If I sell beats online to rappers, can I use a picture of Bart Simpson as an image for the YouTube Video of a beat?

[TeddiRoze]

How about a Drake (or other famous artist's) music video playing in the background, but distorted?

Is this legal?

It is a common trend now online to do this. I would like to also, make these types of artwork for my beats, but I don't want to risk breaking any laws.

I am providing some examples below. I promise I have nothing to do with these beats or trying to be sly and get promo. They're all from different people. All my beat videos use Royalty Free images from Pexels.com.

Examples:
Videos:
[Deleted]

Images:
[deleted]

Some people even sell templates with these videos in the background:
[deleted]

It sucks if it's illegal because using these images of popular cartoons and music videos would get me more plays. So I'm hoping it's legal so I can make these more popular designs for my music.

Thanks for reading. I appreciate any insight.

 

[Zigner]

I reported your post due to the various links. No, you can't just use somebody else's property to advertise your videos.

 

[quincy]

Bart Simpson is protected under both copyright laws and trademark laws.

You would need to license rights from Fox to use the character. You are, however, unlikely to be granted (or be able to afford) a license.

You would also need permission from Drake. With Drake (and any famous person) you have personality rights to deal with as well as IP protections.

Sorry.

 

[TeddiRoze]

I reported your post due to the various links. No, you can't just use somebody else's property to advertise your videos.

I have deleted 2 of the links. I hope this makes it better. Each link is a different example. First one is the example of someone using a distorted music video from a popular artist. Second is an image of a character from the Simpsons. 3rd is an example of an After Effects template someone is selling on YouTube. As noted in my post I have nothing to do with these posts. Just wanted to provide some clear insight. Sorry if I broke any rules.

Thank you for the answer in your second sentence.

 

[TeddiRoze]

Bart Simpson is both protected under copyright laws and trademark laws.

You would need to license rights from Fox to use the character. You are, however, unlikely to be granted (or be able to afford) a license.

You would also need permission from Drake. With Drake (and any famous person) you have personality rights to deal with as well as IP protections.

Sorry.

Thanks for the insight.

I have a follow up question if you don't mind. How is it that so many producers do this and get away with it? There are hundreds of "beat" videos like this. Some of them are actually selling beats and getting paid up front plus royalties. Are they taking a huge risk by using these images and videos on their beats?

Thanks for being helpful. I appreciate it.

 

[quincy]

Thanks for the insight.

I have a follow up question if you don't mind. How is it that so many producers do this and get away with it? There are hundreds of "beat" videos like this. Some of them are actually selling beats and getting paid up front plus royalties. Are they taking a huge risk by using these images and videos on their beats?

Thanks for being helpful. I appreciate it.

Some may be operating with the permission of the rights holders. Some may be infringing on rights and their infringement hasn't been discovered yet. Some uses of rights-protected material potentially could be considered "fair uses" or some uses could be considered by the rights holders to be inconsequential (de minimis).

I don't know.

I didn't have the benefit of seeing the examples you linked to earlier (some links are not allowed on this forum) so I can't offer any opinion on those works.

 

[TeddiRoze]

Some may be operating with the permission of the rights holders. Some may be infringing on rights and their infringement hasn't been discovered yet. Some uses of rights-protected material potentially could be considered "fair uses" or some uses could be considered by the rights holders to be inconsequential (de minimis).

I don't know.

I didn't have the benefit of seeing the examples you linked to earlier (some links are not allowed on this forum) so I can't offer any opinion on those works.

Interesting.

I left the best examples up. The first one is probably the most important to me. I wanted to make videos like that for my beats, but now knowing it's illegal I don't want to anymore. Sucks. And I don't understand why he goes and uploads videos like that when it's illegal. Very odd. I guess the producer doesn't know any better?

 

[quincy]

Interesting.

I left the best examples up. The first one is probably the most important to me. I wanted to make videos like that for my beats, but now knowing it's illegal I don't want to anymore. Sucks. And I don't understand why he goes and uploads videos like that when it's illegal. Very odd. I guess the producer doesn't know any better?

Your post won't be visible to anyone but you until after the moderator reviews the post and edits it, so I cannot comment on your examples.

All I can say is that using rights-protected material without authorization from the rights holder is a legal risk. How big a risk depends on many factors, including among other factors the amount of material used, the effect of the use on the value of the original, and the litigiousness of the rights holder.

You can have the specifics of your uses personally reviewed by an IP attorney in your area or, better, seek out permission from the holder of the rights.

Good luck.