Go Back   Cockos Incorporated Forums > REAPER Forums > REAPER General Discussion Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-16-2015, 01:53 PM   #1
msea
Human being with feelings
 
msea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Toronto ON
Posts: 972
Default Satire, mashup, copyright... seeking advice

So I finished a tune... basically a trancy number with soundbites from TV and the music industry. One TV show, one TV commercial, and one popular song. All from 1960s or 70s.

In Canada we have a copyright law where "mashups" using parody or satire are legal. But if the judge doesn't understand the parody or satire, and if the corporations involved don't like the usage, artists could be faced with a 5000 dollar fine for non-commerical use.

So I'm thinking... contact the copyright holders, if I can find out who they are, of course. Problem is, I'm an unknown, and I suspect some maybe all of them would just completely ignore my request to use their stuff.

Anyone have any ideas on how best to proceed? Would email do it? Or would it have to be a surface mail request and letter(s) of permission?

I think it's even harder in the US. Not sure about other countries.

Ideas welcome. I want to get my stuff out there. But I don't want to lose 5000 clams, let alone be faced with the worry and frustration of a lawsuit...
msea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2015, 01:56 PM   #2
Judders
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 11,044
Default

Are you planning on trying to make money from it?
Judders is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2015, 02:27 PM   #3
msea
Human being with feelings
 
msea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Toronto ON
Posts: 972
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Judders View Post
Are you planning on trying to make money from it?
No... no no. But if it hit and that gave me some exposure, I suppose that exposure could contribute to my making money from subsequent tunes.

But this particular number would be strictly non-commercial.
msea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2015, 02:30 PM   #4
Judders
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 11,044
Default

Well, technically you should always seek permission from the publisher. But if you're not making any money from it they're very unlikely to pursue it.

I mean, technically you're supposed to seek permission to perform covers in your local pub, but everyone turns a blind eye, just like the millions of tunes on the internet that use unlicensed samples.
Judders is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2015, 04:29 PM   #5
whiteaxxxe
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: United States of Europe, Germany, Mönchengladbach
Posts: 2,047
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Judders View Post
I mean, technically you're supposed to seek permission to perform covers in your local pub, but everyone turns a blind eye, just like the millions of tunes on the internet that use unlicensed samples.
thats not correct. a pub pays a general sum to have music to the royalty collectors (GEMA in Germany, dont know how they are called in other countries). for radio, jukebox usage, CD player, and live music.

the procedure in Germany is, that the cover-band gives a playlist to the pubowner, he send it to the royalty collector and that pays from the general sum paid by the club to the copyright owners.

if a band plays its own material, the playlist is also made and sent to the collectors. so they get some mones from the royalty collectors back for their own gig.

cover bands are allowed to play cover-songs because the organiser of a concert has to pay that general fee. has nothing to do with turning a blind eye. what is a lot of times not handled very well is the thing with the playlist. if no playlists are avalable the money is divided on some mystical key amongst the artists, that are paid usually by the royalty collector. most part of that mystical money goes in the UK to the usual suspects, namely PaulMcCartney and collegues, I assume.
whiteaxxxe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2015, 04:43 PM   #6
Judders
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 11,044
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by whiteaxxxe View Post
thats not correct. a pub pays a general sum to have music to the royalty collectors (GEMA in Germany, dont know how they are called in other countries). for radio, jukebox usage, CD player, and live music.

the procedure in Germany is, that the cover-band gives a playlist to the pubowner, he send it to the royalty collector and that pays from the general sum paid by the club to the copyright owners.

if a band plays its own material, the playlist is also made and sent to the collectors. so they get some mones from the royalty collectors back for their own gig.

cover bands are allowed to play cover-songs because the organiser of a concert has to pay that general fee. has nothing to do with turning a blind eye. what is a lot of times not handled very well is the thing with the playlist. if no playlists are avalable the money is divided on some mystical key amongst the artists, that are paid usually by the royalty collector. most part of that mystical money goes in the UK to the usual suspects, namely PaulMcCartney and collegues, I assume.
Yes, you are right, thanks for the correction.

Though lots of cover versions are performed to an audience in unlicensed premises every day. It is not worth pursuing, because there is not enough money in it.
Judders is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2015, 04:45 PM   #7
Judders
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 11,044
Default

msea: to cover your back, how about including a description of what you are satirising with your song? Or at least publish your satirical intent online.
Judders is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2015, 05:44 PM   #8
peter5992
Human being with feelings
 
peter5992's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Oakland, CA
Posts: 10,478
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by msea View Post
So I finished a tune... basically a trancy number with soundbites from TV and the music industry. One TV show, one TV commercial, and one popular song. All from 1960s or 70s.

In Canada we have a copyright law where "mashups" using parody or satire are legal. But if the judge doesn't understand the parody or satire, and if the corporations involved don't like the usage, artists could be faced with a 5000 dollar fine for non-commerical use.

So I'm thinking... contact the copyright holders, if I can find out who they are, of course. Problem is, I'm an unknown, and I suspect some maybe all of them would just completely ignore my request to use their stuff.

Anyone have any ideas on how best to proceed? Would email do it? Or would it have to be a surface mail request and letter(s) of permission?

I think it's even harder in the US. Not sure about other countries.

Ideas welcome. I want to get my stuff out there. But I don't want to lose 5000 clams, let alone be faced with the worry and frustration of a lawsuit...
That's a tricky question. Technically you have to "clear" all use of samples that are still in copyright, and snippets from 70s shows are still in copyright. That is true even if you don't intend to make any money off it. "Satire" is not an exception here though I could be wrong. Satire is an accepted defense (Al Jankovich).

That said, like someone else said, if it is just for non commercial use the odds of people suing you are probably very small, and in practical terms, getting a license can be very difficult - you have to find the right people to contact, and then they may want some money. Clearing rights for e.g. movies is a day job and specialized one at that.
peter5992 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2015, 05:47 PM   #9
Judders
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 11,044
Default

Al Yankovic asks permission for every song he does.
Judders is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2015, 06:41 PM   #10
whiteaxxxe
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: United States of Europe, Germany, Mönchengladbach
Posts: 2,047
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Judders View Post
Though lots of cover versions are performed to an audience in unlicensed premises every day. It is not worth pursuing, because there is not enough money in it.
yep, but thats not the problem of the musicians but the problem of the people running that places.
whiteaxxxe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2015, 06:51 PM   #11
5/4
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 51
Default

i wouldn't be too worried if was you. Unless you are directly profiting from this music on a relatively large scale I'm pretty sure you won't have any issues. I have written a paper in the past on copyright law and sampling and know people in the music industry with relative amounts of mainstream and underground success who do not bother to clear their samples who have had no major repercussions. While I am no lawyer and don't have specific empirical evidence to say either way other than my own experience. I feel that copyright law gets overblown by a lot of musicians online who jump the gun when it comes to the right time to start worrying about clearing samples and infringing copyrights. But thats just my opinion really!
5/4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2015, 07:18 PM   #12
msea
Human being with feelings
 
msea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Toronto ON
Posts: 972
Default

Thanks... I really appreciate all the replies, and the interesting diversion into barroom royalties.

Sigh. Part of the problem here is that my work evolves. I don't sit down with a whiteboard and say... now I am going to satire (a) (b) and (c). Nope. It just evolves organically. The whole thing. Musically and thematically. It's an unconventional way of working, I guess, but that's how my mind/muse works.

So it would be difficult and probably limiting to try to definitively describe the satire. A lot of my stuff sort of comes out in the wash. I mean, it makes sense after events transpire. There's a term for that... um... premonition...? Prescience? I'm sure many artists experience something similar.
msea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-2015, 07:53 AM   #13
The Byre
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 699
Default

1. You absolutely must clear every sample.

2. Nowadays, we all have access to software that identifies all samples, even doofus TV snippets.

3. Samples are not included in the new 2012 Canadian 'Copyright Modernisation Act'. This act now allows others to cover (i.e. make a sound or image similar to) songs or images, without having to pay royalties, when done for purposes of satire or parody.

4. Samples fall under mechanical property rights and you must have permission to use them.

5. In 1995, NIN had to pay $8,000, plus about $5,000 in lawyers' fees for using five seconds, seven words, from a 20-year-old documentary recorded off of PBS when the engineer was in college, just because they failed to clear them and the label thought that they could get away with it, as NIN was at the time only slightly popular and only in Europe.
____________________________________

As an example - We used a belly-dancing exercise tape from the 80s, just for the middle eight bongo run, nothing else. This was in 2004. The short excerpt was overlaid with drums and just about anything and everything else. Nobody thought that identifying the original would be even possible, as we had covered it with everything and the kitchen sink!

Nothing came of it and the project was binned.

Ten years later, the track was dug out and a remix and release was planned. The label ran the track through their software and low-and-behold, the name and details of that damn exercise tape came up as identifier!

Back to the bin!
The Byre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-2015, 08:41 AM   #14
The Byre
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 699
Default

P.S. You also cannot use out of date material, unless you have access to the original. So if you sample something originally recorded in the 50s, you had better be able to prove that you have a copy from that time, as each time the label or artist rereleases material, that rerelease has a fresh copyright on the mechanical.
The Byre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2015, 12:14 PM   #15
msea
Human being with feelings
 
msea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Toronto ON
Posts: 972
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Byre View Post
1. You absolutely must clear every sample.



3. Samples are not included in the new 2012 Canadian 'Copyright Modernisation Act'. This act now allows others to cover (i.e. make a sound or image similar to) songs or images, without having to pay royalties, when done for purposes of satire or parody.

4. Samples fall under mechanical property rights and you must have permission to use them.
Very interesting. How about if the work is non-commercial?

Also, if we apply filters to the sample, are we not creating a new sound? For example, if we used EQ to get the telephone effect. Also delay, verb and detailed envelopes. It would be recognizable. But also different. In most cases if we just used the flat sample it would sound like garbage.

There is artistry in making a sample sound good. I think that should also be taken into consideration.

Moreover, if the samples were acquired from YouTube they would not be originals. They would have different sound quality and be a different electronic format (therefore different coding) than the originals.

Would a sonically degraded and artistically modified sound be the same as the original?

I just throw these ideas out for discussion. Probably others have wondered about the same.
msea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2015, 12:52 PM   #16
The Byre
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 699
Default

No allowance is made for commercial or non-commercial use.

Altering the sound does not effect the mechanical rights.

On the one hand, you are unlikely to attract litigation for minor project, on the other hand, YouTube usually is able to find the pattern and remove the clip and could possibly ban you.
The Byre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2015, 08:21 PM   #17
insub
Human being with feelings
 
insub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Louisville, KY, USA
Posts: 1,075
Default

If I remember correctly... in the States we have 2 different copyrights for music. One is PA (Performing Arts) which copyrights the content of the song (lyrics and main melodies) and the other is the SR (Sound Recording) which copyrights that particular recording of a particular performance and which can also cover the PA rights for the same song at the same time.

Al Yankovich can get away with what he does because he recreates the songs in their entirety from scratch. Many uncleared samples are used in this way. (There are studios and studio musicians who do nothing other than recreate samples to bypass SR copyright or to get clean samples when no original multitrack is available.) No sample is being used. And, because it is a parody of the original, it is permissible by law. If he were to just sing new parody lyrics over the original instrumental he would be in violation of the SR (someone called it mechanical) copyright if he did not obtain prior permission. Of course, if he gets permission to use the original instrumental then I imagine he would. But, I think he's been sued many times over, so I doubt that he gets permission from anyone and instead works under the protection of the parody loophole.

A live band can perform any song regardless of permission and get paid to do so without giving royalties in the US, as far as I know. But, if they use a sample of it then it is infringement of the SR. Or, if they record themselves playing it and sell the recordings then it is an infringement of the PA. But, in either case they can only be sued up to the maximum of what they made. So, if you made $1000 then that is the maximum they can get from you. Not worth pursuing. But, if you made $1,000,000 then bet your ass they will try to get you for every dime! DJ's on the other hand are supposed to pay royalties because they are not performing (playing melodies using a musical instrument) the copywritten material themselves regardless of how they have mangled the recording unless it is utterly unrecognizable.

The Verve forfeited 100% of the rights to Bitter Sweet Symphony and they even had prior permission. I think there was another one-hit wonder who lost ownership of their entire album because their hit contained an uncleared sample. The lawyers contended that the entire album would never have made money without the sample and so the band lost everything in regards to that album.

Here's a nice article about how to attempt clearance for use of samples.

DJ Pretty Lights gives away most of his recorded music under the claim that he is being so generous to his fans. The reality is that he has broken so many copyrights that the recordings are not profitable. The albums that he sells aren't so laden with copyrighted material. He hired studio musicians as "work for hire" and sampled their original material performances for his commercial album works. A lot of DJs are going this route today. Give away recordings of music that is not commercially viable because of copyright infringement and make your money when 1000s come to see you perform live. So, I think there is some leniency in using samples during a live performance in the US.

It's been a long time since I've read about copyright laws, and I'm no lawyer by far. But, this is how I've come to understand them in the USA.

You will have to decide for yourself whether you want to risk it. But, in the US a parody does not give you permission to use samples. However, they can only get from you what you made. So, if you release it separately from any other works and give it away, then you are unlikely to ever see any repercussion in the US at least.
__________________
Everything you need to know about samplerates and oversampling... maybe!
My Essential FREE 64bit VST Effects, ReaEQ Presets for Instruments
Windows 10 64 bit; MOTU 828 MKII, Audio Express, & 8PRE; Behringer ADA8000
insub is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2015, 08:34 PM   #18
msea
Human being with feelings
 
msea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Toronto ON
Posts: 972
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Byre View Post

As an example - We used a belly-dancing exercise tape from the 80s, just for the middle eight bongo run, nothing else. This was in 2004. The short excerpt was overlaid with drums and just about anything and everything else. Nobody thought that identifying the original would be even possible, as we had covered it with everything and the kitchen sink!

Nothing came of it and the project was binned.

Ten years later, the track was dug out and a remix and release was planned. The label ran the track through their software and low-and-behold, the name and details of that damn exercise tape came up as identifier!

Back to the bin!
That is incredible. What kind of software would have access to that kind of massive database? And the bongo run wasn't even digital. Wow.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Byre View Post

On the one hand, you are unlikely to attract litigation for minor project, on the other hand, YouTube usually is able to find the pattern and remove the clip and could possibly ban you.
YouTube, that makes money out of turning a blind eye until notified... Why can't they use this software to prevent copyright infringement, prior to the need for notification?

Btw, there's a new, like really new law in Canada. Just came into effect in January 2015. I think our PM is trying to cozy up to Obama for the sake of the keystone pipeline. Anyhow, I read some stuff and it seemed like samples would be okay for non-commercial satire. But I'm not a lawyer...

Thanks for your input. Most people said it would be okay. But some say more like you do. So... ?

Last edited by msea; 02-02-2015 at 08:47 PM.
msea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2015, 08:46 PM   #19
msea
Human being with feelings
 
msea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Toronto ON
Posts: 972
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by insub View Post
If I remember correctly... in the States we have 2 different copyrights for music. One is PA (Performing Arts) which copyrights the content of the song (lyrics and main melodies) and the other is the SR (Sound Recording) which copyrights that particular recording of a particular performance and which can also cover the PA rights for the same song at the same time.

Al Yankovich can get away with what he does because he recreates the songs in their entirety from scratch. Many uncleared samples are used in this way. (There are studios and studio musicians who do nothing other than recreate samples to bypass SR copyright or to get clean samples when no original multitrack is available.) No sample is being used. And, because it is a parody of the original, it is permissible by law. If he were to just sing new parody lyrics over the original instrumental he would be in violation of the SR (someone called it mechanical) copyright if he did not obtain prior permission. Of course, if he gets permission to use the original instrumental then I imagine he would. But, I think he's been sued many times over, so I doubt that he gets permission from anyone and instead works under the protection of the parody loophole.

A live band can perform any song regardless of permission and get paid to do so without giving royalties in the US, as far as I know. But, if they use a sample of it then it is infringement of the SR. Or, if they record themselves playing it and sell the recordings then it is an infringement of the PA. But, in either case they can only be sued up to the maximum of what they made. So, if you made $1000 then that is the maximum they can get from you. Not worth pursuing. But, if you made $1,000,000 then bet your ass they will try to get you for every dime! DJ's on the other hand are supposed to pay royalties because they are not performing (playing melodies using a musical instrument) the copywritten material themselves regardless of how they have mangled the recording unless it is utterly unrecognizable.

The Verve forfeited 100% of the rights to Bitter Sweet Symphony and they even had prior permission. I think there was another one-hit wonder who lost ownership of their entire album because their hit contained an uncleared sample. The lawyers contended that the entire album would never have made money without the sample and so the band lost everything in regards to that album.

Here's a nice article about how to attempt clearance for use of samples.

DJ Pretty Lights gives away most of his recorded music under the claim that he is being so generous to his fans. The reality is that he has broken so many copyrights that the recordings are not profitable. The albums that he sells aren't so laden with copyrighted material. He hired studio musicians as "work for hire" and sampled their original material performances for his commercial album works. A lot of DJs are going this route today. Give away recordings of music that is not commercially viable because of copyright infringement and make your money when 1000s come to see you perform live. So, I think there is some leniency in using samples during a live performance in the US.

It's been a long time since I've read about copyright laws, and I'm no lawyer by far. But, this is how I've come to understand them in the USA.

You will have to decide for yourself whether you want to risk it. But, in the US a parody does not give you permission to use samples. However, they can only get from you what you made. So, if you release it separately from any other works and give it away, then you are unlikely to ever see any repercussion in the US at least.
Thanks.. Interesting info and awesome links. Looks like there was a dispute over how much the Verve used. Also like the be smart about your music link.
msea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2015, 01:26 AM   #20
The Byre
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 699
Default

Quote: "Al Yankovich can get away with what he does because he recreates the songs in their entirety from scratch."

1. He does not injure anybody's mechanical rights, i.e. he does not use any existing recordings.

2. He gets permission EVERY TIME from the original publisher to record songs. Even if the law states that he could use those songs as satire or humour, he would run the risk of injuring (amongst other things) their image rights, simply by sounding rather like the original artist.
The Byre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2015, 01:52 AM   #21
The Byre
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 699
Default

Insub has given you some bad advice.

Please remember that the mechanical rights (i.e. noises) are somebody's property, just as your laptop is your property. You can no more take somebody's noises and use or abuse them, than I can take your laptop and claim that I am using it for 'fair use' or anything else.

The same goes for your looks and voice. If you live from and place significant value on your image (because you are a rock/pop/hip-hop star) I cannot just use that image for my own profit. I will need your permission, simply because it is your property, just as your laptop is your property.

Because I have not denied you access to your sounds or image, use or abuse of your sounds and image is not a criminal offense, but it would give you opportunity to begin litigation against me - and I would have to defend myself and that can cost hundreds of thousands.

Samples are NEVER available for use by anybody, no matter what you claim, or whatever you do with them. And there is no limit on the amount that can be litigated for.

Songs (i.e. tune and words) are different. You can use them and the amount you have to pay is set out clearly in most countries. In the US, you can only use them with permission from the publisher, though the law in this area is complex and goes beyond any explanation I can give here.
The Byre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2015, 01:56 AM   #22
dub.matze
Human being with feelings
 
dub.matze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 151
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by whiteaxxxe View Post
thats not correct. a pub pays a general sum to have music to the royalty collectors (GEMA in Germany, dont know how they are called in other countries). for radio, jukebox usage, CD player, and live music.

the procedure in Germany is, that the cover-band gives a playlist to the pubowner, he send it to the royalty collector and that pays from the general sum paid by the club to the copyright owners.

if a band plays its own material, the playlist is also made and sent to the collectors. so they get some mones from the royalty collectors back for their own gig.

cover bands are allowed to play cover-songs because the organiser of a concert has to pay that general fee. has nothing to do with turning a blind eye. what is a lot of times not handled very well is the thing with the playlist. if no playlists are avalable the money is divided on some mystical key amongst the artists, that are paid usually by the royalty collector. most part of that mystical money goes in the UK to the usual suspects, namely PaulMcCartney and collegues, I assume.
you only get money back from the GEMA if you a GEMA-member. (but i think this is a special german system)

to explain the german system it work that way:

i bougth a digicam with lense. i produce a lot of photos witch i burn for Backup on DVDs and transport them sometimes on a thumbdrive. sounds easy? mhm in this process i pay for music use (remember: i making my own pictures with my own cam no music) the gema fee for the DVDs, the usbsticks and the burning hardware. (fair?)

spoken in a music way this means for me: i own ~2400 CDs, like 150kg vinyl and payed like ~2000€ for musicdownloads the last years. (+ i was paying like 4 years a Napsterabo ~400euro) so i dont have any unlincensed music. but when i will listen to MY music in my car i have to pay the GEMA for the Radio/cd-unit, the CD (where i burn my music on) or the usb stick...
(ILL!) ... ok we all have learned deal with it...

Last year a lot of Clubs/discos and things closed arround here - the gema fee was raised from arround 12k€ per ano to more than 40k...
- and here we have a intervention in culture and social living...
__________________
hello summer: https://soundcloud.com/matze-dub/sets/hallo-sommer

make send controls midi learnable: http://forum.cockos.com/showthread.php?t=120918
dub.matze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2015, 02:10 AM   #23
The Byre
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 699
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dub.matze View Post
you only get money back from the GEMA if you a GEMA-member. (but i think this is a special german system)
The clue is in the name - Gesellschaft für musikalische Aufführungs- und mechanische Vervielfältigungsrechte!

The equivalent of the RIAA in the US, PRS in the UK.
The Byre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2015, 06:14 AM   #24
whiteaxxxe
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: United States of Europe, Germany, Mönchengladbach
Posts: 2,047
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dub.matze View Post
you only get money back from the GEMA if you a GEMA-member. (but i think this is a special german system)

to explain the german system it work that way:

i bougth a digicam with lense. i produce a lot of photos witch i burn for Backup on DVDs and transport them sometimes on a thumbdrive. sounds easy? mhm in this process i pay for music use (remember: i making my own pictures with my own cam no music) the gema fee for the DVDs, the usbsticks and the burning hardware. (fair?)

spoken in a music way this means for me: i own ~2400 CDs, like 150kg vinyl and payed like ~2000€ for musicdownloads the last years. (+ i was paying like 4 years a Napsterabo ~400euro) so i dont have any unlincensed music. but when i will listen to MY music in my car i have to pay the GEMA for the Radio/cd-unit, the CD (where i burn my music on) or the usb stick...
(ILL!) ... ok we all have learned deal with it...

Last year a lot of Clubs/discos and things closed arround here - the gema fee was raised from arround 12k€ per ano to more than 40k...
- and here we have a intervention in culture and social living...
yep, thats right. you have to be a GEMA-member.

all the rest of what you said is true. you pay GEMA-licenses everywhere, if you have already paid or not. but thats not new, at least not for Gemany, because on empty tape and cassettes also were GEMA-licenses.

kindergartens (<- is that right? strange ...) pay GEMA-fees for singing with the children.

oh, yeah, we are Germans. and we do everything 120%.
whiteaxxxe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2015, 06:30 AM   #25
The Byre
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 699
Default

No they don't!

That story is totally bogus. Here is the press release from the GEMA on this topic -

In der Vergangenheit hat das Thema Notenkopien in vorschulischen Einrichtungen immer wieder für Schlagzeilen gesorgt. Leider wurde dabei oftmals irreführend berichtet, die VG Musikedition und die GEMA würden hohe Tantiemenbeträge für das Singen in Kindergärten verlangen oder das Singen gar verbieten. Das reine Singen von Liedern in vorschulischen Einrichtungen hat jedoch mit den Notenkopien nichts zu tun und ist somit natürlich kostenfrei.

Die Kopier-Lizenzen beziehen sich ausschließlich auf das Kopieren von Noten und Liedtexten. Dabei liegt der Bedarf an Kopien - je nach Bundesland – bei 80% bis 90% der Kitas in der niedrigsten Tarifstufe bis 500 Kopien für EUR 44,80/Jahr*. Zuständig hierfür ist die VG Musikedition. Die GEMA unterstützt die VG Musikedition lediglich administrativ
The Byre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2015, 04:22 PM   #26
insub
Human being with feelings
 
insub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Louisville, KY, USA
Posts: 1,075
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Byre View Post
Quote: "Al Yankovich can get away with what he does because he recreates the songs in their entirety from scratch."

1. He does not injure anybody's mechanical rights, i.e. he does not use any existing recordings.

2. He gets permission EVERY TIME from the original publisher to record songs. Even if the law states that he could use those songs as satire or humour, he would run the risk of injuring (amongst other things) their image rights, simply by sounding rather like the original artist.
I think this is basically the same thing that I said. Google "Al Yankovic lawsuit" and you will see that "permission" or "protection under the law" do not mean you cannot be sued. In the US you can be sued for anything at all whether the claims are truthful or not. And, you can lose even if you are in the right if you cannot make a compelling argument in your defense (i.e. don't have as much money).

EDIT: Yankovic has avoided lawsuits by obtaining prior permission. So, while he is not a good example of getting sued, there are plenty of lawsuits available for examination. You will notice however that when Yankovic does not obtain permission he still releases the records individually for free. That is my point. They cannot sue you for money you didn't make. They can sue you for defamation or whatever, but those cases are hard to prove and win. Besides, you can't get blood out of a turnip. Meaning, you can't take from someone what they don't have. Rich people rarely sue poor people for money. They may sue you for principle or to make you cease what you are doing or just to try to ruin you financially in the long run.

WikiPedia:
Under the "fair use" provision of U.S. copyright law, affirmed by the United States Supreme Court, artists such as Yankovic do not need permission to record a parody.[76] However, as a personal rule and as a means of maintaining good relationships, Yankovic has always sought permission from the original artist before commercially releasing a parody.[7] These communications are typically handled by his manager Jay Levey, but at times Yankovic has asked the artist directly, such as flying to Denver, Colorado to attend one of Iggy Azalea's concerts and speak to her personally about parodying her song "Fancy".[77] He claims that only about two to three percent of the artists he approaches for permission deny his requests,[78] while many of the rest who approve consider Yankovic's parodies to be a badge of honor and rite of passage in the music industry.

If you read more of the article you will see that Mr.Yankovic wasn't as stickler about prior permission until after the Coolio fiasco. But, in the US NO PERMISSION IS NESSECARY to make or record a parody of any song.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Byre View Post
Insub has given you some bad advice.
In what way? I don't think any of your points in response are contrary to my own.

How many countries are you a copyright expert in?
I cannot give the OP advice for Canada as I don't know their laws in the least. I've only stated my own interpretations of copyright law as it pertains to music in the USA.
__________________
Everything you need to know about samplerates and oversampling... maybe!
My Essential FREE 64bit VST Effects, ReaEQ Presets for Instruments
Windows 10 64 bit; MOTU 828 MKII, Audio Express, & 8PRE; Behringer ADA8000

Last edited by insub; 02-03-2015 at 04:47 PM.
insub is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2015, 05:33 PM   #27
yep
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,019
Default

These kinds of threads are always magnets for misinformation, although this one has been not too bad, so far.

The reality is that these kinds of copyright questions can get EXTREMELY situation and fact-dependent, and nobody should rely on the internet for advice about this stuff.

The absolute, bright-line boundaries of purely "original work" versus categorical plagiarism/piracy are fairly easy to keep track of, in North American copyright laws. There is a certain place where you are absolutely, positively standing on dry land, and then there is another place where you are clearly out in open ocean, and the difference between the two is obvious and nobody would ever confuse them.

The problem is that everybody wants to live on the beach, and it is very difficult to get clear agreement on which particular grain of wet sand marks the dividing line between "land" versus "ocean". Plus, the tide keeps changing.

In Canada, the US, and other "common law" countries, there are basically two sources of law: the actual written statutes, which are often surprising vague, broad, or dated, and the body of so-called "case law" or legal precedent, which is the history of how courts have interpreted and applied laws, both written and unwritten. That system works pretty well for things like real estate, where stuff doesn't change much, where boundaries are theoretically easy to measure and define, and where facts are relatively straightforward.

But it gets really messy, fast, in modern media. What constitutes a "song"? Obviously, I can't claim a copyright on the 12-bar blues progression, or the pentatonic scale... It seems a little bit easier to define a "recording", but even that gets hazy fast: if I record a conversation on a city street, and part of the background sound is a copyrighted recording playing through a car window, does that count? What if it is so distorted and masked that it is not recognizable?

These kinds of questions become almost philosophical, or abstract, and you can spend years on the existentialism of music, sound, and what the "is" is...

But the law doesn't like philosophical definitions, the law likes bright lines, elegant definitions, and a clear set of rules for everyone to play by. Sounds nice, doesn't it? Problem is, each new ruling contributes a different measurement-test for how to measure the shoreline. This one says that if either foot is touching water, you're off of dry land. This other one says that if both feet are dry, you're good. What is "dry"? what is "water"? And what about that crazy judge in Dubuque who said that any inch of soil that is ever exposed to open air is considered "land", or the other one in Des Moines who ruled that anything past the high-tide line should legally be considered "underwater"? (And how do you define the high-tide line, anyway?)

What this means, for people who want to use other people's recordings or musical ideas, is that you are perpetually in a spectrum of legal risk.

Quoting a line from another band's lyrics in your own lyrics might be fairly low-risk, for example, if it's buried in a verse. But the same could become very high-risk if you decided to use "Who Let The Dogs Out?" as your chorus in a reggae-influenced dancehall number that was stylistically similar to the Baja Boys number.

Similar with taking samples and working them into new songs. Some early rap would basically lift the instrumental arrangement from another song, wholesale, and rap over it. See "Rapper's Delight" versus Le Chic's "Good Times", "Ice Ice Baby" versus "Under Pressure", or "Can't Touch This" versus "Superfreak". A team of musicologists and lawyers could spend all week on these three cases, and not come to a clear conclusion about how ownership should have rightly been awarded.

There is also an extremely important practical reality, especially with legally "blurry" cases, which is that "winning" a lawsuit can still be ruinously-expensive.

The litigiousness of your opponent is a GIGANTIC factor, with this sort of thing. Some people are flattered, or take a live-and-live attitude towards being sampled. Others will burn the whole house down, to keep you from sitting on their couch without permission.

If a well-funded plaintiff with good lawyers wants to make an example out of you, they can often keep you tangled up in a court case for months or years. If you don't have the pocket change to pay for months or years of legal representation, then even if you "win" the lawsuit, you may find yourself victorious, homeless, and bankrupt.

On the flipside, let's say your song becomes a hit and makes you millions of dollars. Well now every musician whose work you sampled, plus all of their lawyers, know that you have millions of dollars worth of "make me go away" money. As in, "look, just give our guy a credit and $50,000 in legal fees and this will go away..."

Bottom line, if you skate on thin ice long enough, you're going to fall into cold water. If you rely on amateurs to tell you how thin is still safe, and if you like to push the limits, then sooner or later you're going to hit a weak spot and fall through.
yep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2015, 07:10 PM   #28
insub
Human being with feelings
 
insub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Louisville, KY, USA
Posts: 1,075
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yep View Post
Bottom line, if you skate on thin ice long enough, you're going to fall into cold water. If you rely on amateurs to tell you how thin is still safe, and if you like to push the limits, then sooner or later you're going to hit a weak spot and fall through.
Yep, you are spot on.
2 Live Crew won against Roy Orbison in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose but in the end they still settled out of court for an undisclosed amount of money.

The law is extremely vague as to what constitutes a parody.

I got in an argument about this with a member of my band. He wrote a song about money. Then while we were recording he said he wanted to work in a transition of the bass line to Pink Floyd's Money and drop a couple of lines in there with it too. I was strongly opposed. Maybe our chances of hitting it big is slimmer than winning the PowerBall Lottery, but I just don't want to take a chance of having to deal with it whatsoever. We eventually agreed that we could work it in to a live rendition, but we were not going to record it onto the album. I'm pretty certain that my guitarist's song did not fall under the terms required to be a parody at all.

Mainly, we are planning to self release the album and attempt to commercialize that release.

Musically, you can do whatever you want with whomever's songs and samples. But, when you start to make money from it then it gets sticky. And, everyone with an interest will want their share if they can get it.

So, release your questionable works separately and for free. There are a lot of rappers who got a following by giving away their songs that they had no rights to sell. When they got big enough to get signed by a label guess what? None of those songs went onto their commercial albums unless the music was done over as new to their lyrics. Basically, the same tactic that a lot of DJ's use to get exposure like I said before.

For me, I like to dream big. I don't want any thin ice tarnishing the shine on my big dreams. So, personally I avoid using any samples or other copyright material. Years ago when I produced a rap group I made all my beats from scratch without samples. Probably, to our group's detriment. But, we had an original sound and we did ok locally for a short time. And, we never worried about permissions because we needed none. Our work was 100% original.
__________________
Everything you need to know about samplerates and oversampling... maybe!
My Essential FREE 64bit VST Effects, ReaEQ Presets for Instruments
Windows 10 64 bit; MOTU 828 MKII, Audio Express, & 8PRE; Behringer ADA8000
insub is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2015, 07:17 PM   #29
msea
Human being with feelings
 
msea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Toronto ON
Posts: 972
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yep View Post
These kinds of threads are always magnets for misinformation, although this one has been not too bad, so far.

The reality is that these kinds of copyright questions can get EXTREMELY situation and fact-dependent, and nobody should rely on the internet for advice about this stuff.

The absolute, bright-line boundaries of purely "original work" versus categorical plagiarism/piracy are fairly easy to keep track of, in North American copyright laws. There is a certain place where you are absolutely, positively standing on dry land, and then there is another place where you are clearly out in open ocean, and the difference between the two is obvious and nobody would ever confuse them.

The problem is that everybody wants to live on the beach, and it is very difficult to get clear agreement on which particular grain of wet sand marks the dividing line between "land" versus "ocean". Plus, the tide keeps changing.

In Canada, the US, and other "common law" countries, there are basically two sources of law: the actual written statutes, which are often surprising vague, broad, or dated, and the body of so-called "case law" or legal precedent, which is the history of how courts have interpreted and applied laws, both written and unwritten. That system works pretty well for things like real estate, where stuff doesn't change much, where boundaries are theoretically easy to measure and define, and where facts are relatively straightforward.

But it gets really messy, fast, in modern media. What constitutes a "song"? Obviously, I can't claim a copyright on the 12-bar blues progression, or the pentatonic scale... It seems a little bit easier to define a "recording", but even that gets hazy fast: if I record a conversation on a city street, and part of the background sound is a copyrighted recording playing through a car window, does that count? What if it is so distorted and masked that it is not recognizable?

These kinds of questions become almost philosophical, or abstract, and you can spend years on the existentialism of music, sound, and what the "is" is...

But the law doesn't like philosophical definitions, the law likes bright lines, elegant definitions, and a clear set of rules for everyone to play by. Sounds nice, doesn't it? Problem is, each new ruling contributes a different measurement-test for how to measure the shoreline. This one says that if either foot is touching water, you're off of dry land. This other one says that if both feet are dry, you're good. What is "dry"? what is "water"? And what about that crazy judge in Dubuque who said that any inch of soil that is ever exposed to open air is considered "land", or the other one in Des Moines who ruled that anything past the high-tide line should legally be considered "underwater"? (And how do you define the high-tide line, anyway?)

What this means, for people who want to use other people's recordings or musical ideas, is that you are perpetually in a spectrum of legal risk.

Quoting a line from another band's lyrics in your own lyrics might be fairly low-risk, for example, if it's buried in a verse. But the same could become very high-risk if you decided to use "Who Let The Dogs Out?" as your chorus in a reggae-influenced dancehall number that was stylistically similar to the Baja Boys number.

Similar with taking samples and working them into new songs. Some early rap would basically lift the instrumental arrangement from another song, wholesale, and rap over it. See "Rapper's Delight" versus Le Chic's "Good Times", "Ice Ice Baby" versus "Under Pressure", or "Can't Touch This" versus "Superfreak". A team of musicologists and lawyers could spend all week on these three cases, and not come to a clear conclusion about how ownership should have rightly been awarded.

There is also an extremely important practical reality, especially with legally "blurry" cases, which is that "winning" a lawsuit can still be ruinously-expensive.

The litigiousness of your opponent is a GIGANTIC factor, with this sort of thing. Some people are flattered, or take a live-and-live attitude towards being sampled. Others will burn the whole house down, to keep you from sitting on their couch without permission.

If a well-funded plaintiff with good lawyers wants to make an example out of you, they can often keep you tangled up in a court case for months or years. If you don't have the pocket change to pay for months or years of legal representation, then even if you "win" the lawsuit, you may find yourself victorious, homeless, and bankrupt.

On the flipside, let's say your song becomes a hit and makes you millions of dollars. Well now every musician whose work you sampled, plus all of their lawyers, know that you have millions of dollars worth of "make me go away" money. As in, "look, just give our guy a credit and $50,000 in legal fees and this will go away..."

Bottom line, if you skate on thin ice long enough, you're going to fall into cold water. If you rely on amateurs to tell you how thin is still safe, and if you like to push the limits, then sooner or later you're going to hit a weak spot and fall through.
Yep! You almost have to have a sixth sense. I totally agree that the law is a human enterprise. As such, it contains all the good but also potential hypocrisy and corruption that humanity is capable of. We'd be screwed without laws. But we can also be screwed by their misuse.
msea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2015, 10:32 PM   #30
yep
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,019
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by insub View Post
...Musically, you can do whatever you want with whomever's songs and samples. But, when you start to make money from it then it gets sticky. And, everyone with an interest will want their share if they can get it.

So, release your questionable works separately and for free...
This is not really correct, in legal terms. You can absolutely, positively be liable for copyright infringement damages, even if you don't charge/make any money.

In practical terms, things like commercialization play into the spectrum of risk: a bedroom producer sharing mashups with his friends is unlikely to even get noticed by the owner of the material, and may not be worth suing even then. But that doesn't mean that someone can't sue you and win, even if you never charged money for it.

Some things that are absolutely, positively safe to do, in a copyright sense:

- Write, perform, and record your own original material.

- Play cover songs privately for friends or for your own enjoyment.

Any situation where you are either performing publicly, or publishing/distributing someone else's work, the ice is getting thinner (or may be nonexistent). Some things you generally do NOT have the right to do, without either paying royalties or getting permission/license:

- Perform cover songs at a public venue or event (e.g. at a bar or a party open to the public: you are allowed to play cover songs, but you are required to pay royalties for public performances)

- Broadcast, distribute, or publish recordings of cover songs (again, you can do this, but you owe royalties, regardless of whether you charge/make money from it).
yep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2015, 10:47 PM   #31
yep
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,019
Default

Anyone interested in music law would be well-served to pick up a copy of Nolo's excellent guide to music law:

http://www.nolo.com/products/music-law-ml.html

It is written specifically for US musicians, bands, songwriters, etc, and does a great job of breaking down common scenarios.
yep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2015, 07:30 AM   #32
The Byre
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 699
Default

That is an excellent book BTW and a must-read for any US-based musos!

I think much of the confusion here stems from not realising the differences between the various types of copyright, i.e. mechanical, publishing, image rights, etc. and from many misleading rumours and daft stories about such issues as fair use, parody and what is and is not subject to copyright.
The Byre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2015, 01:44 PM   #33
The Telenator
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Oud West, NL
Posts: 2,335
Default

I didn't read all the responses, so this might have been explained already:

I have been through this numerous times, as I've needed to use bits of another's works within my own from time to time. IN THE US, where I have filed these copyrights, the way I did it legally has always been to file as 'original work with works added'.

Don't recall if there is some official title for it, but, using the standard copyright form I am careful to include ALL composers/writers of any works [edit: and included the works quoted, used, etc.] I use or include within my own, then I make clear that there are 'works added' -- that is, my own additions.

I had a direct conversation with two employees of the US copyright back when this first arose, and they instructed me very plainly on this proper way of filing without legal issues. Never had a problem, and my copyrights have been further used, looked over, sold, etc., since then without problems. Can't speak for any other country's system, but this is the US deal, where I find the greatest ease and legal safety in filing ... so I do it all in the States.
The Telenator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2015, 04:08 PM   #34
msea
Human being with feelings
 
msea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Toronto ON
Posts: 972
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Telenator View Post
I didn't read all the responses, so this might have been explained already:

I have been through this numerous times, as I've needed to use bits of another's works within my own from time to time. IN THE US, where I have filed these copyrights, the way I did it legally has always been to file as 'original work with works added'.

Don't recall if there is some official title for it, but, using the standard copyright form I am careful to include ALL composers/writers of any works [edit: and included the works quoted, used, etc.] I use or include within my own, then I make clear that there are 'works added' -- that is, my own additions.

I had a direct conversation with two employees of the US copyright back when this first arose, and they instructed me very plainly on this proper way of filing without legal issues. Never had a problem, and my copyrights have been further used, looked over, sold, etc., since then without problems. Can't speak for any other country's system, but this is the US deal, where I find the greatest ease and legal safety in filing ... so I do it all in the States.
I didn't know you could or had to file a copyright. I thought adding the © symbol, a name and date was enough. Mind you, I live in Canada... maybe it's different in the US.
msea is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.