Copyright

[Blink]

ANyone know much about copyright? Esp when it comes to putting MP3s of your music on the net.

 

The reason I ask at the moment is cos I was thinking of putting a little tune I had been working on using Reason on thsi site (alas only for those of you who own Reason). Reason has a "self-contained" facility on it, does it not, which publishes something in a "read-only" format?

 

I warn you now, it is 61bpm, atmospheric and meant to be listened to by serial killers!!

[Ross.Rocks]

Once you create something its automatically copyrighted, I've looked into this as a group of us as producers were curious. however you can get it registered for a bunch of cash... although its a waste of time just burn a copy to CD and mail it to yourself, then dont open it when it arrives then you have a date stamp proof of your [censored] in a sealed container... Lock TIGHT, DAN ALORNE!!!!

[Nick G]

Yep Ross, that's exactly the way we do it - we bought a fireproof safe to keep them in too. I was having a blonde month a while back and opened up 4 packages I'd sent to myself - D'oh!!

[Blink]

Not impressed by the fact that on reason, altho when you do it is "Publish" song, people can still look at it all, it is just copy and paste that is disabled, you can poke around in the track and alsorts. Thought it might do it in a "play only" format. Ah, may post this ditty anyway, will think about it

[DJ Elemental]

I post all my songs to myself too, but one of my mates who works in the music industry said that someone only has to change about 4 notes in a song and it becomes theirs, I dunno how accurate that statment is though...

[Blink]

I think you do have a case if you can prove it is obviously derivative, but tunes can be quite similar. Is also the weird situation of artists owning a "performance" hence their version can't be used, but the label owning the "song", so they can allow covers. Music industry is full of sharks

[big_ee69]

In general terms the 'posting to yourself' solution is a good one, and would def hold up (in court) if someone ripped off your [censored].

However the operative words here are 'in court'. Just cos you own the copyright doen't mean that who ever has nicked your [censored] isn't going to necessarily hand you any cash, unless they belive you will/might sue them, and /or they have the cash to pay you.

Unless the are cool, in which case they wouldn't have nicked your stuff in 'da first place mon', and would have negotiated a fee with you before publication

 

So two scenarios:

1) 'Only got shirt button' recordings limited, might not have the cash or assets to be worth persuing, unless they make it big, so check out their status on Yahoo, or companies house, see if they have any other court judgements against them, do some checking up. If they do make it big off your [censored] or however, and they become:

 

2) 'Running dogs of capitism BIG BOY' recordings limited, they will have the money to pay, but also the money to defend

themselves, and hire big shot lawyers ect.

 

Having said that, most organisation will aim to settle rather than have a case heard in court, so you've got to make them belive that you mean business, without actually starting proper prooceedings. Failing this, issuing a writ/claim normally makes people sit up and take notice, and doen't cost a great deal. (Pop down to the local county court, the clerk will give you the forms, or the Citizens advice is good for free legal help) Bear in mind tho, that if you think they are actually going to contest the claim, that will start racking their costs up, for which you might be liable, or at leeat they will seek to recoup from you, and you will need to take these into account before settlement. Even if you cave in!!, and stop the action.

 

So if your thinking of starting any proceeding, make sure you've

1) Not involved the lawyers untill you absolutly have to, cos they will charge. A lot.

2) Ask in strong terms for your right in the copyrighted [censored] to be purchased from you, at the best terms you can get, Repeat rights, one off fee's, publishing deals, ect hold out for as much as you can really.

3) Imply in the strongest terms that you will resort to Law, but avoid that eventuallity as far as possible.

 

 

[James]

cheers for this topic guys - I didnt know half this sh*t - NICE ONE !

[James]

must admit Elemental - I've heard quite a few tunes which they have blatenly only changed about 4 notes - this SUCKS and really winds me up - shouldnt be allowed - especially when its 'that' blatent

[Nick G]

Just been reading the November copy of Future Music (as i hope alot of you have too), and it's got a whole 6 pages about Copyright and pretty much anything you want to know about it ... any musicians/ producers on the site should definitely go and get themselves a copy just so that they know where they legally stand when it comes to their tunes.

[Blink]

Cheers for that. I tend to avoid FM cos it is very dance based, whereas the music I do isn't. Prefer SOS myself

[Nick G]

Admittedly, it does seem to be more dance music orientated, but there are always similar questions and issues that can be addressed about most forms of music, so i've always seen it as a good mag to have a copy of ... even if it's only so i can drool over the latset bit of kit that i want

[LiquidEyes]

(Sorry to dig out an old thread but I found it v. interesting!)

 

I read that it's best to send your music to yourself by recorded delivery - costs a little more, but I think it has more legal standing. When it arrives, somebody has to sign for it to confirm that it really was delivered on that date. I think the post office keep a record of the delivery too (they give you this reference number on a receipt when you post it).

 

Presumably the signature / receipt thing has a bit more legal weight than that crappy date-mark they put over the stamp.

 

Also worth noting: if you do this sort of thing regularly, keep a written record of which tune you posted when, so that at a later date, you know which tape is in which parcel! Obvious but important!

[LiquidEyes]

Blink,

Why don't you just "mix down" the track? I.e. create an MP3 that anyone can listen to? Is it really long or something?

[LiquidEyes]

"someone only has to change about 4 notes in a song and it becomes theirs"

 

Apparently there are people who [censored] for the music-copyrighting societies that have the unenviable task of quantifying the similarity between different versions of tracks. E.g. if someone makes a cover version of a track, they assess how original the new track is, and put a figure on it so that they can divide the royalties between the original artist and the cover artist in a fair manner.

 

Of course, if you release something that's a rip-off but not officially a cover, then it's up to the original artist to sue.

 

To put the "four notes" thing in perspective though: there was a cheesy hard house tune that charted a year or two ago, I think it was those tossers who shouted "do you like bass?" and something about "bass in your motherf?cking face" over the top of a lame cliched pile of hard trance sh!te. Ahem. Anyway, the main riff from that tune is about 2 notes different from a track I wrote a couple of years earlier, and uses an almost identical (albeit cliched) synth sound.

 

Obviously they didn't "steal" my tune because I never sent it to anyone! Also it's hardly the greatest melody in the history of time.

 

My point is that, it's pretty difficult to write a tune that is 100% original. And it's quite hard to draw the line between what is "similar" and what is a "steal"!

 

And yes it annoys me too when artists release the most blatant rip-offs but credit it as an original track!!