight)
#### Post date: [December 21, 2005, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-screening-videos/336684/6 "2005-12-21T22:12:15Z")
So you could show the Lion King in a college film class, but not in a second grade class (assuming they aren’t studying animated lions).
---
### Author:  [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)
#### Post date: [December 21, 2005, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-screening-videos/336684/7 "2005-12-21T22:18:28Z")
These are pretty cut-and-dried answers, with airtight cites, exactly how I like my GQ answers. Thanks, folks!
Daniel
---
### Author:  [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)
#### Post date: [December 21, 2005, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-screening-videos/336684/8 "2005-12-21T23:16:34Z")
> [@flight](#):
>
> So you could show the Lion King in a college film class, but not in a second grade class (assuming they aren’t studying animated lions).
Well, there are two fair use exceptions:
The one most seem to rely on is this one:
> [@17 USC § 110](#):
>
> Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, the following are not infringements of copyright:
>
> (1) performance or display of a work by instructors or pupils in the course of face-to-face teaching activities of a nonprofit educational institution, in a classroom or similar place devoted to instruction, unless, in the case of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, the performance, or the display of individual images, is given by means of a copy that was not lawfully made under this title, and that the person responsible for the performance knew or had reason to believe was not lawfully made;
[http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#110](http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#110)
This provision provides a safe-harbor for use of materials for education.
According to the copyright office:
> [@](#):
>
> Can a school show a movie without obtaining permission from the copyright owner?
> **If the movie is for entertainment purposes, you need to get a clearance or license for its performance.**
>
> It is not necessary to obtain permission if you show the movie in the course of “face-to-face teaching activities” in a nonprofit educational institution, in a classroom or similar place devoted to instruction, if the copy of the movie being performed is a lawful copy. 17 U.S.C. § 110(1). This exemption encompasses instructional activities relating to a wide variety of subjects, but it does not include performances for recreation or entertainment purposes , even if there is cultural value or intellectual appeal.
(Emphasis added.)
[http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html](http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html)
And based on this provision, as you can see, the copyright office claims that the display cannot be for entertainment purposes.
The general fair use provision is found in section 107:
> [@](#):
>
> § 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use38
>
> Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —
>
> (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 copyrighted work;
>
> (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
>
> (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
>
> The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
[http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107](http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107)
This provision has been held to permit parodies. [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=U10426;](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=U10426;) [http://www.publaw.com/parody.html](http://www.publaw.com/parody.html) And parodies are entertaining.
The problem with trying to squeeze a classroom display of a movie for entertainment is that such a display lacks the “transformative value” of a parody. The _Acuff-Rose_ Court found this important:
> [@](#):
>
> Suffice it to say now that parody has an obvious claim to transformative value, as Acuff-Rose itself does not deny. Like less ostensibly humorous forms of criticism, it can provide social benefit, by shedding light on an earlier work, and, in the process, creating a new one. We thus line up with the courts that have held that parody, like other comment or criticism, may claim fair use under 107. See, e.g., Fisher v. Dees, 794 F.2d 432 (CA9 1986) (“When Sonny Sniffs Glue,” a parody of “When Sunny Gets Blue,” is [CAMPBELL v. ACUFF-ROSE MUSIC, INC., \_\_\_ U.S. \_\_\_ (1994) , 10] fair use); Elsmere Music, Inc. v. National Broadcasting Co., 482 F.Supp. 741 (SDNY), aff’d, 623 F.2d 252 (CA2 1980) (“I Love Sodom,” a “Saturday Night Live” television parody of “I Love New York” is fair use); see also House Report, p. 65; Senate Report, p. 61 (“se in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied” may be fair use).
\*Id. \*[1]
This isn’t the use of a part of a work in the creation of a new work that comments on or criticizes the copyrighted work. It is just a display for fun. Therefore, Section 107, probably does not help. There are other difficulties, too.
So the short answer to your question is no, unless the teacher is able to work it into a lesson plan.
[1] Regarding obscene parodies, \*see \* [http://www.batnet.com/rjg/parody.html;](http://www.batnet.com/rjg/parody.html;) [http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/communications/elsmere.html;](http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/communications/elsmere.html;) [http://ccnmtl.columbia.edu/projects/law/library/cases/case\_mcawilson.html#top](http://ccnmtl.columbia.edu/projects/law/library/cases/case_mcawilson.html#top). On parody generally, \*see \* [http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/articles/pdf/v08/08HarvJLTech193.pdf](http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/articles/pdf/v08/08HarvJLTech193.pdf) (pdf).