Copyright, Permission, Public Domain and You

[Afrobean]

Re: Copyright, Permission, Public Domain and You

ok, say 'person' made a remix of one of led zepplin/linkin parks songs, and i got 'person's permission, would I have to get linkin/led's permission also if its a remix?

I don't think so.

Have a look at a song called "Silence" in FFR. You think Sarah McLachlan gave permission? How about the group Delerium, who is actually credited with the original "Silence", as Ms. McLachlan was merely doing guest vocals?

Do you even think this FFMusicDJ who created the mix that appears in FFR got permission to release a remix from either Delerium as a whole or even just Sarah McLachlan?

I'd say that legally, Delerium's record label has every right to throw a C&D at FFR over the use of the remix, but yet it is here regardless. Now, they might have higher standards for avoiding copyright infringement these days, but there is certainly a standing history of use in the past.

On a personal note, I'd say that as long as the source material isn't copied "verbatim" into a remix, it's got a lot more likelihood of standing up on its own. That is to say, if it's more of a "cover", an original rendition of the song, rather than an alternate mix of existing material, it'd probably be better.

[devonin]

Re: Copyright, Permission, Public Domain and You

So I noticed that there were responses wanting my attention in this sticky, so I guess I should address them.

So I guess what I'm saying here is, what's the story on covers?

You're wanting to use someone else's copywritten music for your own ends. Like making a remix, you -should- ask permission to use the music first, but if you didn't ask permission and get sued, you could in the US try to make a fair use defense, appealing to the 4 criteria above.

What about public domain covers?

Songs which are in the public domain can be used by anybody for any reason. If you cover a song that is in the public domain, you don't gain copyright over the song, and to the best of my ability to determine, your own cover version -does- become your intellectual property, in the sense that I coudln't simply take your cover and put it on my CD and sell it for money. If someone has covered an open domain song, it works the same way as an orchestra performing an open domain classical piece. You should seek the permission of the artist whose particular performance you are using.

What if someone covers a song without making it unique in any way, we get permission from the performer of the cover, but do not get permission from the original writer?

If someone has covered another song at all, we can assume due diligance on their part that they got permission from the original artist, and move forward with only permission from them.

What about instances of songs being popular under the flag of a certain performer, but they had nothing to do with writing it; could someone cover the popular version of the song in an non-unique way and we could use it?

Something like All Along the Watchtower? Created by Bob Dylan, arguably substantially more famous and popular as done by Jimi Hendrix? If someone did a cover of All Along the Watchtower, like say the Dave Matthews Band did, and we wanted to use the DMB version, we would need permission from the Dave Matthews Band because, again, via the assumption that they are not themselves breaking the law, it is safe to assume they had permission and we need only DMB's permission to use their particular version.

Mind you, if you want to use All Along The Watchtower by "Some guy named Jim" it's probably -not- safe to assume he himself got permission from the original copyright holder, this really only works when using versions by actual signed artists.

How about same thing, except the cover is at least mildly different?

Same thing.

The 70 year thing, that's 70 years from the performer right? Because if it's 70 years after the writer, couldn't we just use a cover of it and claim it as fair use, even if the 70 years are not up for the writer? And what about old-ish instrumental music-- does that mean the only way to claim fair use on this sort of thing would be for the song to be performed in a non-standard way? What if the song is not clearly defined as being connected to a certain style? Does that mean one could play the song on any instrument in any style and claim fair use?

The holder of any copyright retains possession of that copyright for 70 years (usually) after their death. If a song is older than that, and thus open domain, you can use it all you want with no permission. If someone else still living has done so, their particular use of it (The remix they made, the cover they made, the faithful reproduction they made) becomes their own intellectual property. So if the Londom Symphony has done a performance of say, Beethoven's 8th symphony, the original Beethoven's 8th symphony is still open domain, but any particular recordings of the London Symphony's recent performance would be their property and we would want to get their permission to use their recording of it.

Once again, fair use is a defense. You use it when you impinge on someone's copyright without permission and they sue you. You say "You can't sue me, this is fair use" and have to set out to prove it to a court of law. It's not automatic.

If you played the song in a non-standard way, that would help a fair use defense.
If you played the song on non-standard instrumentation, that would help a fair use defense.

And what about copyright ownership not owned by the writer or performer? For instance, if Britney Spears gave us permission to use the song "...Baby One More Time", we might be morally justified to use it, but she surely doesn't own the rights, even to the particular studio recording. That would be up to the record label, right (and the writer, of course)? What if we got permission to such a song from both the performer and the producer? Does the copyright still "run out" at the 70 years past death point, and the record label is then just "borrowing" the rights until the 70 years past death runs out?

I say "The artist" just in the general sense because it's easier than typing out "The holder of the copyright" every time. If I'm signed onto a label, and part of my contract is that they control the rights to my music, then they are the copyright holder, and they are the ones who can give permission. That's the reason why it is much easier to get permissions from independant bands, and smaller labels, and why when people request that we get permission from major top acts, they are usually told that it will be impossible. The artist may love the idea, but unless the actual holder of the copyright (Usually the label) gives permission, we have no permission.

If I've made a song, and contractually transferred the copyright to a record label, that copyright still expires at the usual time, 70 years after my death.

What about instances of works being the collective effort of many people? When does the copyright run out then? And if the idea is as simple as "it'll be 70 years after the last contributing member has died", then how exactly would contributions be defined? Modern popular music has so many hands in the cookie jar that it would be basically impossible to clearly identify all contributing parties. Would it then be safe to say that only those who the are clearly credited as a contributing party count?

I'd say you could probably define a contributing member as someone who recieved royalties from performances of the work while it was under copyright. The guy who worked the sound booth on recording day "contributed" but was not a contributor since they were paid for their labour and that was it. For more modern groups, that sort of information should be on record with the record label who represented them.

What if, say, 9 people are credited as working on a song, from writing to final recording, and the 9 of them have been dead for 70 years. But there was actually a 10th person who was never credited and who is still alive. Would such a song as that be public domain regardless? Would it enter public domain unless the last remaining person was able to prove officially that they were involved in the production of the song in a noticeable way?

Of X people are the ones explicitly listed as having held the copyright on a given thing, and all X people have been dead the correct number of years, it is open domain. Someone coming out now to claim they were the 6th beatle and demanding back royalties would have to do an awful lot by way of gathering proof to be remotely accepted as a valid holder of that copyright, but until that happened, 70 years after the last -official- beatle croaks, their stuff becomes open domain.

ps I always thought works of art such as these only actually entered public domain if the copyright owner failed to publish anything using it for a certain period of time. Are the rules different for different media? Is there anything a copyright owner can do to stop his or her work from entering public domain, short of corporeal eternal life?

The only way a copyright owner can prevent their work from entering the public domain is to not die, or at least not stay dead for 70 years.

I'd say that legally, Delerium's record label has every right to throw a C&D at FFR over the use of the remix, but yet it is here regardless.

FFMusicDJ has created a remixed version of a pre-existing song. Assuming (possibly incorrectly) that this version is not being used to make money, and not being set out to actively compete with Delerium in terms of any potential sales they might still make on the version, FFMusicDJ has a very strong fair use case, if Delerium tried to come after him for his version.

FFR is using his remix with, presumably his permission to use it. If Delerium came after us, we would tell them "We're not using your song, we're using FFMusicDJs song. If you would like to assert your copyright on him, we'd be glad to remove the song" but we -have- permission from the artist whose song we're using, so we're fine unless he loses the rights to his song.

[devonin]

Re: Copyright, Permission, Public Domain and You

As an example, could you identify some things which are not public domain at present, but will be at some point in the future, and also tell when they would be entering the public domain and identify specifically why? Not only will this help me (and possibly others) understand this with a little more depth, but it might even give some people some nice ideas

Figured I'd give this one its own post, since there does seem to be some confusion about the way these numbers work.

Sing, Sing, Sing by Benny Goodman is a classic of the jazz/swing era, and was published in 1935. However, Benny Goodman himself did not die until 1986, so even though the -song- is already more than 70 years old, it will not enter open domain until 2056.

La Wally is an opera composed by Alfredo Catalani and was created in 1892. Alfredo Catalani died in 1893. It has been 116 years since Catalani died, so this opera is in the public domain. This exact version would be the intellectual property of the singer, and to use this exact version would require her permission.

Take This Hammerwas a prison song (And thus probably open domain from the get go) performed by the classic blues musician Lead Belly in 1942. Using the lyrics and music to Take This Hammer would already constitute open domain use, because of its nature as a prison song. Using Lead Belly's recording from 1942 would fall under copyright law. Lead Belly died in 1949, which means it has been only 60 years since his death. The rights to his version of Take This Hammer enter the public domain in 10 years, 2019.

it might even give some people some nice ideas

You could, in fact, go to wikipedia and look up the entry for any year previous to 1939 and check the "deaths" column. Any musician or other recording artist who died previous to 1939 has their works in the open domain. It would be a method with which to find songs that could be used.

[TC_Cyrenics]

Re: Copyright, Permission, Public Domain and You

This is a lot of very useful information. Thank you, Devonin.

However, I have a question about a cappella performances.

Example: Say I performed the Star Spangled Banner without musical accompaniment. Since Francis Scott Key has been dead for over 160 years, would I be correct in saying I only need to give my permission to use it publicly?

Example 2: Say I have a friend who is talented at singing songs from a group whose members are all still alive. Would I still need to gather permission from the group for their lyrics, even if the music aspect of the song is unused?

[devonin]

Re: Copyright, Permission, Public Domain and You

Example: Say I performed the Star Spangled Banner without musical accompaniment. Since Francis Scott Key has been dead for over 160 years, would I be correct in saying I only need to give my permission to use it publicly?

You're not just using his words though, you're performing the song as well, with or without musicians. However, the actual song is even older than the poem. (The song is actually put to the tune of an 18th century men's club's anthem) so in fact, both the tune and lyrics are open domain.

If the tune were composed more recently however, but using old lyrics, you could still use the lyrics so long as you didn't use the same tune. What you'd be doing at that point wouldn't even be singing the star spangled banner, it would be putting the Scott Key poem (which is open domain) to music.

Example 2: Say I have a friend who is talented at singing songs from a group whose members are all still alive. Would I still need to gather permission from the group for their lyrics, even if the music aspect of the song is unused?

A "song" that has lyrics would, so far as I know, be composed of three elements, each their own piece of intellectual property: The lyrics, the music and the tune. Using any of those things that are someone's protected intellectual property would require their permission.

So when Weird Al does a parody, he is creating his own lyrics, but he is still using someone's music and tune. When Richard Cheese does a parody, he is creating his own music and tune but using someone else's lyrics. In both cases, permission would need to be granted.

[ScarletSky]

Re: Copyright, Permission, Public Domain and You

I've asked for permission personally by a few artists who do things like techno and dubstep, to use their work (as a whole or individual tracks) for reproduction (for stepfilling and the like). They have granted me permission to due so on the premise that I credit them, which is no big deal and is easy with the .sm, .dwi file's format. But how would this work if I submitted a finished stepfile using their music, and credited them. Do I need to include the statement saying that or what?

[jimerax]

Re: Copyright, Permission, Public Domain and You

- report it in permission thread, hopefully with proofs (e-mail screenshot, etc).
- write the song artist's name in the dwi.

Those are the only things you need to do.
If your files are accepted, those songs will be automatically credited when they are released in the game.

[GreenTea767]

Re: Copyright, Permission, Public Domain and You

What about Creative Commons licenses? Do I still need permission from the author?

[MikeShinoda12345]

Re: Copyright, Permission, Public Domain and You

this may sound like a nooby question, but do we still need express permission from the artist if the music was put out for digital download and is impossible to actually buy?

[jimerax]

Re: Copyright, Permission, Public Domain and You

What about Creative Commons licenses? Do I still need permission from the author?

Basically we can use CC licensed songs without getting (further) author's permissions, since FFR is a free game and author's names are displayed.

When you submit a file of CC licensed songs, either post about it in permission thread, or put a txt file about the permission/license in your file

this may sound like a nooby question, but do we still need express permission from the artist if the music was put out for digital download and is impossible to actually buy?

I don't fully understand the intention of this question, but basically we need to get permission for any songs, and express them.

[devonin]

Re: Copyright, Permission, Public Domain and You

The ability to download the song for free doesn't give permission to use that songin your own works. You'd need permission.

[bmah]

Re: Copyright, Permission, Public Domain and You

A song can be used if:
- permission was directly obtained from the artist
- the artist stated permission information on his/her webpage
- if it is CC licensed (search CC license for more info...there are various licenses) / is within public domain (but be careful about classical songs on public domain regarding performances [e.g. who performed?] and the date of the artist's death)

If a song is downloadable, do they meet any of the above requirements?

[VisD]

Re: Copyright, Permission, Public Domain and You

OK I have a few situations here, and I want to know for which of them we are permitted to use the song to step:

1. The song is an instrumental arrangement (not remix) of a preexisting song. The arrangement was originally written and performed by an artist whom we have permission for, but we do not have permission for the composer of the original song.

2. The song is a cover of a preexisting song, i.e. it is exactly the same song except performed by two different artists. We have permission for one of them, but not the other. Is it ok to use the cover from the artist we do have permission from?

3. Do we have permission to step any song that already has a file ingame (ie V2s of songs from artists whom we do not have blanket permission for)?

[hi19hi19]

Re: Copyright, Permission, Public Domain and You

OK I have a few situations here, and I want to know for which of them we are permitted to use the song to step:

1. The song is an instrumental arrangement (not remix) of a preexisting song. The arrangement was originally written and performed by an artist whom we have permission for, but we do not have permission for the composer of the original song.

2. The song is a cover of a preexisting song, i.e. it is exactly the same song except performed by two different artists. We have permission for one of them, but not the other. Is it ok to use the cover from the artist we do have permission from?

3. Do we have permission to step any song that already has a file ingame (ie V2s of songs from artists whom we do not have blanket permission for)?

1. We have permission for the arrangement.

3. Yes.

Two however is a pretty sticky situation >_< I'll let those more informed answer that one lol

[nois-or-e]

Re: Copyright, Permission, Public Domain and You

I don't believe we would have permission for #2. For example, there is a song that I wanted to step from 'Making Orange Things'. But this album is a collaboration between Venetian Snares (of whom we have permission from), and Speedranch, (of whom we do not).

I am 90% certain that we'd need permission from both artists involved in making the song. Someone correct me if I am wrong.