| |||||||
| Band Marketing and Promotion Discuss strategies to get more people listening to your music and coming to your live shows. |
![]() |
| | LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
| ||||
| Quote:
I interpret that if (the author is or the authors are) the same for each work, the multiple works may be registered as a collection. Don't take my word for it though, I've been wrong before. Your best bet is contacting an attorney if you are trying to do a by-the-book registration. You could even ask the via the copyright.gov site. I will say that the registration doesn't distinguish between who wrote the lyrics and who wrote the music. If two writers are authors, each of them holds an equal share in the ownership of that work, regardless of who wrote the music, and who wrote the lyrics. This way one of them can't go off and sell the "lyrics" or "music" without the consent of the other author.
__________________ AfaraWayland When in doubt, always seek professional legal counsel. Ha Ha! -Phil Ken Sebben |
| |||
| Quote:
Or to rephrase, why copyright a digital recording when you could just copyright the "concept" of the song and be done with it? Thanks in advance, and I hope all that made sense. |
| ||||
| Quote:
My included quotations come from Rights Granted Under Copyright Law (BitLaw) and U.S. Copyright Office - Online Services (eCO: Electronic Copyright Office) There are several issues I must address. The first is that I just found out the Copyright Office now prefers the use of Form CO, or with the office's new online-based version of the form, eCO. This new form apparently replaces Forms TX, VA, PA, SE, and SR. Second, Assuming you used a PA form you would have protection of the song performed that is withheld in the recording, not the actual sound recording of the performance. You will not have a copyright to the recorded phonograph, or the digital copy or whatever(that recorded copy could be circulated without your approval legally,) but rather the infomation/performance within it would be protected. Thereby creating a conundrum, and defeating the purpose for protection. This brings back into question the separation of PA and SR. I still feel that any registering of a song (prior to this new CO form) should have be done with an SR form. This places protection on both song and recording. I believe that the PA form was not intended for recorded music, SR was, so why use the form which limits your overall protection? By using a PA form, you would have protection of the song, but not the recording of the song. You would create a situation where I could steal your recording (through dig download, say) and use your recording in my sampled beats, and perhaps theoretically sell your recording as copies of the recording, not the work held within... If someone re-recorded your song (own instruments, etc..), they would have to clear a license from you to sell or publish it. If they did not clear a license, yet did it anyway, you'd have right to certain damages. I say certain, because the burden would be on you to prove with what intent the thief had when infringing. Did he know before he infringed that the act was illegal? Did he do such act with malicious intent? If the person plays dumb, you may only be able to collect for the money made in illegal sales. If you can prove he/she did it knowingly, without concern for the rights of others(yourself), you may be able to convince a jury/judge to grant you more for your "suffering." Here's why I don't think the above case is a derivative: Quote:
This is another thing I don't understand with bands..why not put your best foot forward? not your ragged and unpresentable ingrown toe foot? The key you should remember is that (it used to be) to protect a sound recording, in any medium of expression, you use the SR form (now replaced with the CO form). Now I think the CO form addresses this, and perhaps leaves out loop-holes. I digital version of the sound recording is still a sound recording, and the first rough mix you sent in IS NOT THE SAME sound recording as your final mix.
__________________ AfaraWayland When in doubt, always seek professional legal counsel. Ha Ha! -Phil Ken Sebben |
| |||||||
| Quote:
![]() Quote:
Quote:
)Quote:
Quote:
![]() Quote:
It's still not THE SAME, but it would be a derivative work closely based on the registered sound recording, which should be protected, correct? After all, I can't just go record an organ over a Trivium song and then sell it |
| ||||||
| Quote:
Again a derivative work refers to taking one form of IP and transforming it to a different form, but in such a way that the original serves as a basis for the creation and interpretation of the copy. Ex. Taking a painting and making it a drawing or vice versa, a novel into a motion picture. Simply changing the medium won't make a derivative, but copying and re-interpreting a painting into a drawing, though the medium of expression changed, the original was used for reinterpretation, a work derived from the first. A sound recording changing from cassette tape to CD is not a derivative, because it only changes the medium. The same recording is there, within the constrains of the medium of course. The recording was not recreated using different interpretations of the song arrangement during the transfer. Therefore, what you are actually describing, I consider to be unauthorized reproduction and possible distribution, not an unauthorized derivative. Quote:
Quote:
If someone attempts to re-record your song without licensing it from you, they are infringing on several of the rights that you hold to the original. They are obviously copying/reproducing it without permission, possibly distributing it illegally, and if they change the words/arrangement to a point not past a distinguishable link between the original and the new derivative of the original, they have infringed on three of the six rights you own as a © holder. If you register your rough mix, you will be "protecting" the song contained in the unregistered final mix, but not "protecting" the sound recording of the final mix. Quote:
I admit I've been throwing out "protected" when I should actually say "registered#". Read this carefully, you have full protection according to the Copyright Act as soon as you transfix your work in some medium of expression. Paper, tape recorder, whatever as long as it is tangible. YOU can ONLY seek damages (money) for infringement if you have registered the work prior to the alleged infringement. Registration is required to seek money, it is not required for federal protection of copyright. Quote:
It indeed may not be the same to us, but does it satisfy federal requirements for a derivative work? That is the question. Quote:
__________________ AfaraWayland When in doubt, always seek professional legal counsel. Ha Ha! -Phil Ken Sebben |
| |||
| Quote:
Quote:
Thanks for explaining all that, I think I understand a little bit more of what's going on now. |
| ||||
|
Sorry for the tone, and thanks for your participation.
__________________ AfaraWayland When in doubt, always seek professional legal counsel. Ha Ha! -Phil Ken Sebben |
| ||||
|
I see that this is a fairly old thread but I have a question I'd like to ask concerning fair use and parody. The reason i ask this is that I had an argument with a guy on another site where I post some of my music. On this site there was someone who was taking well known instrumental tracks and singing over them. He then claimed that he had written the songs. When I objected saying that it was some sort of infringement, I was told that what he was doing falls under fair use and can be considered a parody, therefore making it legal. This seems to be a grey area and a fine line seperates blatantly copying someone elses work as ur own and claiming it to be a parody. I know that 2 Live Crew were taken to court a few years ago because of their version of Roy Orbisons 'pretty woman'. At the end of the day they managed to convince the court that it was a parody and they won the case! If this is so then it seems that I can just copy other peoples songs and call it parody if anyone complains. What does the law say? I have another question. You stated earlier that a copyright has to be registered with the US Copyright office. What if ur from another country? Would one register in that country? If so, would that then be valid in another country other than the one in which it was registered?
__________________ Real Men Play Tambourine! |
| ||||
| Quote:
A song should be registered where you intend to use it. That may mean registering it in the country you live in, or several countries, again I am not familiar with non US copyright -type laws. You could check the US office website to see where US registered protection applies.
__________________ AfaraWayland When in doubt, always seek professional legal counsel. Ha Ha! -Phil Ken Sebben |
| ||||
| Quote:
"In essence, the traditional concept of fair use excused reasonable unauthorized appropriations from a first work, when the use to which the second author put the appropriated material in some way advanced the public benefit, without substantially impairing the present or potential economic value of the first work. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, 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 the purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made the work in any particular case a fair use the factors to be considered shall include- 1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes, 2. the nature of the copyrighted work. 3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, 4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyighted 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." to Parody it seems, means to satirize the original work. Unless thats what this fellow is trying to do by writing lyrics to otherwise instrumental songs, he is infringing of the right of copyright holders to prepare derivative works. I'm my non-prof view, what he is doing is making derivatives. Quote:
__________________ AfaraWayland When in doubt, always seek professional legal counsel. Ha Ha! -Phil Ken Sebben |
![]() |
| Tags |
| audio, bash, cover, drop, drum, electronic, issue, mix, music, record, recording, rnb, rock, sample |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
| |
Similar Threads | ||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| MOTU stuff | snoopy | Audio Engineering | 11 | 05-07-2009 01:07 PM |
| Stuff For Sale | dach | Classifieds | 8 | 02-29-2008 02:30 AM |
| Copyright Your Music!!!! | MR.BYTCH KILLA | Solve Technical Issues | 2 | 04-19-2007 05:39 PM |
| Stuff for Sale | dach | Classifieds | 0 | 06-13-2006 11:38 PM |
| what about legal stuff? | guitar junkie | Audio Engineering | 16 | 12-11-2005 12:29 AM |