Tuesday, July 22, 2014

Collage of 1950s Magazines: Fair Use?

Dear Rich: I want to photograph a collage of magazines from the 1950s and reproduce it in a book about the ‘50s. Does this count as fair use – transformative? Putting aside our usual boilerplate response -- fair use can only be determined by a judge or arbitrator -- we think your use is likely to qualify. Our conclusion is based on a few fair use cases: In Warren Publishing Co. v. Spurlock, a Pennsylvania court ruled that it was fair use to reproduce covers of several out-of-print monster magazines from the 1950s, ’60s, and ’70s. The covers were used in a biography of the cover artist. In Bill Graham Archives v. Dorling Kindersley Ltd., the Second Circuit ruled that it was a fair use to reproduce thumbnail-sized Grateful Dead concert posters within a book. In Kelly v. Arriba-Soft and in Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon. com, Inc., the Ninth Circuit ruled that thumbnail-sized reproductions qualified as a fair use. Based on these cases, you are likely to successfully claim fair use if the images are used for a purpose other than selling magazines, if the magazines are out-of-print, and if the reproduced covers have been reduced in size.

Monday, July 21, 2014

Am I Infringing My Client's Newsletter?

Dear Rich: 1) I am an Independent Contractor and web/graphic designer, and my client thinks that I have appropriately shared proprietary information. Do electronic newsletters constitute proprietary information? 2) I forwarded several emails newsletters at the request of a former employee and friend with whom I had collaborated on the newsletter design. Did I unlawfully share a proprietary work? 3) Does my client own full copyright to the electronic newsletter which I designed? 4) Does usage of the newsletter in a portfolio violate any copyright laws? We think the answers are yes, yes, yes and yes. Newsletters whether in print or electronic are protected under copyright law.
If you copied a copyrighted work without authorization, you're infringing. Whether that's unlawful depends on whether you can mount a successful defense. One possible defense is that you are a co-owner because you designed the template used in the newsletter. Proving that will be an uphill battle because common elements of web designs are not protected by copyright --- font choices, look and feel -- and because many of the design choices are limited by practical realities and should be free for everyone. If you can overcome these presumptions (and there are no written work made for hire agreements or assignments), you might be able to claim co-ownership. You might also be able to claim fair use considering that your use was for portfolio purposes and did not cause the owner a loss in revenue. Because co-ownership and fair use are expensive to prove (only a judge or arbitrator can decide), many graphic and web designers deal with these issues in their contracts by including a "portfolio provision" or by retaining non-exclusive rights for certain design elements.

Wednesday, July 16, 2014

How Many Seconds From TV Show?

Dear Rich, I would like to ask you how long/how many seconds we can use from movies and, well any video material. I think the answer is like 5 seconds or something. What I mean is that can we mix in with our own material with some material that is copyrighted? I am building a 'TV intro' to be used on my website that is an upcoming Online Business Incubator. I live in Sweden. It would be so great if there were a "five-second rule" or something similar. Alas, any assurance of safety based on the number of seconds borrowed is a myth. The same is true for the so-called "8-bar" and "8-note" rules. The U.S. Congress refuses to quantify the border between permissible borrowing and infringement and the legislators leave the heavy lifting to the judges. In the U.S., the only course is to review the fair use caselaw to see what's been permitted in the past (and why). By the way, as a very general rule, it's not the amount of time taken but the importance of the section taken and the context in how it is used. Also, our usual disclaimers here: our staff doesn't know Swedish copyright law although a cursory look seems to indicate there is no fair use equivalent.

Tuesday, July 15, 2014

Can State Department Employee Modify Meme?

Dear Rich: I work at the U.S. State Department and I was wondering if you had any references on government agencies’ fair use? For example, if we were to take a Game of Thrones meme (w/a quote) and replace the character’s face with a Russian official, titling it “Russia’s Foreign Policy?” we are not parodying Game of Thrones per se, but we are criticizing the Russian government’s actions by modifying a well-known meme. There is ostensibly no “market” for this product. It is criticism of a policy. Does this qualify as Fair Use? In a straight rule-following world, meme-makers would most likely need permission from the owner of the underlying photograph (In the case of GOT, we're not sure which of the five production companies claims copyright ownership). However there probably wouldn't be any copyright associated with the accompanying text. It's too short to garner protection. In any case, as we intimated in a previous entry on memes, if you're concerned about the legal issues, you're probably too old to be making memes.
What about fair use? Copyright owners seem to have reached a truce with meme-ists, realizing that hassling meme owners isn't worth the potential backlash. However, the owners of Game of Thrones could always make an exception if they feel that the government is using its copyrighted characters in furtherance of an unpopular policy. (Remember when George Lucas almost sued Reagan over the use of the Star Wars trademark?)
Can they sue the feds? Yes, the U.S. government can be sued for copyright infringement. It's possible that the government could defend itself using a fair use defense as it did here, but as we remind our readers, only a judge or arbitrator can make a final determination about what is fair use.

Sunday, July 13, 2014

Do I Sign Solo Artist, Band, or Both?

Dear Rich: I recently started a music production business and I am in the process of signing a new artist as his manager. I have some questions regarding the contract between myself and the artist. He has a solo singer-songwriter act and a small band, that I will oversee. Do I need two separate contracts, as a manager for both his band and his solo act? He has agreed to a five album term instead of year by years contract. Can I change the terms of the contract, in your Music Law book, as we both agree on our terms? If the solo artist and the band operate as two separate entities, you should sign two separate contracts. That will allow you as a manager to keep separate accounts reflecting income and expenses. Otherwise, income destined for the band may be hijacked to pay off the solo artist's debts. If they are not separate entities -- for example, the solo artist hires the band as contractors and pays them an hourly rate -- then one management contract with the solo artist should suffice and there is little need to sign the band.
What about changing the agreement? It's more common to sign a management contract based on years (or financial goals), not on number of albums. (It sounds like you are crossing a record contract with a management agreement.) After all, what happens if the artist doesn't have (or keep) a label deal? Does that mean the management agreement ends? In any case, you're free to make any changes you wish to the agreement but we would suggest that when modifying the standard agreement, always review the instructions that accompany the agreement. Also, beware that in some cases, managers may need to be licensed in California.

Thursday, July 10, 2014

Micro-Entity Costs For Design Patent Filing

Dear Rich: If I am filing a design patent electronically, how do I know ahead of time what the fees are? I am a micro so does that mean $190.00 ($45 + 30 + 115)? Is that correct or will I find out a different number after I have uploaded my application. You can always calculate current micro-entity fees by using the USPTO fee schedule. And yes, your calculations are correct ($45 for basic filing fee, $30 for the search fee, and $115 for the examination fee).

Wednesday, July 9, 2014

Using Lyrics in a Website Logo

Dear Rich: If we would like to use a few lines of a song for a logo that will represent a website or blog logo, is that ok? Traffic to the site is not huge but would like to use it for logo art and if we want to share thoughts on how the song inspired us?  Here are some reasons why you probably won't have to worry about being pursued: (1) If traffic to the site is not substantial, the song owners are unlikely to learn of your use. (2) If the song owners do learn of it, they may not care (unless they find the use offensive). (2) If they do care about it, they probably won't bother to pursue you because a lawyer will likely advise them that you have a fair use defense. (3) If they decide you don't have a valid fair use argument or they want to pursue you for trademark claims, they will likely decide against lawsuit unless they have reason to believe that your pockets are deep. Of course, if the songwriters smell money -- for example, if Facebook, Apple, Amazon, or Google buys your site -- disregard the reasoning, above. Also, because your logo functions as a trademark, to further protect yourself, consider a disclaimer on your homepage stating that the songwriter isn't associated with your site.

Tuesday, July 8, 2014

Why Bother With Foreign Patents?

Dear Rich: Why would you bother getting a patent in other countries if you have been granted one in the USA. Surely, if a patent were granted in the USA that would be enough to deter someone from taking it out in other countries? If you had taken out a PCT and filed for the patent in other countries but only taken it to full patent in the USA someone else would surely be prevented from taking a patent out on your idea in the other countries as it had already been published. Is this correct thinking or am I missing something here?  It's true that after you file your patent application, inventors outside the U.S. may be blocked from getting a similar patent in their respective countries. But the lack of foreign patent rights makes it easier to make and sell your invention abroad. After all, if nobody has a patent, anybody can make the invention. (As you're aware, a U.S. patent is only enforced within national borders.) For many inventors, control over the U.S. market is enough -- after all, the U.S. often accounts for one-third or one-quarter of a new product's sales. Also, the cost of obtaining foreign patents can be prohibitive and often outweighs their speculative value. But for big multinationals with global product introductions, international patent protection is necessary.

Wednesday, July 2, 2014

Design Patent Protection for Pendant

bird food pendant
Dear Rich: I want to protect my designed pendants in the USA. What should I do? And what cost per pendant design? And how long will it take? A design patent may take one year or more to issue (although half of the applications issue in less than a year). An applicant can speed things along -- that is, obtain a design patent within two to six months -- by filing a Request for Expedited Examination of a Design Patent and paying a hefty fee. Here's an article about the expedited system. You can learn more about design patent strategy in this article and we explain the steps for preparing an application at this site. You can learn current fees at the USPTO website.

Monday, June 30, 2014

Simple Song Co-Ownership Agreement

mick and keef:
two of our favorite co-owners
Dear Rich: Presently, I'm trying to memorialize some collaborations. One is a set of songs that I and a producer worked on. I wrote words and the melody, and he did arrangements based on that. One is a set of songs I and a producer worked on. I wrote words and the melody, and he did arrangements based on that.  The other is a remake I'm expecting to do with another colleague, on one of her earlier songs. I'm re-producing the track and writing new lyrics to it. 
Whatever you and the producer have agreed upon as songwriting percentages credit is fine. However, just so you're clear, the creator of the words and music (melody and chord structure) is usually considered the songwriter for copyright purposes. As you're aware, the term "arrangement" can have many meanings from the ordering of parts, to the styling and coloring of a music composition. But under copyright law, arrangements are only considered a songwriting contribution if they are material to the composition -- that is, if the arrangement is dictated by more than musical convention or tradition.
The co-ownership agreement. In any case, you and the producer should write up a simple co-ownership agreement that states each party's songwriting contribution and share. We've enclosed a bare bones co-ownership songwriting agreement with an optional arbitration clause. That should deal with the basic revenue-sharing issues that arise from co-ownership of songs. If you are also dealing with master recordings (a separate copyright), you would execute a similar agreements for the recordings. Also, this does not establish any sort of music publishing arrangement, it merely confirms that each of you are co-owners. And of course, you should also register the songwriting copyright application at some point. (There are instructions at the Copyright Office and in our Music Law book.)
The remake. If you’re writing new lyrics to an existing track, that’s different than the situation described above. You can probably use the agreement below to establish a simple revenue sharing arrangement (and hopefully you will give the song a title that distinguishes it from the previous composition). But the copyright application requires some attention as it's doubtful whether you're co-authors under copyright law (as explained in this previous entry). An attorney's assistance might be required when preparing the application.

Songwriting Co-Ownership Agreement

This Agreement is made between _____[insert name and address of owner #1]_____ and _____[insert name and address of owner #2]_____ (the "Parties") as of _____[insert date agreement is to be effective]_____. The Parties wish to set forth their respective rights to and obligations for the musical compositions (“the Compositions”) listed below:
The Compositions

Ownership Percentage Interests
The Parties to this Agreement are the co-owners of all legal rights in the Compositions described above. The percentage ownership interests of the Parties are as set forth below. Unless otherwise set forth in this Agreement, all money accruing from the exploitation of the Compositions shall be divided as set forth below, and all contracts we enter into for exploitation of the Compositions shall provide for royalty payments reflecting the percentage interests set forth below:
Name                                       Percentage Interest
_____________________      __________
_____________________      __________
The Compositions shall be credited as follows: _____________________________
We represent and warrant to each other:
  •  Each of us is free to enter into this agreement.
  • Our contributions to the Compositions are original or all necessary permissions and releases have been obtained and paid for.
  • None of our contributions infringe upon any copyright or other proprietary right of any other person or entity.
  • We each agree to indemnify the other(s) for any loss, liability, or expense resulting from the actual breach of these warranties.
Arbitration [Optional]
The Parties agree that every dispute or difference between them arising under this Agreement, shall be submitted to binding arbitration at a location mutually agreeable to the Parties. Any decision or award as a result of any such arbitration proceeding shall include the assessment of costs, expenses, and reasonable attorneys' fees and shall include a written record of the proceedings and a written determination of the arbitrators. An award of arbitration shall be final and binding on the Parties and may be confirmed in a court of competent jurisdiction.
Neither party may assign his or her rights or delegate his or her duties under this agreement without the other party’s written consent. However, any party may assign the right to receive royalties or other income from the Compositions by giving written notice to the other party.
Each Party shall act in good faith and not take any action which hinders the rights of the other parties. The provisions of this Agreement shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns of the Parties. If any provision of this Agreement is held to be invalid for any reason, such invalidity shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding between the Parties and can only be modified by written agreement. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the state of _____[insert state law that shall govern the agreement]_____. In the event of any dispute arising under this agreement, the prevailing Party shall be entitled to its reasonable attorney's fees.


Signature __________________________    Dated: __________

Signature __________________________    Dated: __________

Friday, June 27, 2014

Copyright Recipes? 86!

one of our favorite recipes:
arepa sandwich from Victory Burger
Dear Rich: Our neighborhood watch committee is going to raise money with a street fair and food and we're also selling a cookbook that we're making on CreateSpace. One of the people contributing three recipes said he wanted the copyright on his recipes to be in his name. What do I do? Including a copyright notice on his recipes -- for example © 2014 Chef Jones -- would be meaningless because copyright doesn't protect recipes (and here's your proof). However, the complete collection of recipes (and additional text and photos) may be protected as a compilation copyright. And recipes that have not been publicly disclosed can be protected under trade secret law, assuming that they can't be easily reverse engineered.

Thursday, June 26, 2014

Can Co-Writer Reprint Lyrics in Book

Lorenz Hart
(one of our favorite lyricists)
Dear Rich: If John (lyrics) and Mark (music) create a joint-work both owning 50% of the copyright, can John write a book of poems with his lyrics to the song in the book, without getting permission from Mark. If James (record company owner) owns the master, does John need to seek permission from James to use the lyrics to the song in a book of poems? Unless there is a written agreement to the contrary, each co-owner of a joint work has the right to commercially exploit the copyright, provided that the other copyright owner gets a share of the proceeds. So, if John reprints the lyrics as a poem, he would owe 50% of the proceeds from use (assuming there is revenue) to Mark. In other words, after the joint work is created, it no longer matters who created what -- either co-owner can use either contribution.
What about James? James may own a sound recording copyright (for the master recording) but that doesn't give him any dibs over the song copyright. This circular distinguishes the two.

Wednesday, June 25, 2014

The Case of The Partially Public Domain Character

Dear Rich: Help! I'm working on a graphic novel using Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and Sherlock Holmes. I thought Sherlock Holmes was in the public domain but recently read that some Sherlock Holmes is now in the public domain but some isn't. That made me wonder if Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde were public domain? How do you know for sure which is PD and what isn't? Yes, Jekyll, Hyde and Holmes are in the public domain (although some Holmes is still protected as we'll explain below). Determining public domain status is not exactly elementary, but there is a method of figuring it out based on the year of publication in the U.S.  Basically, any characters that appeared in publications prior to 1923 are PD in the U.S. The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde was first published in 1886 and has therefore fallen through the public domain trapdoor (along with the characters within the covers). Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's characters appeared in approximately 50 stories published before 1923, and 10 stories afterwards. In the case you mentioned, Doyle's estate argued that the "whole character" was not formed until the final post-1922 work was published. The Seventh Circuit court of Appeals disagreed and held that the Holmes character who appeared before 1923 is PD -- so, you're free to copy him and Watson. But the remaining 10 works are still protected and you cannot use elements from these works -- for example, you can't reference the fact that Watson had a second wife. (Here's a summary of Sherlock's copyright history.)
BTW Dept ... If you're looking for more match-ups between public domain characters check out this site or this one.

Monday, June 23, 2014

Can We Use "Twilight Zone" Intro?

Dear Rich: I want to do a parody of the Twilight Zone, not mentioning Twilight Zone but have a Rod Serling imitator say the text. Can I lift direct script from the show, word for word? If I do, do I have to give credit? When is a script not copyrightable? Also: I love the opening lines of the move Fargo where they display in text: "THIS IS A TRUE STORY. The events depicted in this film took place in Minnesota in 1987. At the request of the survivors, the names have been changed. Out of respect for the dead, the rest has been told exactly as it occurred."I want to use this as a template for the video, while changing a few words... Is this ok to include, legally if you credit them, or too similar? If you copy the text from either Twilight Zone or Fargo, you're infringing copyright. (Twilight Zone debuted in 1959 and is still copyright-protected.) Attribution -- giving credit to the authors -- won't help your situation. However, if you're just borrowing the intros, for a transformative parody purpose, you're likely to be excused under fair use principles. We would go into a deeper fair use analysis but we feel like we've said it all here.

Thursday, June 19, 2014

How Long Does Permission Last?

Dear Rich: In 2012 I sought permission to use a photograph, the permission was granted and the photograph has been on display for the last nearly two years. I used it again recently and the owner got really angry with me. I have all the written permission by him still, but I took the photo down anyway. However, was I breaching anything after actually having gained the permission? Is there an end to a permission? We can't say whether you're breaching anything -- only a judge or arbitrator could tell you that after considering your arrangement. But we do know that all good things must come to an end (unless they're in perpetuity).
Defining the term. Assuming, as you say, you have a written permission, it should spell out the term (the length of the agreement). If you meant that you have an oral agreement with supporting written documentation (emails, notes), that may also indicate the term. If you never agreed on a term, then a judge or arbitrator would have to infer the length of agreement from the behavior of the parties. For example, if you obtained permission to use a photo in a book, was it understood that permission was granted for all editions of the book or just a particular edition? If the permission was for use at a website, was it understood that permission was granted regardless of which page it was used on or was it limited to a specific URL? Was permission for a photo display limited to a specific show or gallery? In the absence of any evidence, a judge will consider the intent of the parties and trade custom.
What should you do? If there is a difference of opinion as to what was understood, you're in a typical dispute resolution situation in which you can (1) try and work it out yourselves (or hope it just disappears), or (2) you can mediate or arbitrate the matter depending on your budget. We're in favor of the first option.

Wednesday, June 18, 2014

Posting Cover Songs on Facebook

Dear Rich: I am posting videos of my band on FaceBook using songs that have been written and recorded by others. We are a small-time local band that is inconsequential in the larger scheme of things. I have posted a disclaimer that our band "claims no rights in any copyrighted work represented on this page. For informational purposes only." I saw something you said about YouTube, maybe the same words hold true for FaceBook, but I see versions of famous songs all over the place on both. Covering a song in a video requires a sync license and unfortunately, they're not as easy to obtain as a mechanical license (used to reproduce cover tunes as MP3s or CDs). The reason you see so many unauthorized cover tunes is that the music publishers who own the copyrights don't have the ability to chase every infringer (or choose not to go after an infringer for other reasons). For that reason, you can probably post cover videos at Facebook without getting hassled. But, should your cover video become a sensation, chances are good, a DMCA notice or a lawyer (or both) will appear in your future.
Your disclaimer. As we've said before, disclaimers are usually ineffective (and yours has a few problems). Even if you're not claiming rights in the underlying song, you are probably claiming rights in the copyrighted sound recording and video. That is, if somebody began making money reproducing your video without your permission, we assume you would pursue them. Also, claiming that the video is "informational" is confusing. Typically, such a claim is to distinguish it from being commercial and we don't think that's the case. Self-promotion is typically a commercial endeavor. We think you can ditch the disclaimer.
P.S. All bands are inconsequential in the larger scheme of things

Tuesday, June 17, 2014

Can Government Official Put Copyrighted Work "On the Record"?

Dear Rich: I am a librarian and I was recently handed this question. A government official read a journal article and wants to know if he can “introduce it to the public record if it provides relevant information the government needs to make a decision.” I am trying to clarify what he means, but let’s take two possibilities: Hand out copies to his fellow councilors and their staff. Or: scan it into the minutes of a meeting, which would go up on the web. Is either of those okay? I know Congresspersons put copyrighted stuff in the Congressional Record sometimes, but I believe they have an exception. 
Government immunity? State governments are immune from copyright infringement lawsuits (sovereign immunity). So if the copying was done by a state official, the state could not be sued. Congress tried to change that but a district court ruled otherwise (although an individual state employee may be liable.) Local governments and the federal government (and their employees) can be sued for infringement for either scanning or passing out copies. (Passing out copies might make for a better fair use defense because it limits copying to a need-to-know group).
BTW Dept. If copyrighted material is placed in the Congressional Record, there are restrictions on reproducing it.

Monday, June 16, 2014

Can We Use YouTube Clips for EAP Nonprofit?

Dear Rich: I work for a non-profit Employee Assistance Program and we provide short-term therapeutic counseling for workplaces. As part of our services, we have a small training department consisting of two trainers and a catalog of approximately sixty trainings we developed on a variety of topics. Some of these have small clips, two-to-five minutes, of TV shows, movies or maybe a YouTube clip. With the TV and movies, we never use clips that could potentially spoil the plot or give away a surprise, etc. Nothing that would take away someone's desire to see the show or movie. We're glad you don't give away the plots but unfortunately that won't make any difference for copyright purposes. (Neither will the fact that you're a nonprofit.) If you're using other people's copyrighted content without permission, and it's not excused as a fair use, you're liable for infringement. As always, if it's unlikely that the copyright owners will learn of the use, then the risk to the EAP diminishes accordingly.
What about fair use? Your use sounds transformative -- you're commenting on the clip -- so that would be helpful for a fair use defense. On the other hand, the clips are much longer than what's usually excused (under a minute). Look at the four factors and see what you think, or better yet, check with a lawyer if that's possible. Remember, claiming this defense is not enough to stop a lawsuit. If the other side disagrees with you, only a judge or arbitrator can determine whether it's a fair use.

Thursday, June 12, 2014

IPad for Stories: Educational Fair Use?

Dear Rich: I would like to use a single story from an anthology of stories in my 6th grade Humanities class. Our school has recently begun a 1:1 iPad program, so each student will have an iPad to use.  Therefore, I would like to scan the story and share it with my students through our password-protected school website. To my mind, this would be the digital equivalent of providing students with a photocopy of the story. Is scanning and sharing with students online off-limits, or would this fall under educational fair use? Unfortunately the educational fair use guidelines were written prior to the existence of iPad learning and they reference photocopying, not digital scans. The guidelines provide that a copy of a short story can be distributed to each student provided it meets the guideline standards of brevity and spontaneity. In terms of brevity, the guidelines limit copying to a complete article, story, or essay if less than 2,500 words or an excerpt from any prose work of not more than 1,000 words or 10% of the work, whichever is less. (We summarize the rules here.) Although you can analogize to these rules, the proposed digital educational rules (no official consensus was ever reached) do not include a similar textual reproduction rule. In summary, there is no rule that clearly exempts your use. In any case, we don't imagine you'll run into a problem, particularly if access is password-protected and you can remove the copies from iPads (or terminate access). 

Wednesday, June 11, 2014

Post Production Documentary Fair Use

Dear Rich: We are in post-production on a documentary in which we use two campaign ads and limited news footage. One of the ads is an attack ad on one of our character (subjects) from 1996. We use about :20 of a :30 piece. Our character is in favor of using it as it demonstrates an outrageous lie against her and provides historical evidence of slander in political campaigns of the '90s. The other ad depicts one of the characters in his 2011 special election campaign. The ad is ironic and received a lot of criticism when it came out. Currently, we use a few seconds of it in slow-mo as a backdrop for text to describe his current efforts to limit regulatory over site, so we feel that the image and text are related; the ad helps to illustrate the point. However, in our long piece, we would like to show more of it. There are probably two different rulings that would be drawn, but we'd appreciate your input on that. In addition, we have a couple of seconds of stories from a variety of news sources used to illustrate coverage - or lack of coverage of specific events. Currently, we are using no more than 4 seconds of any news clip. Much of the voice is covered up with our own BRoll, but Sawyer and Jennings are both on camera for a moment before cutting away. If you are asking whether you will be embroiled in a lawsuit over these issues, we couldn't say. We do know that when politicians get mad over ads, they often lawyer-up (see our recent post).
Fair use? If you're asking whether we think you will prevail in a lawsuit based on a fair use defense, the meter probably leans more toward your side than towards the copyright owners. That's because -- analyzing the four four fair use factors -- your segments are relatively short (the shorter the better), your use of the material is clearly for the purposes of commentary, and your project doesn't seem likely to have an effect on the potential market for the copyrighted works. As always, this is only speculation and the costs of fair use litigation may overwhelm principles of free speech.
P.S. Dept. If you're planning on posting your documentary online, keep in mind that copyright owners can use DMCA notices to wreak havoc.