05-8-2008, 06:29 PM | #1 |
Very Grave Indeed
|
Copyright, Permission, Public Domain and You
It's been suggested that as a general service to the stepfile making population of the site, that an overview of how copyright works with respect to permissions for FFR would be a good idea.
Speaking generally, any work created by somebody, especially artistic works or "works of the mind" (That's music, literature, etc) is their property and cannot be used without their express permission. With regards to FFR this generally must take the form of express written consent, and may need to be doublechecked by requiring the person claiming to have recieved such consent to put the site administration in touch with the artist to confirm that permission was given. FFR will not use any music that is someone else's intellectual property without such consent. This doesn't mean, however, that every piece of music you could possibly want to use requires permission from the artist. Copyright is not permanant in any area of the world that I know of, and eventually, all works enter what is called "The Public Domain" Works in the public domain can be used by anybody for any reason without any need to seek permission. The primary legal concept dealing with entry of works into the public domain is called the "Berne Convention" It is an agreement that has been signed by 163 different countries, including every major country I believe has any likely chance to have generated music we'd want to step for FFR. The basic premise of the Berne Convention as it regards music says this: 1/ Countries can set the length of copyright to anything they want as long as it is NOT LESS THAN 50 YEARS AFTER THE DEATH OF THE AUTHOR, 2/ The copyright law applies in the country that the work is being used in now, regardless of where it originated 3/ None of the countries are allowed to require formal registration of copyright to grant copyright protection So, for our purposes, anything that was made by someone who died FROM JANUARY 1st 1958 AND ON IS COPYWRITTEN AND YOU MUST GET PERMISSION TO USE no matter who made it, where you live, where they lived, anything. If they died from 1958 on, automatically you need permission to use it. But as point 1/ suggests, countries can extend this further if they are so inclined, and in fact many (read: most of them) have extended that minimum from 50 years to 70 years (This covers the United States, and the Entire European Union from the get go) That means ANYTHING PUBLISHED BY SOMEONE WHO DIED FROM 1938 ON IS PROTECTED and you must get permission to use it. As you'd expect, there are naturally exceptions to this, depending on when the countries signed on to the Berne Convention, and older stuff has seperate laws, so I'm going to go through a couple countries with specific differences from the 70 year standard. United States - 70 years after death for anything published after 1978. 95 years after publication, or 120 years after creation whichever is shorter, for anything anonymously published or made for hire since 1978. Anything published before 1923 is public domain regardless of the circumstances around its publication Canada - 50 years after death, as per Berne, not extended to 70 The whole EU - A flat 70 years after death of the artist Japan - 50 years, as per Berne, not extended to 70 France - 74 years, 272 days; 100 years for anything copywritten by somebody who died actively in service in either world war India - 60 years after death Mexico - 75 years after death Spain - 80 years after death (between 1879-1987) 70 otherwise United Kingdom - 70 except for music, which is 50 So pretty much universally, anything made by someone who died after 1958 is protected, and anything between 1938-1958 will depend on the country you live in. That covers the legality surrounding simply using somebody's song with FFR. But then we get into the issue of remixes, and the permissions surrounding those. The primary legal term with regards to remixes is "Fair Use" which governs the legal ability of someone to use copyrighted material without permission from the holder of the copyright. Remember, Fair Use isn't a legal state, it's a legal defense. Falling under the usual definition of fair use doesn't make you immune to being sued, it just counts as one of the ways you could defend against a lawsuit. So don't think that fair use makes you immune to legal problems. Fair use is an element of copyright law that, as of yet, is still pretty unique to the United States, but then since Berne Convention countries (pretty much everybody) respect the copyright laws of the country where the use is taking place, rather than where the work came from, and FFR is American, generally fair use will apply. There are four aspects of your use that are considered when fair use comes up: 1/ the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes. Basically, the less money you intend to make from using it, and the more contributory and useful your use is, the more likely it is to be ruled fair use. If you are intending to advance knowledge or the progress of the arts, you're in good shape. If your use is transformative rather than derivative, you are probably engaging in fair use. 2/ the nature of the copyrighted work You're more likely to find a ruling of fair use if the work is non-fictional since the information involved can be arguably better off freely available for the public good. Works of fiction are harder to suggest why you should be able to supercede their copyright. It would seem to me, though I'm no lawyer, that with regards to music, this is a very minor concern compared to 1/ 3/ The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole A 10-second sample used in a remix of a 5 minute song is much better than taking the entire song and say, adding cowbell. The less of the original you use the better. 4/ the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work If your remix is in the same style and genre as the original, and you're planning on selling it as an album of remixes of that artist, chances are you aren't engaging in fair use, because you're likely going to damage the market for sales of the original. Using some classical music in a hardcore death metal remix? Probably okay. So that's fair use. Once again, this is a legal defense, not a legal protection. You're ALWAYS better off contacting the artist of the work for permission than to simply remix and assume you are safe. The effect of this though, is that when we want to use work by remixers, if we have their permission to use their remix, we have a legal defense of the assumption that their work falls under fair use, and that if anybody tried to claim legally that we can stolen their work via remix, we could direct them to the artist whose remix we used, and have them argue fair use. I get the feeling that I've messed up some comparative numbers with regards to works produced by a certain year by people who've died by a certain other year, so if anything here seems off to you, or you want some more in depth explanation, please just let me know, and I'll do my best to fix it up. |
05-8-2008, 06:31 PM | #2 |
missa in h-moll
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: nyc
Age: 28
Posts: 3,995
|
Re: Copyright, Permission, Public Domain and You
Fantastic thread and ninja of my idea (). Completely thorough.
Great job. EDIT: p.s. put a ! after the "you" in the title hehehehe
__________________
|
05-9-2008, 01:48 AM | #3 |
Network Security Analyst
|
Re: Copyright, Permission, Public Domain and You
Very informative... This will really help me some of the works that I have in mind...
|
05-9-2008, 07:43 AM | #4 |
Admiral in the Red Army
|
Re: Copyright, Permission, Public Domain and You
A few things, thrown together as mildly coherent rambling:
Remix, as it is used here, really usually means cover. It's not often that songs around these parts are ACTUALLY alternate mixes of songs (only one coming to mind here is Silence) or samples, and are, instead, complete rebuilds of music, using little more than the source melody, recreated in a different style or with some other unique characteristic applied. So I guess what I'm saying here is, what's the story on covers? What about public domain covers? 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? 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? How about same thing, except the cover is at least mildly different? 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? 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? 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? 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? 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 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?
__________________
|
05-9-2008, 11:11 AM | #5 |
Retired BOSS
|
Re: Copyright, Permission, Public Domain and You
Many of your situations are a bit far fetched... but in terms of the copyright holder. With a lot of artists we've contacted, they've said that it is fine by them, but that we'd need to speak with the label, since the label has the copyright. In which case, we get passed along to someone else... but can be like, "So and So said they want to do this."
I'll let devonin pick apart the rest of your stuff.
__________________
RIP |
05-9-2008, 08:40 PM | #6 |
Old-School Player
|
Re: Copyright, Permission, Public Domain and You
You should include a section covering Creative Commons licenses.
|
05-21-2008, 02:53 PM | #7 |
FFR Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: CA
Age: 31
Posts: 452
|
Re: Copyright, Permission, Public Domain and You
lol, this explains everything now !!
__________________
Click >>><<<Click Avg Rank: 174 AAA: 40% FC: 99% nev670 & SnS ^_^ ! This video is Dedicated to Tasselfoot Jason Key's Best Friend |
07-10-2008, 02:58 PM | #8 |
FFR Player
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 14
|
Re: Copyright, Permission, Public Domain and You
FFR I give you premission to use any of my songs for FFR purpose's
http://www.myspace.com/noonasdf <3 |
07-10-2008, 03:20 PM | #9 |
tane orb
|
Re: Copyright, Permission, Public Domain and You
Wait. Even after reading this, i dont understand. What if a song was created anonymously, never published under a record label, and was put in a giant mix CD on bittorent with every song related to, and the entirity of Disc 2 created by 4C**n (Censored because i dont want some dumb 10 year old kid to go google it)?
|
07-11-2008, 09:46 PM | #10 |
FFR Player
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1
|
Re: Copyright, Permission, Public Domain and You
Sorry to run my noobish ideas by all of you, but i need help on a certain topic.
How do i put a song on FFR? What do i need to go through to do it? I have permission from the band. How do go about all of this? Can some one shed some light on my situation please? |
07-11-2008, 10:37 PM | #11 |
Retired BOSS
|
Re: Copyright, Permission, Public Domain and You
this thread isn't the right place for that... you can use this other sticky! http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/...ad.php?t=72047
__________________
RIP |
10-22-2008, 10:52 PM | #12 | |
Abraxas Hydroplane
|
Re: Copyright, Permission, Public Domain and You
Let's say I want to step a song that was made by a man who died in 1937. That's PD, but is it free to just use someones performance of it?
AND DO NOT MOCK ME FOR BUMPING. This is a sticky.
__________________
Quote:
|
|
10-22-2008, 11:25 PM | #13 | |
Abraxas Hydroplane
|
Re: Copyright, Permission, Public Domain and You
Thanks.
__________________
Quote:
|
|
02-10-2009, 05:35 PM | #14 |
FFR Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2008
Age: 29
Posts: 2,228
|
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?
__________________
|
03-3-2009, 02:43 AM | #15 |
FFR Veteran
|
Re: Copyright, Permission, Public Domain and You
I don't think so.
__________________
Please keep your sig to the 250 x 600 size outlined in the site rules. BAM! |
03-3-2009, 03:34 AM | #16 | |
Admiral in the Red Army
|
Re: Copyright, Permission, Public Domain and You
Quote:
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.
__________________
|
|
03-27-2009, 01:47 PM | #17 | |||||||||||
Very Grave Indeed
|
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.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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. Quote:
Quote:
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. Quote:
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. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
|||||||||||
03-27-2009, 02:16 PM | #18 | ||
Very Grave Indeed
|
Re: Copyright, Permission, Public Domain and You
Quote:
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. Quote:
|
||
03-29-2009, 09:24 AM | #19 |
FFR Veteran
|
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? |
04-14-2009, 04:20 PM | #20 | ||
Very Grave Indeed
|
Re: Copyright, Permission, Public Domain and You
Quote:
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. Quote:
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. |
||
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|