Sorry to be so late in replying; I sent this comment to our legal team and only now realized that they replied to me rather than to here!
The answer I got was:
"It's a nice idea in theory, but it's predicated on the music and entertainment companies wanting such a thing - which so far they haven't seemed to. It's not like there are compulsory licenses for transformative works, so even if the vidders wanted to pay someone, there would have to be someone to pay. (There's an example in a law review article of someone calling a content provider - Disney, maybe? - and trying to find out if he can pay them to use some music/video/something in a for-personal-use-only home video. They told him they didn't want his money, and he wasn't allowed to use it.)
Of course, if it's fair use, we shouldn't have to pay anyway. :) (Though I expect that there are vidders who WOULD as long as it was a small amount, just to feel like they're on the right side of the law for sure.)"
Sorry to be so late in
Sorry to be so late in replying; I sent this comment to our legal team and only now realized that they replied to me rather than to here!
The answer I got was:
"It's a nice idea in theory, but it's predicated on the music and entertainment companies wanting such a thing - which so far they haven't seemed to. It's not like there are compulsory licenses for transformative works, so even if the vidders wanted to pay someone, there would have to be someone to pay. (There's an example in a law review article of someone calling a content provider - Disney, maybe? - and trying to find out if he can pay them to use some music/video/something in a for-personal-use-only home video. They told him they didn't want his money, and he wasn't allowed to use it.)
Of course, if it's fair use, we shouldn't have to pay anyway. :) (Though I expect that there are vidders who WOULD as long as it was a small amount, just to feel like they're on the right side of the law for sure.)"