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.
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.
). Completely thorough.
Comment