Copyright Question

Screwed, maybe.  You would owe 8+ cents for every mechancial copy of every song song.  Plus any other damages the lawyers could think of.

You tube is no problem - see C. Anderton's post.  So viral you would be covered.

In the real world, there is likely very little chance of consequences.  Even if you got noticed with all the noise out there, a legit non-profit would make it more difficult for the big bad record companies to come after you.  Probably a cease and desist order and the +8 cents for every song for every copy sold.  10 songs, less than a dollar a copy sold.

If it went virual and they became a hit and made money, the publishers would want money, but would want to keep that revenue stream going.

@

thanks AT-i will make sure it`s a limited run and hedge my bets.
It`s my first field recording with the Sapphire 6 so with only 2 room mics  it may be a disaster and i may need some help here with mic placement etc .
cheers 

Actually and I am trying to remember my copyright class, it's pretty simple.  I think you have to purchase a license from Amcos or Apra, I'm looking up my notes as we speak.  Damm I have so many notes but here is the link to APRA detailing the process: http://www.apra-amcos.com.au/MusicConsumers/MakingRecordingsRetailSale/Makingaoneoffrecordingforretailsale.aspx what you are doing is applying for an Audio Manufacture License.  Now I can't remember the maths but it is fairly cheap to license, here is the formula Selling Price ÷ 10 works (all works on the recording) x 6.6% (the royalty rate) x 9 (the AMCOS Works on the recording). x Quantity Manufactured

Ben

Hey Tony, you have indeed answered your own question.  I wasn't going to encourage you to not worry about the "question" if this is just you burning a recording that was going to be sold at a few gigs.  Indeed if this is the case, sod it.  All of us post copyrighted material on various web sites and I don't know of anyone whos been sued.  It's only when you are trying to make a real profit should you go about the legal formalites. 

Ben

Isn't there so sort of time restraints? 
I mean like if a song is say over 25 years old it's considered free and open domain?

Or am I confusing this with something else?

Mike

Mike,

no, there isn't really a time limit.  It is the Mickey Mouse rule.  disney has enough clout that copyright is good going back to 1922 or something - the year Walt made the first Mickey Mouse.  They keep bumping up the time going back to that date.  That is for here in the US.  

Anything older is "traditional" and is free and clear, as long as you don't use a specific band's versions of an old song, such as a verse they wrote and included w/ the song.  This applies to written work, too, and all intellectual property.

It is best to get copywrite.  I know that Harry Fox will get you mechanical rights for about $90 for a 1000 copies of most songs.  My wife got clearance for PJ Harvey's "This is Love"  for the same.  Don't know what Australian rates are, but the US has tried to come in line w/ the rest of the world.

@

Australians >>> Go to APRA-AMCOS >>> Music Consumers 

Last I knew it cost me about: $20 Per-Year but that was a long time ago and was for mostly performance and one-off recording use only. If they (Clients) plan to record, and sell?, the licence will probably cost more.  


Nowadays (some minor changes since I last checked) you must have purchased (either download or CD) and allowed to record a copy for private use only (no licence required). That said; however, a licence is required if; intend to use for business (reproduction) and the client plans to sell CD's (regardless of amount of sales) OR upload on music sites and especially have it available for sale or download 'other than to share with family' (for private use only).  Anyway, visit Apra-Amcos (see link)! 

Just so you know. What you do about it is your business.

Harry Fox on copyright>>>  http://www.harryfox.com/p...aMechanicalLicense.jsp


HFA on streaming content >>>>>  http://www.harryfox.com/p...DigitalLicenseslic.jsp  

webbs hill studio


thanks for all the info folks-certainly enough to make an informed decision.
cheers

ps-who owns the copyright to the 12 bar blues in E and who owns the line "woke up this morning..........") 
hopefully they are both out of date!
tony

Please correct me if I'm wrong: 


AFAIK Will Handy is considered the father of blues. --- Blues (it's old; going back to the 1800's) and E (key) being the most popular used, that said; its most likely public domain however, lyrics (especially written in more recent times) are likely to be copyrighted. 

Back in the 1970's I use to play a lot of blues when I was a kid, great stuff to get a band warmed up and just jamming out (improvising), it's a great way for a band to losen up (relax) and learn how to improvise. 

The only thing copyrightable is the melody and the lyrics (for the most part) there are a few exceptions but generally speaking, you can not copyright chord progressions, the groove or feel of the song, the rhythm,   short common language phrases or titles to the song.

Everybody uses the 1/4/5 blues/rock prog, and how many hit songs have been named "Heartbreaker"?

What constitutes a non-copyrightable short phrase vs one that is copyrightable?  That, my friend, is up to a jury of your peers, should it come to that. Same thing with a melody.... obviously some note patterns will be repeated from one song to the next....

Men At Work lost a lawsuit on 5 notes. A jury thought it was a rip of the kookaburra song in the melody of the song Men At Work Land down under.

Sir Paul lost on 3 notes .... My Sweet Lord

Yet, Lady A has not been sued for Need You Now as a rip on Eye In the Sky by Alan Parsons.

Go figure.

Guitarhacker 




Sir Paul lost on 3 notes .... My Sweet Lord

Yet, Lady A has not been sued for Need You Now as a rip on Eye In the Sky by Alan Parsons.

Go figure.

that was George Harrison, not Paul.
 
Also, Austrailian copyright laws are not necessarily the same as US.  Most of the info given here has been from the US perspective, however, I am sure they are similar.
 
I don't know anything about Public Domain for Australia.  And Herb has listed info on US PD, but I think he's a little off on that as well.  the PD copyright laws changed 1992.
 
anything created after 1978 is protected until 70 years after the death of the author (if multiple authors, the last one living is when the time starts). 
 

For works made for hire, and for anonymous and pseudonymous works (unless the author’s identity is revealed in Copyright Office records), the duration of copyright will be 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter.

 

works created prior to 1978 are covered in this document (and I think Herb's interpretation above is accurate, but I haven't verified each point).

 

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf

 

http://www.pdinfo.com/

 

Also, it has been mentioned, or eluded to, but I wanted to clarify:  it does not matter if distribution is free, for charity or for profit.  ALL distribution of covers not in the public domain must have a mechanical license issued by a holding company, Representative or by the copyright holder him/herself.  the law does not make provisions for non-profit, loss of profit or even free distrtibution.  ALL distribution (including streaming) must be covered by a mechanical license according to the law.

 

http://www.harryfox.com/public/DoIneedaMechanicalLicense.jsp

 

http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/

 

yeah... Beagle's right.... Harrison and the dates.. they (congress) change the laws every few years at the bequest of the industry lobbies. I don't keep up with the details....and simply grabbed that data from a web site.... likely violation a copyright in the process.

Nobody's getting prosecuted for posting covers because to do so would be such a huge time consuming task to contact everyone who is violating any given artist's song. The cost to send a notice to cease and desist would be too cost prohibitive for most artists surviving hand to mouth.

Just type the name of your favorite song into the search for youtube alone..... dozens of songs my as many people will come back... they are all violations of copyright law. then multiply that by the millions of songs, and you see the problem....

Since time is money, and lawyers don't work for free, the artist simply ignores the infringement violations and goes on with life. 

The issue with paying sync fees directly to the asset holder is that the asset holder may be incredibly difficult to locate.

That is the historical reason for the third party, and the escrow services to have evolved.  Locating the rights holder can prove impossible and that means you may not be able to negotiate person to person.

I agree that if you can obtain a sync license without a third party service that this can be ideal. A sync license is negotiated per agreement as there is no statutory rate. This means the rate may be scaled by the asset holder and indeed, they may grant permission for just the cost of the paperwork if they like your project. They may also deny the use if they simply have no interest. It's up to them.

Anything is possible... but historically it has been very difficult to locate the asset holder without a service that is dedicated to the task.

The escrow services are providing a sketchy sort of band aid job... you can use an escrow service to demonstrate good faith as they rely on a Notice of Intent that supposedly puts the responsibility on the asset holders.

The asset holder is "obliged" to be aware of the NOI and respond with agreement or disagreement.

An issue to stay aware of is that the NOI is a "gesture"... and the outcome is simply being put off until later in the hopes that the asset holder will accept some payment rather than get frustrated when they learn that there is a NOI floating around that is addressed to them.

The point is... these services legally represent your interest with a NOI, BUT you may still be liable should an agreement not come to fruition. If the legal service is ineffective, or the escrow account goes bankrupt, then the NOI is just a piece of paper.

I wouldn't count on the NOI covering you if you use a song that the owner simply doesn't want you to use. If you want to rely on the NOI you may want to keep this in mind when choosing to mate music to picture.

If you've had a video editor cut music to a song and then you learn you have to yank the song... well, that gets expensive to patch that stuff up. It happens every day in the TV business where producers will jump the gun and start an edit without sync license and then learn the license is beyond the budget.



This is why the emergence of Rightsflow and Googles interest is noteworthy. If they start representing artists by providing sync management, Notice of Intent services etc. than the risks I mentioned above may be minimized. If Google gets Rightflow running they will probably build a reliable business and we don't have to worry that some entertainment lawyer may move to the Cayman islands with everyone's escrow account.



Rightsflow also has the possibility of becoming a bullying gorilla... an asset holder that disagrees with them is likely to be dwarfed by Google's capability to operate at the edge of, or outside the bounds of existing law.



It will be interesting to see how it all evolves and I am hoping that asset holders will welcome having a service that connects performers with publishers in a easy and affordable way. 

You can't really market anything aggressively until you have all the rights covered. I'm looking forward to being able to do it without the current expense of paper work and quarterlies. 


 

all the best,
mike

  


edit spelling