It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Issue of Copyrighted Material in Posts and Podcasts

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
If the attorneys don't know, who does?
...
In the end the law seems to be "he who has the money wins".


Now you're getting it!

.




posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sauron
I may be wrong about this, but my son and I where talking about using clips from other bands in project he and his band have been working on. I thought it was against the law to use other bands material without consent, he says yes that's true but you can use up to 30 seconds of material without having to give credit or royalties. I still don't know if that's legal or not though. Could anyone set me straight on this.

Sorry if I'm off track on this thread


I've hired Tribute Bands a number of times. There is some way they get around this. You should contact one and I'll bet they could help with this. I think as long as its done as a tribute and clearly presented as such its not a problem. Do a search on "Beatlemania" or something similar and email them. It could not hurt and they might be glad to help a fellow artist like your son. A search under "Tribute Bands" should bring up a few.



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 08:23 PM
link   
I posted a link earlier which was subsequently altered. After posting the link I noticed that the direct link wouldn't allow access to the page but access was freely available through Google (where I had originally found it). I then altered my link to point to the google page with a quick direction on which link to go for. The Google link was changed to point to the original page (with no 'edited by' message) which members could not access.

My feelings are that this link was freely available through Google and should have been allowed to stand, I could have simply posted the search terms and people would have been able to view the page.

Could you clarify your policy on this? Is this breaking copyright?



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
The law's say she can use photo's of people at public events without a release. The reality is that people win law suit's daily even though it is legal to do.


This may help... my Renaissance guild runs into this all the time.....

Yes at a public event you can take photos and use them for yourself or media coverage. Most big events actually state in the contract that the event has the right to do whatever they want with images taken during their event...

HOWEVER if someone is in your photo that can be recognized, and you sell that photo for profit, then you need a release from that person.... or blur the face



A good sample in general.... say you are a celebrity.... some one snaps a pic of you standing in your home naked... If he is on the sidewalk, and you left your blinds open... they can print the picture.... If the photog stood on a crate you can sue...

Hope that helps a little



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 02:34 AM
link   
On the topic - What is the stance on MIDI files or the use thereof?
Say I create a MIDI file of "The Macarena" (God forbid) with Cakewalk Studio from scratch. Who owns the copyright to the MIDI-file? The person who originally wrote the music or the person who created a version of the music in a MIDI file?

I would wager a guess and say it's illegal? It's like someone taking my car, doing a paint job on it, putting new wheels on it, and selling it, without my permission?

[edit on 13-10-2006 by Gemwolf]



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gemwolf
On the topic - What is the stance on MIDI files or the use thereof?
Say I create a MIDI file of "The Macarena" (God forbid) with Cakewalk Studio from scratch. Who owns the copyright to the MIDI-file? The person who originally wrote the music or the person who created a version of the music in a MIDI file?

I would wager a guess and say it's illegal? It's like someone taking my car, doing a paint job on it, putting new wheels on it, and selling it, without my permission?

[edit on 13-10-2006 by Gemwolf]


If you copy the song note for note you must have a license from the author to play it period. That's why band "a" can't take band "b"'s top hit song and "cover it" (make their own version of it) without permission from band "a".


Your wager is a winner, it is illegal without permission.

Springer...



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 10:34 AM
link   
You'll notice that I gave credit for the Panic at the Disco song in the podcast I just did AND posted a link in the show notes. If you go to that link and click "who played this artist" on the page, you'll see I reported it.

That's the best way. I have found some other sites that require a bit more in the way of links or reporting. I haven't used them yet, but I have that option.

Have a look around. There is some amazing free stuff.



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 02:28 AM
link   
This question has been turning around in my head since the whole copyright issue came to the forefront again...

According to US Copright laws:

Works created after 1/1/1978 - life of the longest surviving author plus 70 years - earliest possible PD date is 1/1/2048
Works registered before 1/1/1978 - 95 years from the date copyright was secured.
Works registered before 1/1/1923 - Copyright protection for 75 years has expired and these works are in the public domain.


Thus the rule of thumb is:

Works published in the United States with a copyright date of 1922 or earlier are in the public domain in the United States.
Copyright protection outside the USA is determined by the laws of the country where you wish to use a work. Copyright protection may be 95 years from publication date, 50 to 70 years after the death of the last surviving author, or other criteria depending on where the work was first published and how the work is to be used.

Source

Now, according to this law(s) music of the classical master such as Mozart, Bach, Beethoven, etc. is public property. Is this true? Does this mean that no one holds copyrights on any of their works?

I take it, say an orchestra record one of these; they hold copyrights to the track, but not to the work. In other words if you have an orchestra in your garage, you can record and reproduce any of the works?

Then a second (hypothetical) question:
If I were to use an 80 year old song in a PODCast, but South African laws states that copyrights become public domain after 100 years (hypothetical), under which laws does the PODCast fall? I recorded the PODCast in South Africa, but the file is hosted on a US server and the file is used World-Wide... So under which copyright laws does a PODCast fall?

I’m just curious…?



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 09:38 AM
link   
Gemwolf:

1.The "Classics and Masters" pre- 1922, are all public domain just as you described.

2.The South African Law is the one we would abide here.


Springer...



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 09:46 AM
link   
The MCPS-PRS Alliance has launched a new licensing solution for music podcasters. The joint MCPS and PRS scheme allows podcasters access to the global repertoire of musical works represented by the Alliance – some ten million musical works – granting the necessary writer/publisher permissions for inclusion of their works within the podcast.

The licence is the first serious attempt by a European collecting society to support the growth of music podcasting.

The licence is being made available until the end of 2006, during which time both podcasters and the Alliance will learn more about each other’s needs. A more complete scheme is planned for launch in early 2007
link prs

Is there no similar scheme for blanket licensing in the USA?



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 08:46 AM
link   
the biggest confusion regarding music is the difference between publishing rights and recording rights. You can cover any song with permission & payment to its publisher (whether the artist likes it or not in some cases), if there isn't a publisher then the rights are with the artist/band, who can say no, you can't cover it. Secretly they hope you do so they can sue you and get some payout.

The recording rights more often belong to a powerful label, and worth more at first in the short term. Which is why samplers get nailed to the wall (...after the infringement has made enough money and re-launched a career) the samplers are stealing from everybody, writers, publishers, labels etc.

IMO - it's a minefield, make your own music, it's great fun


If you need music, find some you like from an unsigned artist, there are literally thousands online. If it's for a non commercial project all they ask for is credit.

[edit on 1/12/07 by Randomdam]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join