Page 1 of 2
johnyere
Registered User
Join date: Apr 2012
110 IQ
#1
Sorry if this is in the wrong section, i wasn't sure where to post it.

I got a question about uploading covers to YouTube: is it copyright infringement if it's me playing over a backing track of a certain song (not the song itself, but a backing track somebody had made).

Also, is it possible to get sued for uploading a cover like this, or will i just get a strike from YouTube or something along those lines?
chatterbox272
Registered User
Join date: May 2011
100 IQ
#2
I believe covers are under covered by fair use and therefor okay. Using a backing track makes it even better, because it's got less of the original artists material.
You're not going to get sued for uploading a cover, that I am sure about. Worst that will happen is Youtube will take the video down and maybe warn you.
Sid McCall
(Actually, I'm Scott)
Join date: Jul 2006
110 IQ
#3
Nothing on Youtube is covered under fair use, as it is youtube dot COM aka commercial.

Regardless of who is performing the song, it is still the original work, so you need to license it for it to be a legal usage.

There's a low chance of being called out on it, but it is absolutely illegal. They probably won't sue you, but they could if they wanted. You'll most likely get the video pulled though.

Source: I work in music rights management.

I'm not trying to be a buzzkill, just trying to get the truth out there amid all of the myths.
Telecaster - SG - Jaguar
Princeton Reverb, Extra Reverb
P-Bass - Mustang Bass
Apogee Duet 2 - Ableton Suite
Last edited by Sid McCall at Jun 23, 2013,
Cavalcade
razor sharp
Join date: Jul 2011
621 IQ
#4
You're best off doing what everyone else does: acknowledge it's not exactly legal, do it anyway, and hope it doesn't get pulled. I cringe a bit every time I see those "fair use disclaimers" in the descriptions of uploaded videos; it's obvious they didn't read them, just heard from some random jackass that they're some magic anti-lawyer amulet. But in the end, they're probably not going to sue you or do anything drastic, especially over an amateur cover video.
kyle62
Need a dispenser here!
Join date: May 2007
190 IQ
#5
Legally it's a grey area (backing tracks should be ok provided you have the maker's permission), but just man up and post it anyway, everybody does it.

You're not going to get men in dark suits knocking round at your house, don't worry.
Sid McCall
(Actually, I'm Scott)
Join date: Jul 2006
110 IQ
#6
Quote by kyle62
Legally it's a grey area (backing tracks should be ok provided you have the maker's permission), but just man up and post it anyway, everybody does it.

You're not going to get men in dark suits knocking round at your house, don't worry.

Well, legally, it's not a grey area. It's illegal. Black and white.

If you do have permission from the person who holds the copyright, then you can do it. Not the person who made the backing track, but the person/people who holds the actual rights to the song.


ps. I will be stalking this thread and dispelling all myths/rumors and clarifying the actual laws in the hopes that more people will find this and not get the wrong ideas about this stuff.
Telecaster - SG - Jaguar
Princeton Reverb, Extra Reverb
P-Bass - Mustang Bass
Apogee Duet 2 - Ableton Suite
Last edited by Sid McCall at Jun 24, 2013,
kyle62
Need a dispenser here!
Join date: May 2007
190 IQ
#7
Quote by Sid McCall
Well, legally, it's not a grey area. It's illegal. Black and white

Nothing about copyright law is black and white.

I honestly don't know if there's even any kind of legal precedent for backing tracks - chances are Youtube just comply with DCMA takedown requests to be on the safe side.


The difference between theoretical and practical application of copyright law is huge, anyway.

Like I said, just post that stuff. Since there are tens of thousands of copyrighted albums on Youtube, a guy shredding over a homemade backing track is pretty low priority.
Sid McCall
(Actually, I'm Scott)
Join date: Jul 2006
110 IQ
#8
Quote by kyle62
Nothing about copyright law is black and white.

I honestly don't know if there's even any kind of legal precedent for backing tracks - chances are Youtube just comply with DCMA takedown requests to be on the safe side.


The difference between theoretical and practical application of copyright law is huge, anyway.

Like I said, just post that stuff. Since there are tens of thousands of copyrighted albums on Youtube, a guy shredding over a homemade backing track is pretty low priority.

A backing track (like, copying the parts on the record, not a four-bar rock drum beat looped) is copyright infringement. There is no minimum amount of a song that is 'okay' to use.

If I were to make a backing track with crappy midi drums and a badly sampled midi bass that were playing the exact drum beat/fills and bassline from a song, let's say hysteria by muse, then I have absolutely violated their rights by doing so.

If I sold that on a CD, I could pay them a small royalty per copy, and that's fine. If I used it as a guitar instructor in a private lesson then I don't need to pay or do anything.

If I upload it on a commercial website like Youtube, and synchronize it to video, then I need explicit permission from the rights holders to do that. Even without vocal and guitar tracks, I have infringed on their copyright.

That is absolutely black and white. In fact, it is written in black and white in the United States Code Title 17, available here: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/

It's actually written in plain English, not even legalese.


Now, I'm not a lawyer, so I can tell you this: you can go ahead and post that all over Youtube and nobody is going to do anything about it. Maybe if you hit a few hundred thousand plays and sell ad revenue on the page, yeah. Otherwise, nobody is gonna do anything.

Does that make it right? No. It's still illegal. Could the laws be adjusted for the digital age to make it easier for people to do stuff like this? Or even an easier licensing process with lower fees to make synch licenses more easily accessible to the guitar-playing layman? Yeah, totally. They could and should and I will be fighting the good fight if and when that goes down. And I will be fighting it from the inside.

Until then, the law is the law, and I might as well squash some myths and inform some good folks like yourselves

Edit: I know you (and many others) are in the UK, but the law isn't much different. Also, YouTube is an American company and thus follow American laws. So if you feel the need to turn this into a debate, no need to pull the 'UK' card
DoubleEdit: UK Law isn't much different, just different lengths of time for protection. Everything else is the same: http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p01_uk_copyright_law
Telecaster - SG - Jaguar
Princeton Reverb, Extra Reverb
P-Bass - Mustang Bass
Apogee Duet 2 - Ableton Suite
Last edited by Sid McCall at Jun 24, 2013,
Cavalcade
razor sharp
Join date: Jul 2011
621 IQ
#9
This is a bit of a tangent; you can skip to the end for how it relates to this thread.
The part that YouTubers cream themselves over, and also the part the entire internet is completely clueless about, is fair use. I've seen several videos where someone uploads a full album, and then add this little clause from the Copyright Act of 1976 to the description, thinking it'll magically ward off lawyers:

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
the nature of the copyrighted work;
the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.


If these people could be arsed to read the damn thing, they'd see that they just admitted "fair use" isn't entirely objective. It depends on a few factors:
*Are they trying to supplant the original, or just reproduce part of it for use in something else?
*Are they copying it wholesale, or just using part of it?
*If they copy it, what impact will that have on the value of the original work?
According to all of these things, uploading a whole album onto YouTube is not fair use. It's the whole thing, it replaces the original, and it could easily mean less album sales. I'm not saying people should stop doing this, but some honesty and responsibility would be nice- who am I kidding, that'll never happen. I bet most of these people don't even have ball hair yet.
Using a backing track, on the other hand, doesn't replace the original (there's your guitar playing over it), and only copies some of the instruments. And people aren't going to listen to your amateur guitar cover instead of getting the song (or, at least, finding a better upload on YouTube). So even though it doesn't make it legal, that definitely helps your case.
Sid McCall
(Actually, I'm Scott)
Join date: Jul 2006
110 IQ
#10
Quote by Cavalcade
This is a bit of a tangent; you can skip to the end for how it relates to this thread.
The part that YouTubers cream themselves over, and also the part the entire internet is completely clueless about, is fair use. I've seen several videos where someone uploads a full album, and then add this little clause from the Copyright Act of 1976 to the description, thinking it'll magically ward off lawyers:



If these people could be arsed to read the damn thing, they'd see that they just admitted "fair use" isn't entirely objective. It depends on a few factors:
*Are they trying to supplant the original, or just reproduce part of it for use in something else?
*Are they copying it wholesale, or just using part of it?
*If they copy it, what impact will that have on the value of the original work?
According to all of these things, uploading a whole album onto YouTube is not fair use. It's the whole thing, it replaces the original, and it could easily mean less album sales. I'm not saying people should stop doing this, but some honesty and responsibility would be nice- who am I kidding, that'll never happen. I bet most of these people don't even have ball hair yet.
Using a backing track, on the other hand, doesn't replace the original (there's your guitar playing over it), and only copies some of the instruments. And people aren't going to listen to your amateur guitar cover instead of getting the song (or, at least, finding a better upload on YouTube). So even though it doesn't make it legal, that definitely helps your case.


Beside all of that, fair use doesn't apply to YouTube because it's a commercial website run for profit. Therefore, any content uploaded for any reason (be it educational or parody or whatever) is NOT covered by fair use. Maybe if there was a Youtube.edu but that probably won't happen, though it could be insanely useful.
Telecaster - SG - Jaguar
Princeton Reverb, Extra Reverb
P-Bass - Mustang Bass
Apogee Duet 2 - Ableton Suite
kyle62
Need a dispenser here!
Join date: May 2007
190 IQ
#12
AFAIK, the only things that can be copyrighted musically are the recordings themselves, the physical sheet music, lyrics, and substantial, essential parts of a melody.

Most of the major cases involving infringement of a melody seem to get settled out of court or dismissed.

Jesus, I hate theses kind of threads. Although the law behind it is interesting to speculate upon, the simple answer is to just upload that shit and stop worrying...it's just a harmless backing track.
Sid McCall
(Actually, I'm Scott)
Join date: Jul 2006
110 IQ
#13
Quote by kyle62
AFAIK, the only things that can be copyrighted musically are the recordings themselves, the physical sheet music, lyrics, and substantial, essential parts of a melody.

Most of the major cases involving infringement of a melody seem to get settled out of court or dismissed.

Jesus, I hate theses kind of threads. Although the law behind it is interesting to speculate upon, the simple answer is to just upload that shit and stop worrying...it's just a harmless backing track.

I'm not trying to be rude, just informative, so please let me correct you one more time

The lyrics, sheet music, melody, and any incredibly original drum work are ABSOLUTELY covered in the copyright. The only thing you can't copyright is a chord progression.

It is important to note that I am NOT arguing against the OP posting stuff on YouTube. Go for it, I encourage it!

I just totally threadjacked this and I'm going out of my way to explain the actual laws, because it is one thing to say 'go ahead and post it'' and another to say 'go ahead and post it because you aren't infringing on a copyright' because you will be. Except nobody will really care.
Telecaster - SG - Jaguar
Princeton Reverb, Extra Reverb
P-Bass - Mustang Bass
Apogee Duet 2 - Ableton Suite
chatterbox272
Registered User
Join date: May 2011
100 IQ
#14
Actually, with the amount of cover videos on youtube and considering most don't get taken down (AFAIK) is there any chance they could pay some kind of general licensing? You know, like music venues do, so that cover bands that play aren't infringing copyright?
Cavalcade
razor sharp
Join date: Jul 2011
621 IQ
#15
Quote by Sid McCall

I just totally threadjacked this and I'm going out of my way to explain the actual laws, because it is one thing to say 'go ahead and post it'' and another to say 'go ahead and post it because you aren't infringing on a copyright' because you will be. Except nobody will really care.

It's for a good cause. That's the reason I'm sperging out over these "disclaimers".
Sid McCall
(Actually, I'm Scott)
Join date: Jul 2006
110 IQ
#16
Quote by chatterbox272
Actually, with the amount of cover videos on youtube and considering most don't get taken down (AFAIK) is there any chance they could pay some kind of general licensing? You know, like music venues do, so that cover bands that play aren't infringing copyright?

Good question! That would be performance royalties. ASCAP and BMI will pay out performance royalties on all songs that are properly licensed. It's fractions of a penny per play, but it adds up eventually.

They do not pay for unregistered uses, so all of the unlicensed/illegal uploads do not put money back in the artist's pockets. (Fun fact - performance royalties are rarely cut into by labels/publishers, and the artist sees a VERY high net income, as opposed to record sales).

I believe that there will be a bit of reform on this in the future, once licensing is easier/cheaper then there will be more registered uses out there for artists to collect on.

My company is partnered with a UK company CueSongs (run by Peter Gabriel) and they make licensing independent artists' music for film/tv/youtube very very simple and affordable. Our whole roster is registered with them, actually. They don't have many big-name bands, although there are some. http://www.cuesongs.com/

This is the future of the music industry, as far as independent artists are concerned. I know this doesn't have much to do with guitar-based cover songs, but it's definitely on topic. Somehow.
Telecaster - SG - Jaguar
Princeton Reverb, Extra Reverb
P-Bass - Mustang Bass
Apogee Duet 2 - Ableton Suite
kyle62
Need a dispenser here!
Join date: May 2007
190 IQ
#17
Quote by Sid McCall
The lyrics, sheet music, melody, and any incredibly original drum work are ABSOLUTELY covered in the copyright. The only thing you can't copyright is a chord progression.

Don't get me wrong, I find this stuff really interesting to debate....I just think it'll scare OP into not uploading his music, which is daft. Good to talk about though.

Sorry, no bloody way drum parts are protected by copyright. It's the main melody (in the context of the song) and lyrics only.
Sid McCall
(Actually, I'm Scott)
Join date: Jul 2006
110 IQ
#18
Quote by kyle62
Don't get me wrong, I find this stuff really interesting to debate....I just think it'll scare OP into not uploading his music, which is daft. Good to talk about though.

Sorry, no bloody way drum parts are protected by copyright. It's the main melody (in the context of the song) and lyrics only.

Not trying to scare anyone, just righting wrongs

95%+ of drum beats are not protected, but there's some leeway when it's percussion ensemble stuff and realllly intricate parts, but it is really uncommon.

Melody (in or out of context), lyrics, harmonies, instrumental riffs/solos, and related rhythms are all subject to copyright. Only progressions themselves and most drums are exempt.

Although it's all laid out in black and white, if there is a dispute it will (eventually) be heard by a judge and jury who will apply human logic and reason to the case. To prove a violation, there needs to be more than just two songs that sound similar, there needs to be reasonable proof that the alleged copycat had access to and would have heard the original work, among many other aspects (fun fact- this is why labels/publishers can't accept unsolicited materials, because people can try to prove their work was stolen because the label had a copy of their demo tape, although it most likely went straight in the trash).

ps. Sorry I keep rambling on, I am really passionate about this stuff. I do this stuff for a living and I'm really lucky to have a job that I enjoy doing. I tend to go on and on and on if I'm allowed, so don't mind my lengthy threadjack. Maybe I'll start a Q&A thread for copyright questions? That could be nice.
Telecaster - SG - Jaguar
Princeton Reverb, Extra Reverb
P-Bass - Mustang Bass
Apogee Duet 2 - Ableton Suite
Last edited by Sid McCall at Jun 24, 2013,
axemanchris
Awwww.... NOW what?!
Join date: Aug 2006
230 IQ
#20
Sid is right on the money with the copyright information. There is SO much misinformation out there, it makes it difficult for us musicians to do the responsible thing - to respect the intellectual property of other musicians.

"No copyright intended" is my favourite. Yeah, a copyright was most definitely intended - by the creator, not the jackass who thinks its okay to violate someone else's copyright.

In most cases, the law really is black and white. Stealing is bad. Paying is good.

About the drum beats.... the criteria used to measure infringement is something to the effect of (and I can't remember the exact verbage, but this is close), "compositionally important and uniquely identifiable."

Nobody came up with I, IV, I, V7, I, or any other chord progression. As progressions go, they're all fundamentally derivative. A drum beat that goes "kick, snare, kick, kick, snare" is derivative. However, some drum beats really are uniquely identifiable. I'm thinking Zeppelin's "Rock and Roll", or Aerosmith's "Walk This Way" - or perhaps even better... Wipeout. That may be a grey area, but I'd err on the side of caution before ripping off any of those.

As far as "fair use" (or "fair dealing" as it is known in Canada) goes, the language seems to allow for parody/satire, even if for profit.

My own experience was this: I made a video - highly political in nature - to the tune of Winter Wonderland. I wasn't expecting any more than a few dozen or so views, but it topped out at about 13 000 views. As it was rolling along, it got pulled by YouTube for copyright infringement. I did not have permission to use Winter Wonderland, and their audio fingerprint analysis picked it up - even though it was my own arrangement and performance.

I appealed it and they agreed with me, based on Fair Dealing and the exceptions for parody/satire, which my video clearly was. Even though I had monetized my account and made a whole $20 or whatever off the whole thing.

CT
Could I get some more talent in the monitors, please?

I know it sounds crazy, but try to learn to inhale your voice. www.thebelcantotechnique.com

Chris is the king of relating music things to other objects in real life.
Cavalcade
razor sharp
Join date: Jul 2011
621 IQ
#21
Quote by axemanchris

"No copyright intended" is my favourite. Yeah, a copyright was most definitely intended - by the creator, not the jackass who thinks its okay to violate someone else's copyright.

That one's simple. They just don't know what the word "copyright" even means, but other people do it, and monkey see, monkey do. Magical anti-lawyer amulets etc.
Sid McCall
(Actually, I'm Scott)
Join date: Jul 2006
110 IQ
#22
Quote by Cavalcade
That one's simple. They just don't know what the word "copyright" even means, but other people do it, and monkey see, monkey do. Magical anti-lawyer amulets etc.

I still die a little inside whenever I see that. I eagerly await the day where it no longer bothers me haha
Telecaster - SG - Jaguar
Princeton Reverb, Extra Reverb
P-Bass - Mustang Bass
Apogee Duet 2 - Ableton Suite
T4D
30 guitars and counting..
Join date: Apr 2005
190 IQ
#23
There is no copyright at ALL until someone takes actions to protect there material.

to dumb it down, you can do what you want until someone tells you to STOP ( you tube taking it down ) or PAY them.

if you choose to fight you have to prove your right and disprove there right for $$

you can wank your lawyer knowledge all you want these are the facts.

How many youtube posters have been SUED or taken to court over posting You tube video's ?

I would say 99.99% have just been taken down.. no legal action.

if your a business making money or gaining advantage from using someone elses Material ( commercial adverts Promotion etc ) Be prepared to get sued BIG TIME because the Value and the compensation and missuses of someone else is a creativity is a HUGELY complex area that is on the side of the Creator.

your not any where near that area posting to youtube, most of the legal issues are on Youtube's shoulders so your safe. GO HARD !!
Last edited by T4D at Jun 25, 2013,
Tmusician
Tab Contributor
Join date: Sep 2009
267 IQ
#24
I used to do lots of covers with the song in the background. They all got marked and have ads on them, and one got deleted and lost forever.

Nowadays I don't play the song in the background at all and I still get "matched" somehow, but there doesn't seem to be any ads so that's cool. Although it is a lot more work to recreate the entire song rather than just doing a guitar cover
jof1029
GO HOKIES!
Join date: Nov 2003
200 IQ
#25
Quote by T4D
There is no copyright at ALL until someone takes actions to protect there material.

This is completely and 100% incorrect. Copyright exists the moment something is created and put down in tangible format. That does not mean it is protected, but the material is copyrighted.
T4D
30 guitars and counting..
Join date: Apr 2005
190 IQ
#26
Quote by jof1029
This is completely and 100% incorrect. Copyright exists the moment something is created and put down in tangible format. That does not mean it is protected, but the material is copyrighted.


YES everything is protected if you post your song to sound cloud it is copyrighted / protected
BUT the next logic question is copyrighted/protection from what ?

copyright is needed when something is used Incorrectly OR used without permission

if you wish to read the letter of the law go ahead BUT please take it one step past the book into what happens in the real world,. Not just try & win a debate on a internet forum.

OK a lawyer can sue everyone and waste a Shit load of time and money.
But who's PAYING the Lawyer ?

in the real world it means a music store can use an copyrighted album cover to sell music
and you can have a party playing some's else copyrighted music WITHOUT lawyers getting involved. SO much copyright infringement is done all over that the lawyers only come in IF it is needed.

Copyright's first action is to STOP misuses ( youtube takes it down if it infringes ) Jason Bieber was discovered by doing cover versions on youtube & the internet is FULL of covers versions Youtube lets it happen, record companies let it be, Artists let it be, Lawyers let it be, Man the whole karaoke industry breaks copyright laws if we read it as you seem to.

Copyright's the second action is to recover damages and losses of that miss uses that is something you need to Pay lawyers for
A/ to prove money or value was gained
B/ to prove value was taken away from the author ( pretty hard to prove but has been done many times )


My opinion is only related to this Thread subjects - IMO Your totally fine to post to Youtube on anything, let them sort it out and don't get upset if they take it down.

any more talk about the details of international copyright laws on the UG forums is abit much isn't ? plus we could go on forever, I've had short Film and Music copyright issues and it's a very messy subject, you could even win the debate Who cares we then have to then go to court and PAY $$$$$ to find the real winner and sit thought day of even More BS and have it cost Silly amounts of $$$.

WHAT Crap !!! do what you want, don't hurt anyone and have a happy life, who gives a SH## about copyright Laws unless your Apple VS Samsung.
Last edited by T4D at Jun 25, 2013,
Sid McCall
(Actually, I'm Scott)
Join date: Jul 2006
110 IQ
#27
Quote by T4D
YES everything is protected if you post your song to sound cloud it is copyrighted / protected
BUT the next logic question is copyrighted/protection from what ?

copyright is needed when something is used Incorrectly OR used without permission

if you wish to read the letter of the law go ahead BUT please take it one step past the book into what happens in the real world,. Not just try & win a debate on a internet forum.

OK a lawyer can sue everyone and waste a Shit load of time and money.
But who's PAYING the Lawyer ?

in the real world it means a music store can use an copyrighted album cover to sell music
and you can have a party playing some's else copyrighted music WITHOUT lawyers getting involved. SO much copyright infringement is done all over that the lawyers only come in IF it is needed.


Copyright's first action is to STOP misuses ( youtube takes it down if it infringes ) Jason Bieber was discovered by doing cover versions on youtube & the internet is FULL of covers versions Youtube lets it happen, record companies let it be, Artists let it be, Lawyers let it be, Man the whole karaoke industry breaks copyright laws if we read it as you seem to.

Copyright's the second action is to recover damages and losses of that miss uses that is something you need to Pay lawyers for
A/ to prove money or value was gained
B/ to prove value was taken away from the author ( pretty hard to prove but has been done many times )


My opinion is only related to this Thread subjects - IMO Your totally fine to post to Youtube on anything, let them sort it out and don't get upset if they take it down.

any more talk about the details of international copyright laws on the UG forums is abit much isn't ? plus we could go on forever, I've had short Film and Music copyright issues and it's a very messy subject, you could even win the debate Who cares we then have to then go to court and PAY $$$$$ to find the real winner and sit thought day of even More BS and have it cost Silly amounts of $$$.

WHAT Crap !!! do what you want, don't hurt anyone and have a happy life, who gives a SH## about copyright Laws unless your Apple VS Samsung.

I don't understand why everyone thinks this is a debate haha it's one person saying something completely inaccurate, another correcting them with facts, and then the first person getting all huffy.

Re: the italicized portion above...neither of those is copyright infringement. The album artwork is copyrighted, but it's serving its intentional purpose by advertising the album. I have no idea why you think putting it on a shelf is infringement.

Also, playing music at a party is a private use and therefore not infringement of copyright. Playing music at a bar is something that the bar owner pays a blanket license to ASCAP/BMI/SESAC to get performance royalties back in artists' pockets.

90%+ of karaoke bars pay these licenses to legitimize their business. That 'industry' is completely legitimate and recognized/supported by publishers.


Again, my point here isn't to tell people to do not not to do something, it's just to make it clear what's right and what's wrong. A few people above have said that it's very useful, and it absolutely has a place here on the forums. I know many of us strive to work as legitimately as possible, especially those of us who run a pro studio or have a band that is semi-pro or professional, but don't have a business manager to walk them through this stuff.

Personally, I went 100% legitimate this past year, when I found myself in a place where I could afford to. Deleted all pirated software, bought new stuff, and I don't have any unlicensed cover material out in the wild. A year ago, neither of those things were true.

It's important to know the laws and how the world works, and don't wreck anyone's livelihood (yours OR theirs). License things once you're on the level where you need to, when you can afford it (ps all publishers that I'm aware of will give free licenses for any student projects to support young folks studying hard trying to make it!).
Telecaster - SG - Jaguar
Princeton Reverb, Extra Reverb
P-Bass - Mustang Bass
Apogee Duet 2 - Ableton Suite
T4D
30 guitars and counting..
Join date: Apr 2005
190 IQ
#28
I have have owned all my software for nearly 20 years... & I'm pretty sure i spend afew more zero then most...

Music stores Are using someones Copyright material (album cover) as there art work to promote there business by copyright law it's legal, its just the Artist choose NOT to challenge uses in that way. the same law that say's you can't use a picture of a McDonald big mac to sell your hamburgers

a party IS a pubic event that has not paid any license to play to a large group of people who have NOT paid for the album. by copyright law it's legal, just like you can not organize movies showing in large number.

karaoke bar ? really how many do you know ? & where do they get there midi tracks from ?


my point here is personal uses or anything near youtube is NOT an issue in any way be free have fun.

for example

Animation and film students are told to get audio tracks or scenes from movies and redo them, these student then show the finished product to the studio who made them ( Pixar Dreamwork etc ) and get jobs !!!

playing covers live is NOT in any way challenged BUT by the word of the law there is ground to. BUT NO one pay's a cent of royalty's live due to the complex issues it will raise. so they leave it well alone.

NO one cares no lawyer will sue you for being a person with pursuing their passion.

BUT if your a freelancer, business or anyone who tries to profit from someones else work, I hope you get your ass sue off to the bones in your neck.
Sid McCall
(Actually, I'm Scott)
Join date: Jul 2006
110 IQ
#29
Man, I don't have time right now to go through one-by-one and show you have EVERYTHING you just said is incorrect. Literally EVERYTHING YOU JUST SAID is wrong.

Album artwork in a music store? The albums were provided by the distributor, and marketing materials were provided by the label. There are contracts between the store-distributor-label that permit everything going on. It would be illegal if your store's logo had the DSOTM prism in the middle of it, but not if there was a DSOTM poster hanging inside the store, or even in the window.

Parties (like in a frat house for example) are private events. Public parties in a club or whatever are covered by performance royalties. An organized movie showing is just that, and organized showing. A party is not organized solely to listen to one CD and go home after (obviously there are listening parties, but those are STILL covered by performance royalties).

Playing covers live is legal and encouraged and the original artist will actually get a royalty from it. The venue owners all have (or are supposed to have, most do) blanket licenses from the performing rights societies that pay out to the writers of the songs that were covered or played on the radio in the bar. If the venue has a liquor license, they probably have licenses with ASCAP and BMI too.

The major publisher that I work for has a section in our database for karaoke licenses, and it is full of them, and there are companies that legally produce and distribute karaoke tracks and pay the royalties on them.


Can I ask where you're getting all of your information? It's just so blatantly incorrect, it's kind of scary.
Edit: that last line was kind of rude. I'm sorry if I seem rude, I'm just passionate. Here's a smiley face to make it up to you:

PS. I will say it again, though I've said in in every post so far for the most part:
I share the opinion that uploading to YouTube will not be an issue. It just won't. I mean, don't upload a whole CD, but cover songs to your heart's content. I support that.

The only thing I'm fighting here is misinformation that only breeds further misinformation and confusion.
Telecaster - SG - Jaguar
Princeton Reverb, Extra Reverb
P-Bass - Mustang Bass
Apogee Duet 2 - Ableton Suite
Last edited by Sid McCall at Jun 25, 2013,
axemanchris
Awwww.... NOW what?!
Join date: Aug 2006
230 IQ
#30
Thanks for helping spread proper information, Sid. It's refreshing to hear accurate facts, rather than the misinformed sentiments that seem to get perpetuated by the uninformed masses who seem to base their so-called "knowledge" on what they personally feel to be just. Or something.

I wait with baited breath (though not necessarily in the best possible way) to see what comes next here.



CT
Could I get some more talent in the monitors, please?

I know it sounds crazy, but try to learn to inhale your voice. www.thebelcantotechnique.com

Chris is the king of relating music things to other objects in real life.
Sid McCall
(Actually, I'm Scott)
Join date: Jul 2006
110 IQ
#31
No worries! It's something I know quite a bit about, and really love talking about and learning more about (there are some surprisingly cool things going on in the modern music industry - it is NOT dead, I can tell you that).

I think I'm running out of new things to say to the same old myths, but I'm happy to stick around and answer questions/correct misinformation (as politely as I can).

I'm happy to take specific questions, that's easier than giant lists of craziness. Can't give official legal advice, but I'm happy to advise on anything music rights-related, even if y'all aren't my real-life clients
Telecaster - SG - Jaguar
Princeton Reverb, Extra Reverb
P-Bass - Mustang Bass
Apogee Duet 2 - Ableton Suite
axemanchris
Awwww.... NOW what?!
Join date: Aug 2006
230 IQ
#32
There is a copyright for dummies sticky in the "bandleading" subforum. If you're interested in checking that out and offering any advice, or identifying anything that is missing, I'd be interested in making those revisions.

I'm quite interested in this stuff too.


CT
Could I get some more talent in the monitors, please?

I know it sounds crazy, but try to learn to inhale your voice. www.thebelcantotechnique.com

Chris is the king of relating music things to other objects in real life.
T4D
30 guitars and counting..
Join date: Apr 2005
190 IQ
#33
Quote by Sid McCall

Album artwork in a music store? The albums were provided by the distributor, and marketing materials were provided by the label. There are contracts between the store-distributor-label that permit everything going on. It would be illegal if your store's logo had the DSOTM prism in the middle of it, but not if there was a DSOTM poster hanging inside the store, or even in the window.


Real World have you ever seen this Contract where retailer gets usage right for Distributor/manufacturers corporate images ?

Sorry there's no such thing, reseller rights to use Images in implied But never sign over too. This leaves the owner in full control and can use the full extent of the law to control there corporate images.

why do you think Walmart, Target etc take there OWN pictures of the products they sell ?
answer "so they have control"

what would this document say ? a custom contact would cost too much & and standard contract would have holes.

if it was a standard contract and then if business owner "Ted" signed a contact for Dewalt tools images for his business, He could then make a porn " Drilling with Ted" with Dewalt images used on the cover. ?

there are no contracts your talking BS.

copyright law in the real world is More about where it is applied and the money spent to apply it then what the words really say.

Quote by Sid McCall

Parties (like in a frat house for example) are private events. Public parties in a club or whatever are covered by performance royalties. An organized movie showing is just that, and organized showing. A party is not organized solely to listen to one CD and go home after (obviously there are listening parties, but those are STILL covered by performance royalties).


what about rave parties, Open House party's, shopping mails where you hear music ?
(YES performance royalties cover clubs etc ) But they do not cover alot of other places and there's no legal action ? ) the most you will ever see is Performing Right Associations pushing for venues where music is played to join or pay fees NO one gets sued for copyright infringement.

Quote by Sid McCall

Playing covers live is legal and encouraged and the original artist will actually get a royalty from it. The venue owners all have (or are supposed to have, most do) blanket licenses from the performing rights societies that pay out to the writers of the songs that were covered or played on the radio in the bar. If the venue has a liquor license, they probably have licenses with ASCAP and BMI too.


it's great you live in Disney movie and your in your first year of owning software but I have lived in the real world and worked in Film, Corporate & Industrial design and music and have dealt with Copyright lawyers afew times. but you have a magical warm safety blanket how you read things don't you ?

1/ Copyright law is VERY VERY powerful and covers everything.
2/ BUT it cost silly amounts to uses it
3/ it is always being pushed and the range & limits are always being found & changed ( note- please look at the Samsung Apple legal battles )

playing Live covers this best explain how a copyright lawyer explained it to me ( I'm No expert Just a guy who has dealt with these things afew times )

it can be apply!! but isn't,.. it's handed over to Performing Right Associations and given general % from current record sales to keep things simple. ( even tho most venues and hotel elevators are not playing the top 100)

BUT and a huge BUT.. a copyright owner "could" get around live covers if direct connection was made. ( elevators Musicianst Raise UP !! )

copyright infringement could be apllied to case
if an arena band plays for 100 mins a night and makes 5 millions a night & in that set there's a 10 min version of stairway to heaven. currently YES there's no legal right to pay Led Zeppelin royalists BUT it's clear 10% of that 5 million was gained by playing a Led Zeppelin song

SO as per copyright law it is legally possible to start a case for Led Zeppelin specially if that band does a tour does 100 shows the income from that song is at the 50 mill level

NOW Led Zeppelin could not claim 50 mil but it would partition the court to find what is it's share of that 50 mil.

silly amounts of money would be spend it would get to the highest court and..
why it doesn't get applied
the highest court would say NO due to the S##t storm it would create, NOT the Legal rights Led Zeppelin may have.

( Personal & morally I think Led Zeppelin would have a right if Justin Bieber was doing the shows BUT have to agree with the judges it's would just cause too much trouble )

I'm no expert But you said I was wrong with little to no experience in this matter.

the fact is You can get sued for pretty much anything you do with other people works even if you do get approval. but it also is balanced with how much $$ the guy attacking you has.

to turn it around,.. if a someone stole your song post on UG forums profile and put it in his TV show or movie your going to have a tough time financing the fight yourself. If you have a record company they would fight for you (and don't kid yourself they only fighting because they loss income as well)

again Post to youtube No one cares and Youtube will take it down way before anything hits you
Last edited by T4D at Jun 26, 2013,
axemanchris
Awwww.... NOW what?!
Join date: Aug 2006
230 IQ
#35
Cavalcade - It is a cover of a Phil Collins song, so even though they are the band that recorded the cover, they are not the band who wrote the song, and therefore not the individuals who own the rights.

CT
Could I get some more talent in the monitors, please?

I know it sounds crazy, but try to learn to inhale your voice. www.thebelcantotechnique.com

Chris is the king of relating music things to other objects in real life.
axemanchris
Awwww.... NOW what?!
Join date: Aug 2006
230 IQ
#36
Quote by T4D

why do you think Walmart, Target etc take there OWN pictures of the products they sell ?
answer "so they have control"


That is probably true. However, I was just in the Second Cup (like a Starbucks here in Canada), and they just received a shipment of advertising images sent to them from their supplier.

You know those "Playstation" logos and such you see up in the department stores? The manufacturer or suppliers send them specifically for marketing purposes.

The store may not change them, so if they want control over the image, then yes, they have to make their own.

Quote by T4D

what would this document say ? a custom contact would cost too much & and standard contract would have holes.

if it was a standard contract and then if business owner "Ted" signed a contact for Dewalt tools images for his business, He could then make a porn " Drilling with Ted" with Dewalt images used on the cover. ?


So to use your own example, as a store owner who orders product from Dewalt, Dewalt would send Ted the Tool Guy signage, images, etc. to use in his store to promote their products.

If Ted decided to bastardize Dewalt's marketing imagery for his own purposes, specifically for purposes that potentially could malign the manufacturer with their customers or potential customers, Dewalt could take Ted to court.

Quote by T4D

what about rave parties, Open House party's,


They are generally considered private gatherings, and therefore not subject to public performance regulations.

Quote by T4D

shopping mails where you hear music ?
(YES performance royalties cover clubs etc ) But they do not cover alot of other places and there's no legal action ? ) the most you will ever see is Performing Right Associations pushing for venues where music is played to join or pay fees


Yep, shopping malls, restaurants, shoe stores, roller rinks, etc. all pay blanket licence to their local performing rights association to allow them to use performances of copyrighted material in their establishments.

And yes, if they do not pay it, they will be hounded by the PRO's, and if they still do not pay it, will be taken to court by the PRO's on behalf of their copyright holders.

Quote by T4D

NO one gets sued for copyright infringement.


A pretty easy google search seems to discredit this statement.

Quote by T4D

1/ Copyright law is VERY VERY powerful and covers everything.
2/ BUT it cost silly amounts to uses it
3/ it is always being pushed and the range & limits are always being found & changed ( note- please look at the Samsung Apple legal battles )

the fact is You can get sued for pretty much anything you do with other people works even if you do get approval. but it also is balanced with how much $$ the guy attacking you has.

to turn it around,.. if a someone stole your song post on UG forums profile and put it in his TV show or movie your going to have a tough time financing the fight yourself. If you have a record company they would fight for you (and don't kid yourself they only fighting because they loss income as well)


Well, you got something right here. It really does come down to how much you want to pay to protect something of how much value. That said, if you do go to court and win, the loser generally pays the court costs, etc.

Quote by T4D

playing Live covers this best explain how a copyright lawyer explained it to me ( I'm No expert Just a guy who has dealt with these things afew times )

it can be apply!! but isn't,.. it's handed over to Performing Right Associations and given general % from current record sales to keep things simple. ( even tho most venues and hotel elevators are not playing the top 100)


In other words, even though MY song gets played on Campus radio, because they don't track individual plays, but instead pay a blanket licence, then Brian Adams, Celine Dion, and Justin Bieber get paid, and I don't. That's true. It's messed up, but until someone finds a better way, it is an unfortunate reality.

Quote by T4D

BUT and a huge BUT.. a copyright owner "could" get around live covers if direct connection was made. ( elevators Musicianst Raise UP !! )

copyright infringement could be apllied to case
if an arena band plays for 100 mins a night and makes 5 millions a night & in that set there's a 10 min version of stairway to heaven. currently YES there's no legal right to pay Led Zeppelin royalists BUT it's clear 10% of that 5 million was gained by playing a Led Zeppelin song

SO as per copyright law it is legally possible to start a case for Led Zeppelin specially if that band does a tour does 100 shows the income from that song is at the 50 mill level

NOW Led Zeppelin could not claim 50 mil but it would partition the court to find what is it's share of that 50 mil.

silly amounts of money would be spend it would get to the highest court and..
why it doesn't get applied
the highest court would say NO due to the S##t storm it would create, NOT the Legal rights Led Zeppelin may have.

( Personal & morally I think Led Zeppelin would have a right if Justin Bieber was doing the shows BUT have to agree with the judges it's would just cause too much trouble )


Theoretically, they could conceivably try this angle. People try stupid stuff all the time. However, there is such a sh!t load of precedent that any entertainment lawyer worth his salt would step in and defend with, "Why should it matter that it is Led Zeppelin? Are there special copyright rules for Zeppelin?

He/she would further argue: "My client, yes, played that song, and made this much money on his tour playing that song. However, I submit that fans came to see my client, Justin Bieber, to hear songs like "Baby, Baby, Baby" and his other charting hits. To suggest that people paid money to hear him play a ten minute version of a Zeppelin tune is absurd. He could have gotten up and told jokes for ten minutes and made the same money. Therefore, NONE of his income can be directly attributable to his use of a Led Zeppelin song."

CT
Could I get some more talent in the monitors, please?

I know it sounds crazy, but try to learn to inhale your voice. www.thebelcantotechnique.com

Chris is the king of relating music things to other objects in real life.
T4D
30 guitars and counting..
Join date: Apr 2005
190 IQ
#37
YEAH agree








            Led Zeppelin was only used as a example get over yourself.

            the first action in any copyright Case is to STOP wrongful uses of the material. 99% of the legal action has been toward business that continue to use material they were told to STOP using OR start paying for it.

            All this started with everyone saying what I wrote below is ALL TOTALLY WRONG ?

            There is no copyright at ALL until someone takes actions to protect there material. to dumb it down, you can do what you want until someone tells you to STOP ( you tube taking it down ) or PAY them. if you choose to fight you have to prove your right and disprove there right for $$ you can wank your lawyer knowledge all you want these are the facts in the REAL WORLD.

            How many youtube posters have been SUED or taken to court over posting You tube video's ? I would say 99.99% have just been taken down.. no legal action. if your a business making money or gaining advantage from using someone elses Material ( commercial adverts Promotion etc ) Be prepared to get sued BIG TIME

            because the Value and the compensation and missuses of someone else is a creativity is a HUGELY complex area that is on the side of the Creator. your not any where near that area posting to youtube, most of the legal issues are on Youtube's shoulders so your safe. GO HARD !!
            ???
            Last edited by T4D at Jun 27, 2013,
            J-Dawg158
            UG's Resident Dhampyr
            Join date: Nov 2008
            30 IQ
            #38
            Quote by T4D


            All this started with everyone saying what I wrote below is ALL TOTALLY WRONG ?

            ???


            Because you quote is mixed with truths & half truths. Everything I have ever read on copyright clearly states that copyright exists at the moment a work is created which you contradict in the first sentence. Your view that you set forth, while true on the face of it, is backwards from the actual case. It's like when someone says that you don't need a license to drive a vehicle, only if you get stopped by a cop. While the statement itself is true, it doesn't make the legalities of it right. So by saying copyright doesn't exist til it is challenged, is kind of like saying that you never really own the song until someone tries to steal it which is frankly absurd.

            I do agree about the "wrist slapping" of the worst you'll probably get is your video taken down, but that's the equivalent of driving 56 in a 55. Sure you prolly won't get pulled over or if you do not get a ticket, but it doesn't change the fact that you are wrong for doing so, this coming from an avid speed demon.

            I'm not going to argue, just wanted to point it out & figured I'd be a dick for not contributing more than just, "it's prosecute, not postitute. That's a whole different business of screwing people over."
            I'm an
            Engeneer
            Enginear
            Enginere

            I'm Good at Math
            Last edited by J-Dawg158 at Jun 27, 2013,
            T4D
            30 guitars and counting..
            Join date: Apr 2005
            190 IQ
            #39
            Quote by J-Dawg158
            It's like when someone says that you don't need a license to drive a vehicle, only if you get stopped by a cop. While the statement itself is true, it doesn't make the legalities of it right. So by saying copyright doesn't exist til it is challenged, is kind of like saying that you never really own the song until someone tries to steal it which is frankly absurd.


            you own the copyright to something cool, but that is worth how much ?

            it' abit like the saying "it's only worth as much as someone is willing to pay"
            if someone steals it, Well that is where copyright law comes in to find it's value.

            how many patents are there for useless things ? Inventions are just like artist creations

            I agree it's not right, but it is how the system works in the real world.
            you do own total and complete copyright over your work when it is created, BUT if someone misuses your material you have to prove misuse, loss, and or damages

            like everything in the world you have to pay for this copyright protection.
            you have to pay to stop misuse.
            you have to pay more to prove damages for compensation.

            if you uses Music, software or any material you don't own for profit, for gain, you deserve to be sued and lose ALOT more then you gained because you stole it in the first place.

            Moral issues of Misuses of copyright in non profit or education well for me that's a individual thing and I feel that is why youtube and many other industries are pretty easy on the subject.

            What really is the differences with a artist playing live a cover to a 1000000 people and a dude recording a cover and posting to youtube and get 1000 hits ?
            Last edited by T4D at Jun 27, 2013,
            Cavalcade
            razor sharp
            Join date: Jul 2011
            621 IQ
            #40
            Quote by axemanchris
            Cavalcade - It is a cover of a Phil Collins song, so even though they are the band that recorded the cover, they are not the band who wrote the song, and therefore not the individuals who own the rights.

            CT

            But that's the amazing thing. This isn't a random garage band we're talking about; this is a side project of the keyboardist of Children Of Bodom, one of the best-known metal groups in the world right now. They're signed to a major label. You'd think they would have bought the necessary performance rights, rather than putting up the same sort of disclaimer you'd expect from some random uploading someone else's album.
            Page 1 of 2