There have been a few heated discussions about copyright issues in the past, and some very knowledgable answers, so I thought I'd ask this here.
I was planning to set up a Myspace music profile a months ago, and decided to record myself playing a couple of tunes, then multi-track it. However, the tunes aren't self composed, and the arrangements aren't entirely my own, so do I have legal right to post music (which is of me playing) without the permission of the arrangers / composers (not that they've asked me not to, I just haven't asked)? I've given due credit, but is this enough? Or does the fact the arrangements are mainly mine give me the legal right to post these tunes on there?
If anyone wants the context, it's at http://mypsace.com/andyvenables - "The Mathematician" set, and all the double bass arrangement is mine, the melody of the 1st tune is Scott-Skinner, but the method for playing it is from Chris Newman, and the chords from Ian Stephenson (although he may not have put them together). The second tune the chords and bass are my own, the tune is from Ian (I assume it's trad - I don't even have it's name).
I'm very appreciative of any replies, it's probably not the most interesting of topics when we've got a fiddle Vs singers fight elsewhere......
My understanding in the matter is that it doesn't matter if you record them and share the tunes publically, AS LONG as you are not making a profit off of them i.e. selling them, etc.
Copyright law has NOTHING to do with whether you make profit or not. It deals with reproduction in any shape or form. So it's not OK from that point of view.
I' m afraid the law says you need a licence to record ANY other people's music, be they composers, performers, their publishers and/or their recording companies.Even if your arrangements contain you own creative inventions the copyright of the work remains firmly with the originator.
As Kilfarboy says, profit - making or the lack of it has no bearing on this issue.
You would need to get in touch with the MCPS-PRS Alliance. Their web site spells it out quite clearly. just Google MCPS and you'll get it .
Sorry if this sounds like a lecture but on points of law I guess any advice is going to sound a bit stern.
Ah come on, stuff the law. Surely commonsense says nobody is going to chase you for putting up a few of their melodies on an nonprofit basis and when you acknowledge sources.
Copyright law is there for big business to screw other businesses and protect their dubious acquired 'intellectual propert rights'
The issue is not whether YOU think it's fair. Notions of 'commonsense' are too vague and that is one reason why law exists.Copyright law continues to protect the intellectual property rights of all musicians (and other creative people) not just 'nasty' big businesses.
There may well be an argument that says the law is too rigid and uncompromising but it has not , as yet, been made successfully. I understand how many people will find this frustrating, me included, but the law is the law .
The choice is whether you obey it or put two fingers up to it.
If you choose the latter, your opinion on what is just and proper, no matter how earnestly held, will not protect you from any legal repercussion.
And just to follow up the logical consequences of the wounded hussar's viewpoint - copyright law is for big business, so it's ok for a small individual to screw an independent artist by stealing the intellectual property rights that haven't been dubiously acquired by a big business and that they can't afford to hire lawyers to protect.
I detect a 'culture clash' - you folks choose to respect the law, whether it's good or bad. Here in Ireland, we have a healthy disregard for bad law. i.e. if a law is generally regarded as poor, unworkable, against the common good .... we ignore it!
Dag nabbit Hussar, tham thar's fighting' talk! Let's face it, there's still far too much anarchy & mob rule up here in Ulster, so let's not go encouraging even more disregard for the law!
Andy, being a good musician yourself, to avoid any hassle, why not just put all that effort into 4 of your own compositions & post those on your 'space'.
I think folks might find 'them' far more interesting than your versions of somebody else's tunes or songs.
However, you mentioned 'The Mathematician' by James Scott Skinner (“The Strathspey King”) but as he died in Aberdeen on March 17, 1927, surely there is no copyright on his tunes now is there?
Doesn't that run out after 50 years?
Everyone who wants to throw copyrights out the window should remember that the primary purpose of those rules is to make sure the creators of music get their due rewards--which is a good thing, not something we should undermine. And as pointed out, creators may deserve compensation from you even if your use of their property is not for personal gain.
Andy, that being said, I would not worry as much about drawing aspects of accompaniment, ornamentation, or chord patterns from the performance of others. There are even less chord patterns than there are melody lines, and if someone steps up and tries to lay claim to the old I/IV/V progression, we are all dead in our tracks! If you copy a distinctive accompaniment from a recorded and copyrighted source note for note, you might be treading into copyright territory, but from what I have seen and read, laying claim to particular arrangements or a style of performing a particular piece is much more difficult to prove than laying claim to a melody.
There is plenty of great stuff that is in the public domain in ITM, so I would advise anyone posting things on the web to stick to the traditional, unless they seek proper permission.
Yep, there is plenty of great stuff in ITM that is 'public domain' but only things were less commercially minded in days past and musicians didn't bother with those who 'copied' them. If 'copyright law' was prevalent in the Ireland of the 1800's and 1900's, there would be precious little ITM in the public domain.
Where would we be today, if the inventor of the wheel had been able to patent, copyright and trademark the invention and name????? It's a disease of modern western society and it's notions of 'ownership'.
Possibly the coolest example in modern times of a composer doing it for love instead of lucre is Father Kelly. Wrote some great tunes and consciously decided not to copyright them, figuring having people actually play them would be more than he could ask for. Then went to the South Seas to minister to the sick and needy. ‘Sup wi dat?
Thanks for all the useful thoughts. It's specifically the arrangements I'm interested in, the copyright on JSS' work will have expired at least 4 years ago, and possibly 29 years ago so it's definately in the public domain. I didn't even know arrangements were copyright-able, so that's good to know when I'm planning future plagarism of better musicians....
Ptarmi, I'm afraid after my last composing spree I've stopped for a bit, my tunes where very.....odd.......sounding (lots of pitch-axis-theory stuff I wanted to try out!). Bren, no idea if you mean you liked it or not, but yeah, I like my hornpipes with a bit of swing
Arrangements are a grey area because you probably aren't playing it exactly the same way as the person who holds the copyright on a particular arrangement. It's the kind of question that would take at least a few thousand dollars in legal fees to answer.
Wounded Hussar, I understand your point, and it _is_ in some ways regrettable that litigation has become such a prominent factor in society.
But one thing to keep in mind is that the emergence of mass media and mass production during the past century to a large extent has compelled the advent of copyright laws, especially where music and other arts are concerned. What with the development of recording, radio, TV, etc., the potential venue for a musician has expanded beyond the concert hall, coffeehouse or pub where he/she happens to be performing. Now, obviously, a musician can _choose_ not to record, or to appear on radio or TV, but without some sort of protection there would be nothing to stop someone else from using his/her works in that commercial domain and essentially claim them as their own.
For instance -- and here I'm definitely dating myself -- everyone probably has heard Three Dog Night's big hit, "Joy to the World." But who remembers that it was written, and recorded first, by Hoyt Axton? Probably not many people. At least, however, even if Hoyt is seldom if ever acknowledged as the author of that song, no doubt he's been well compensated for its use.
As we know, folk/traditional music represents more of a gray area, because no one "owns" it -- and historically the music was disseminated largely through performance (formal or informal) rather than commercial means. That's no longer true, of course. So while [Professional Irish Musician] wouldn't care if you recorded yourself playing "Bucks of Oranmore," for example, which he did for his album, he'll certainly object if you do so with a tune that he composed -- even if you do note him as the author.
I do seem to remember a controversy some years ago, however, about whether a musician could copyright his/her _performance_ of a traditional song or tune. I took this to mean basically that "you can play/record that song, but you can't do it the way _I_ do it." But I had to wonder: Hey, if you play the song on guitar capoed up to the fifth fret, with a break after the third verse, does that mean I have to put the capo anywhere _except_ the fifth fret and the break anywhere _except_ after the third verse?
Yeah, it is all pretty messy sometimes, I agree. I guess what I'm saying is copyright laws came about for a reason, and to some extent a valid one.
I would venture to say that the vast majority of people who enjoy playing ITM do it for pleasure and in their spare time. There are those earning a living from it and good luck to them but their commercial needs shouldn't dictate to those from whence they came in the first place.
That said, the popularity such as it is, of ITM is no doubt linked to the media exposure and careers of those who make a full time living out of it.
But this has all been said before - what is any new tune but an arrangement of a few phrases that have been put together in countless different ways many times before - what is original in that?
Copyrights, trademarks and patents serve a reasonably useful purpose, but corporate lobbying has pushed some of the time limits to unreasonable lengths. Other than that, it's hard to think of a better way to protect a composer's/author's/etc's rights. It can get messy dealing with the details and definitions, but the alternative of no protection would be messier.
Maybe some kind of arbitration process would be better than litigation. Not perfect, but better. It could give the little guy a chance against the corporate behemoth.
An issue of copyright came up a while ago here, re a public performance by a dance school, using someone's cd as the music.
I feel there are two issues here; one is giving credit to the recorded performers; one is paying them for public performance of their work. Once you get into the music business, and it is a business, this starts to become serious; people who have performed are reasonably expecting to receive credit for it. This is redoubled when it is original compositions - George Harrison never got half as rich as Lennon and McCartney, because he didn't write as much.
The big issue is the context of the performance -playing a composed tune in a session is one thing, recording it and putting it on a public domain site is entirely another.
Copyright law is so murky that you will not find an attorney willing to give you an answer. Few attorneys touch copyright cases. The record industry likes to scare folks in order for them to buy a so called licence. But there really is no such thing, only contracts. So don't sign anything. There is no law against recording unless you sell the recording for profit, in which case you may be brought to court for damages. Not for breaking a law, but for damages. The plaintiff must show the amount of damages or there is no case. In any event, copyright law does not stop you from recording and posting, it paves the way for lawsuits. Nothing more. No policeman or federal agent wil harass you. So post away. And Beware The Musical/Industrial Complex.
"Copyright law is so murky that you will not find an attorney willing to give you an answer."
...unless you pay them.
"There is no law against recording unless you sell the recording for profit, in which case you may be brought to court for damages. Not for breaking a law, but for damages. The plaintiff must show the amount of damages or there is no case. In any event, copyright law does not stop you from recording and posting, it paves the way for lawsuits. Nothing more. No policeman or federal agent wil harass you. So post away. And Beware The Musical/Industrial Complex."
That's seriously misleading, huck. You don't have to make a profit to be liable. Even if you give away copies of copyrighted material, you are violating the law. The rationale is that you are denying the copyright holder some amount of profit by giving away what he, theoretically, could have sold. The process of litigating damages may be murky, but the law is clearly violated.
Even if you give away copies of copyrighted material, you are violating the law.
Yes, of course you can not rip and burn other's copyrighted material. That is piracy, arrr. But to record yourself playing a cover and posting it does not deprive the copyright holder from the profits of their recording. As the host of a local open mic I've spent many a time on the phone to Nashville, the home of the ASCAP/BMI telemarketers, discussing cover tunes being played at my open mic. They have gone so far as to state that they are a licensing agency. I've pointed out to them that they are not state or federal employees, but they actually said that they were. They lie. But they no longer make the harassing phone calls. I have posted Battlecry Of Freedom, written by George F. Root, and I'm not concerned with being sued for posting it. I always give credit to the composer when I know who that might be, but many tunes I do not know who composed it. And anyway, if any action should be taken, you would first be given the opportunity to remove the post.
If you post a cover of a copyrighted song or tune, it's still a violation of the law and you are vulnerable to legal action. The action may be only a cease-and-desist order, but you are liable and could possibly be forced to pay legal expenses.
Some public establishments have had to stop singing Happy Birthday because it's copyright is still active.
Uh... Huck, if ASCAP or BMI representatives actually claimed to be state or federal government employees, why didn't you file complaints to the appropriate state or federal agencies? Or you could have complained to the organizations themselves, who surely would have wanted to fire these folks before the state or the feds came down on them. Don't tell me it was because the Tenessee Dept. of Commerce and Insurance and the Federal Trade Commission were in on the conspiracy. Governments really really hate it when people fraudulently impersonate them. They hate the competition.
There are two obvious (not perfect, but obvious) solutions to the issue of BMI or ASCAP demanding that you pay a licensing fee for your little open mic, coffee house or folk festival. (1) Pay the licensing fee, on a flat fee basis or by the covered work, which will probably be much less than feared; or, if the fees don't fit in the budget at all, (2) request that performers perform only music in the public domain or music to which they own the rights. Outside the US the situation might be different, but maybe not very different.
ASCAP and to a lesser extent BMI have been known to trawl folk festivals and even renaissance faires trying to get the promoters to pony up for licenses. I was performing at one renfaire when this happened, and the faire management said to ASCAP "Go away. The copyright on this music ran out hundreds of years ago" and to the performers "Stop performing anything you don't own the copyright to; you should be performing historical and traditional music anyway."
On a separate but completely on-topic note: According to the MySpace.com Terms of Use Agreement, which all MySpace.com users have agreed to (otherwise they wouldn't be MySpace users), while MySpace does not claim any ownership rights in your posted content (which includes musical works), you have, by posting your material on MySpace.com, granted them a limited license (license = legal right to do something) " ,,, to use, modify, publicly perform, publicly display, reproduce, and distribute such Content solely on and through the MySpace Services. " (their words). http://www.myspace.com/Modules/Common/Pages/TermsConditions.aspx
As a MySpace.com user, you also (quoting the Terms of Use Agreement again) "... represent and warrant that: (i) you own the Content posted by you on or through the MySpace Services or otherwise have the right to grant the license set forth in this section, and (ii) the posting of your Content on or through the MySpace Services does not violate the privacy rights, publicity rights, copyrights, contract rights or any other rights of any person. "
This means, among other things that if you post material in violation of copyright on their site, they can kick you off. Same goes for photos, by the way.
No, I'm not a lawyer (though I once worked for one). I just like to read things before I agree to them.
Uh... Huck, if ASCAP or BMI representatives actually claimed to be state or federal government employees, why didn't you file complaints to the appropriate state or federal agencies?
I am lazy by nature. I've never been good at doing my homework. The harassment stopped, so I let it go. And I've just stepped down as host after two years. I have one years of pics posted here. http://hasbeansopenmic.blogspot.com/
Copyright laws & Myspace
Copyright laws & Myspace
There have been a few heated discussions about copyright issues in the past, and some very knowledgable answers, so I thought I'd ask this here.
I was planning to set up a Myspace music profile a months ago, and decided to record myself playing a couple of tunes, then multi-track it. However, the tunes aren't self composed, and the arrangements aren't entirely my own, so do I have legal right to post music (which is of me playing) without the permission of the arrangers / composers (not that they've asked me not to, I just haven't asked)? I've given due credit, but is this enough? Or does the fact the arrangements are mainly mine give me the legal right to post these tunes on there?
If anyone wants the context, it's at http://mypsace.com/andyvenables - "The Mathematician" set, and all the double bass arrangement is mine, the melody of the 1st tune is Scott-Skinner, but the method for playing it is from Chris Newman, and the chords from Ian Stephenson (although he may not have put them together). The second tune the chords and bass are my own, the tune is from Ian (I assume it's trad - I don't even have it's name).
I'm very appreciative of any replies, it's probably not the most interesting of topics when we've got a fiddle Vs singers fight elsewhere......
# Posted on August 4th 2006 by Andy V
Re: Copyright laws & Myspace
Andy, you mistyped the link - here it is http://myspace.com/andyvenables
I must say, that is rather hep old man *snaps fingers* *pulls goatee* *adjusts beret*
.... OK, *adjusts oversized tartan bunnet*
Certainly the most relaxed and swinging version of The Mathematician I've yet heard.
# Posted on August 4th 2006 by Bren
Re: Copyright laws & Myspace
My understanding in the matter is that it doesn't matter if you record them and share the tunes publically, AS LONG as you are not making a profit off of them i.e. selling them, etc.
# Posted on August 4th 2006 by irishfiddler
Re: Copyright laws & Myspace
Copyright law has NOTHING to do with whether you make profit or not. It deals with reproduction in any shape or form. So it's not OK from that point of view.
# Posted on August 4th 2006 by kilfarboy
Re: Copyright laws & Myspace
I' m afraid the law says you need a licence to record ANY other people's music, be they composers, performers, their publishers and/or their recording companies.Even if your arrangements contain you own creative inventions the copyright of the work remains firmly with the originator.
As Kilfarboy says, profit - making or the lack of it has no bearing on this issue.
You would need to get in touch with the MCPS-PRS Alliance. Their web site spells it out quite clearly. just Google MCPS and you'll get it .
Sorry if this sounds like a lecture but on points of law I guess any advice is going to sound a bit stern.
Regards,
Fred
# Posted on August 4th 2006 by Fred Arley
Re: Copyright laws & Myspace
Ah come on, stuff the law. Surely commonsense says nobody is going to chase you for putting up a few of their melodies on an nonprofit basis and when you acknowledge sources.
Copyright law is there for big business to screw other businesses and protect their dubious acquired 'intellectual propert rights'
# Posted on August 4th 2006 by the wounded hussar
Re: Copyright laws & Myspace
To the Wounded Hussar,
The issue is not whether YOU think it's fair. Notions of 'commonsense' are too vague and that is one reason why law exists.Copyright law continues to protect the intellectual property rights of all musicians (and other creative people) not just 'nasty' big businesses.
There may well be an argument that says the law is too rigid and uncompromising but it has not , as yet, been made successfully. I understand how many people will find this frustrating, me included, but the law is the law .
The choice is whether you obey it or put two fingers up to it.
If you choose the latter, your opinion on what is just and proper, no matter how earnestly held, will not protect you from any legal repercussion.
# Posted on August 4th 2006 by Fred Arley
Re: Copyright laws & Myspace
And just to follow up the logical consequences of the wounded hussar's viewpoint - copyright law is for big business, so it's ok for a small individual to screw an independent artist by stealing the intellectual property rights that haven't been dubiously acquired by a big business and that they can't afford to hire lawyers to protect.
# Posted on August 4th 2006 by GaryAMartin
Re: Copyright laws & Myspace
I detect a 'culture clash' - you folks choose to respect the law, whether it's good or bad. Here in Ireland, we have a healthy disregard for bad law. i.e. if a law is generally regarded as poor, unworkable, against the common good .... we ignore it!
# Posted on August 4th 2006 by the wounded hussar
Re: Copyright laws & Myspace
Dag nabbit Hussar, tham thar's fighting' talk! Let's face it, there's still far too much anarchy & mob rule up here in Ulster, so let's not go encouraging even more disregard for the law!
Andy, being a good musician yourself, to avoid any hassle, why not just put all that effort into 4 of your own compositions & post those on your 'space'.
I think folks might find 'them' far more interesting than your versions of somebody else's tunes or songs.
However, you mentioned 'The Mathematician' by James Scott Skinner (“The Strathspey King”) but as he died in Aberdeen on March 17, 1927, surely there is no copyright on his tunes now is there?
Doesn't that run out after 50 years?
# Posted on August 4th 2006 by Ptarmigan
Re: Copyright laws & Myspace
Everyone who wants to throw copyrights out the window should remember that the primary purpose of those rules is to make sure the creators of music get their due rewards--which is a good thing, not something we should undermine. And as pointed out, creators may deserve compensation from you even if your use of their property is not for personal gain.
Andy, that being said, I would not worry as much about drawing aspects of accompaniment, ornamentation, or chord patterns from the performance of others. There are even less chord patterns than there are melody lines, and if someone steps up and tries to lay claim to the old I/IV/V progression, we are all dead in our tracks! If you copy a distinctive accompaniment from a recorded and copyrighted source note for note, you might be treading into copyright territory, but from what I have seen and read, laying claim to particular arrangements or a style of performing a particular piece is much more difficult to prove than laying claim to a melody.
There is plenty of great stuff that is in the public domain in ITM, so I would advise anyone posting things on the web to stick to the traditional, unless they seek proper permission.
# Posted on August 4th 2006 by AlBrown
Re: Copyright laws & Myspace
Yep, there is plenty of great stuff in ITM that is 'public domain' but only things were less commercially minded in days past and musicians didn't bother with those who 'copied' them. If 'copyright law' was prevalent in the Ireland of the 1800's and 1900's, there would be precious little ITM in the public domain.
Where would we be today, if the inventor of the wheel had been able to patent, copyright and trademark the invention and name????? It's a disease of modern western society and it's notions of 'ownership'.
# Posted on August 4th 2006 by the wounded hussar
Re: Copyright laws & Myspace
All power to the proletariat masses!
Down with the bourgoise opressors!
# Posted on August 4th 2006 by AlBrown
Re: Copyright laws & Myspace
Possibly the coolest example in modern times of a composer doing it for love instead of lucre is Father Kelly. Wrote some great tunes and consciously decided not to copyright them, figuring having people actually play them would be more than he could ask for. Then went to the South Seas to minister to the sick and needy. ‘Sup wi dat?
# Posted on August 4th 2006 by fidkid
Re: Copyright laws & Myspace
Thanks for all the useful thoughts. It's specifically the arrangements I'm interested in, the copyright on JSS' work will have expired at least 4 years ago, and possibly 29 years ago so it's definately in the public domain. I didn't even know arrangements were copyright-able, so that's good to know when I'm planning future plagarism of better musicians....
Ptarmi, I'm afraid after my last composing spree I've stopped for a bit, my tunes where very.....odd.......sounding (lots of pitch-axis-theory stuff I wanted to try out!). Bren, no idea if you mean you liked it or not, but yeah, I like my hornpipes with a bit of swing
# Posted on August 5th 2006 by Andy V
Re: Copyright laws & Myspace
Arrangements are a grey area because you probably aren't playing it exactly the same way as the person who holds the copyright on a particular arrangement. It's the kind of question that would take at least a few thousand dollars in legal fees to answer.
# Posted on August 5th 2006 by withak
Re: Copyright laws & Myspace
Wounded Hussar, I understand your point, and it _is_ in some ways regrettable that litigation has become such a prominent factor in society.
But one thing to keep in mind is that the emergence of mass media and mass production during the past century to a large extent has compelled the advent of copyright laws, especially where music and other arts are concerned. What with the development of recording, radio, TV, etc., the potential venue for a musician has expanded beyond the concert hall, coffeehouse or pub where he/she happens to be performing. Now, obviously, a musician can _choose_ not to record, or to appear on radio or TV, but without some sort of protection there would be nothing to stop someone else from using his/her works in that commercial domain and essentially claim them as their own.
For instance -- and here I'm definitely dating myself -- everyone probably has heard Three Dog Night's big hit, "Joy to the World." But who remembers that it was written, and recorded first, by Hoyt Axton? Probably not many people. At least, however, even if Hoyt is seldom if ever acknowledged as the author of that song, no doubt he's been well compensated for its use.
As we know, folk/traditional music represents more of a gray area, because no one "owns" it -- and historically the music was disseminated largely through performance (formal or informal) rather than commercial means. That's no longer true, of course. So while [Professional Irish Musician] wouldn't care if you recorded yourself playing "Bucks of Oranmore," for example, which he did for his album, he'll certainly object if you do so with a tune that he composed -- even if you do note him as the author.
I do seem to remember a controversy some years ago, however, about whether a musician could copyright his/her _performance_ of a traditional song or tune. I took this to mean basically that "you can play/record that song, but you can't do it the way _I_ do it." But I had to wonder: Hey, if you play the song on guitar capoed up to the fifth fret, with a break after the third verse, does that mean I have to put the capo anywhere _except_ the fifth fret and the break anywhere _except_ after the third verse?
Yeah, it is all pretty messy sometimes, I agree. I guess what I'm saying is copyright laws came about for a reason, and to some extent a valid one.
# Posted on August 5th 2006 by sts
Re: Copyright laws & Myspace
I would venture to say that the vast majority of people who enjoy playing ITM do it for pleasure and in their spare time. There are those earning a living from it and good luck to them but their commercial needs shouldn't dictate to those from whence they came in the first place.
That said, the popularity such as it is, of ITM is no doubt linked to the media exposure and careers of those who make a full time living out of it.
But this has all been said before - what is any new tune but an arrangement of a few phrases that have been put together in countless different ways many times before - what is original in that?
# Posted on August 5th 2006 by the wounded hussar
Re: Copyright laws & Myspace
Copyrights, trademarks and patents serve a reasonably useful purpose, but corporate lobbying has pushed some of the time limits to unreasonable lengths. Other than that, it's hard to think of a better way to protect a composer's/author's/etc's rights. It can get messy dealing with the details and definitions, but the alternative of no protection would be messier.
Maybe some kind of arbitration process would be better than litigation. Not perfect, but better. It could give the little guy a chance against the corporate behemoth.
# Posted on August 5th 2006 by Bob himself
Re: Copyright laws & Myspace
An issue of copyright came up a while ago here, re a public performance by a dance school, using someone's cd as the music.
I feel there are two issues here; one is giving credit to the recorded performers; one is paying them for public performance of their work. Once you get into the music business, and it is a business, this starts to become serious; people who have performed are reasonably expecting to receive credit for it. This is redoubled when it is original compositions - George Harrison never got half as rich as Lennon and McCartney, because he didn't write as much.
The big issue is the context of the performance -playing a composed tune in a session is one thing, recording it and putting it on a public domain site is entirely another.
# Posted on August 6th 2006 by Guernsey Pete
Re: Copyright laws & Myspace
Copyright law is so murky that you will not find an attorney willing to give you an answer. Few attorneys touch copyright cases. The record industry likes to scare folks in order for them to buy a so called licence. But there really is no such thing, only contracts. So don't sign anything. There is no law against recording unless you sell the recording for profit, in which case you may be brought to court for damages. Not for breaking a law, but for damages. The plaintiff must show the amount of damages or there is no case. In any event, copyright law does not stop you from recording and posting, it paves the way for lawsuits. Nothing more. No policeman or federal agent wil harass you. So post away. And Beware The Musical/Industrial Complex.
# Posted on August 6th 2006 by huck
Re: Copyright laws & Myspace
"Copyright law is so murky that you will not find an attorney willing to give you an answer."
...unless you pay them.
"There is no law against recording unless you sell the recording for profit, in which case you may be brought to court for damages. Not for breaking a law, but for damages. The plaintiff must show the amount of damages or there is no case. In any event, copyright law does not stop you from recording and posting, it paves the way for lawsuits. Nothing more. No policeman or federal agent wil harass you. So post away. And Beware The Musical/Industrial Complex."
That's seriously misleading, huck. You don't have to make a profit to be liable. Even if you give away copies of copyrighted material, you are violating the law. The rationale is that you are denying the copyright holder some amount of profit by giving away what he, theoretically, could have sold. The process of litigating damages may be murky, but the law is clearly violated.
# Posted on August 6th 2006 by Bob himself
Re: Copyright laws & Myspace
Even if you give away copies of copyrighted material, you are violating the law.
Yes, of course you can not rip and burn other's copyrighted material. That is piracy, arrr. But to record yourself playing a cover and posting it does not deprive the copyright holder from the profits of their recording. As the host of a local open mic I've spent many a time on the phone to Nashville, the home of the ASCAP/BMI telemarketers, discussing cover tunes being played at my open mic. They have gone so far as to state that they are a licensing agency. I've pointed out to them that they are not state or federal employees, but they actually said that they were. They lie. But they no longer make the harassing phone calls. I have posted Battlecry Of Freedom, written by George F. Root, and I'm not concerned with being sued for posting it. I always give credit to the composer when I know who that might be, but many tunes I do not know who composed it. And anyway, if any action should be taken, you would first be given the opportunity to remove the post.
# Posted on August 7th 2006 by huck
Re: Copyright laws & Myspace
If you post a cover of a copyrighted song or tune, it's still a violation of the law and you are vulnerable to legal action. The action may be only a cease-and-desist order, but you are liable and could possibly be forced to pay legal expenses.
Some public establishments have had to stop singing Happy Birthday because it's copyright is still active.
# Posted on August 7th 2006 by Bob himself
Re: Copyright laws & Myspace
Uh... Huck, if ASCAP or BMI representatives actually claimed to be state or federal government employees, why didn't you file complaints to the appropriate state or federal agencies? Or you could have complained to the organizations themselves, who surely would have wanted to fire these folks before the state or the feds came down on them. Don't tell me it was because the Tenessee Dept. of Commerce and Insurance and the Federal Trade Commission were in on the conspiracy. Governments really really hate it when people fraudulently impersonate them. They hate the competition.
There are two obvious (not perfect, but obvious) solutions to the issue of BMI or ASCAP demanding that you pay a licensing fee for your little open mic, coffee house or folk festival. (1) Pay the licensing fee, on a flat fee basis or by the covered work, which will probably be much less than feared; or, if the fees don't fit in the budget at all, (2) request that performers perform only music in the public domain or music to which they own the rights. Outside the US the situation might be different, but maybe not very different.
ASCAP and to a lesser extent BMI have been known to trawl folk festivals and even renaissance faires trying to get the promoters to pony up for licenses. I was performing at one renfaire when this happened, and the faire management said to ASCAP "Go away. The copyright on this music ran out hundreds of years ago" and to the performers "Stop performing anything you don't own the copyright to; you should be performing historical and traditional music anyway."
# Posted on August 7th 2006 by Tracie
Re: Copyright laws & Myspace
On a separate but completely on-topic note: According to the MySpace.com Terms of Use Agreement, which all MySpace.com users have agreed to (otherwise they wouldn't be MySpace users), while MySpace does not claim any ownership rights in your posted content (which includes musical works), you have, by posting your material on MySpace.com, granted them a limited license (license = legal right to do something) " ,,, to use, modify, publicly perform, publicly display, reproduce, and distribute such Content solely on and through the MySpace Services. " (their words).
http://www.myspace.com/Modules/Common/Pages/TermsConditions.aspx
As a MySpace.com user, you also (quoting the Terms of Use Agreement again) "... represent and warrant that: (i) you own the Content posted by you on or through the MySpace Services or otherwise have the right to grant the license set forth in this section, and (ii) the posting of your Content on or through the MySpace Services does not violate the privacy rights, publicity rights, copyrights, contract rights or any other rights of any person. "
This means, among other things that if you post material in violation of copyright on their site, they can kick you off. Same goes for photos, by the way.
No, I'm not a lawyer (though I once worked for one). I just like to read things before I agree to them.
# Posted on August 7th 2006 by Tracie
Re: Copyright laws & Myspace
Uh... Huck, if ASCAP or BMI representatives actually claimed to be state or federal government employees, why didn't you file complaints to the appropriate state or federal agencies?
I am lazy by nature. I've never been good at doing my homework. The harassment stopped, so I let it go. And I've just stepped down as host after two years. I have one years of pics posted here.
http://hasbeansopenmic.blogspot.com/
# Posted on August 11th 2006 by huck