PDA

View Full Version : Copyright Information Thread - Know the Laws



thehadgi
03-07-2012, 03:08 PM
I'm writing this to be a reference for us DJF'ers when it comes to copyright issues, and a source of info for DJ's playing tunes out, and producers making sure their work does not get infringed upon. I am taking this information directly off of www.copyright.gov and www.RIAA.com, and most copyright issues are found in Title 17 of The United States Code. I will be using links directly from the site, and any discussion is welcome below, as the legalise can be pretty tough, and obviously open to interpretation considering how many lawsuits there are every year.

I'm going to do three main sections. The first explains who gets to own copyright and what terms mean, which might be more interesting to producers and creators of songs (in legal terms, by no means am I saying DJ's aren't producing art!). The second deals more with info that DJ's and people wanting to know how they can use other peoples' works would be interested in, what you can't do, and punishments for infringing. Third section is what the RIAA says you can do with material you have that is copyright protected.

If there are any typos or misrepresented information, please do reply and we can make amendments to this original post. And if there are any sections in which people would require proof, or a link backing the information up, I will do my best to track down the exact sections of law for you! (Although I am no law student.)

Btw, this is for the US. I would love to include other countries for the benefit of all, but I am not able to wade through all that legal material :eek:



For those that think piracy is ok, or argue that the industry needs change blah blah...

1. This is not the thread. See KLH's 'Rant on Piracy' thread here (http://www.djforums.com/forums/showthread.php?2552-RANT-on-Piracy/) for discussion on piracy itself
2. It is illegal whether one thinks it should be or not, and as noted below you can be penalized for sharing if you are unaware or ignorant of the laws surrounding copyright infringement. So educate yourself and know the consequences :tup:

thehadgi
03-07-2012, 03:11 PM
Let's kick it off:

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



What is copyright?
-Protection provided by Title 17, U.S. Code, to authors of "original works of authorship". Includes literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works.
-Protection is available to both published AND unpublished works (for what 'published' means, see below under Publication).
-What you create must be tangible, i.e. a 'style' cannot be copyrighted, or a certain 'look'.
-"The fixation need not be directly perceptible so long as it may be communicated with the aid of a machine or device"
-Easily enough to see, sound recording and musical works are protected

What rights do you get with copyright?
-Per Section 106 of the 1976 Copyright Act, as creator of a work you are granted EXCLUSIVE right to do and authorize others to do the following:
-Reproduce the work in copies
-Prepare derivative works off of the original concept
-Distribute copies of work to public by sale, other transfer of ownership, rental, lease, or lending
-Perform work publicly (this includes playing a sound recording of material you created)
-Display work publicly


Who Can Claim/When?
-Subsists from time the work is created in 'fixed form'. Immediate ownership of copyright begins to the author of work, or those deriving their rights through the author
-If a work takes a while to complete, it is the date which the work will be considered 'done'

-Note about 'for hire' - In case of a work made 'for hire' (like a photographer for a newspaper, or studio musician for an album), the employer is the copyright owner for any work created. A DJ performing at a venue and being paid does NOT fall under this category. To see more about what exactly constitutes 'for hire', see http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf


What does NOT give you copyright:
-Ownership of the physical medium (ie CD, vinyl, etc), whether a copy or original, does not legally grant you any rights accorded by copyright.

Not protected by copyright:
-Ideas, procedures, methods, systems, processes, concepts, principles, discoveries, or devices, as distinguished from a description, explanation, or illustration

Publication
-1976 Copyright Act says 'publication' is:

-The distribution of copies or phonorecords (medium containing work) of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display constitutes publication. A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication
-Basically what I think this means is that if you 'distribute' a work, or offer to, to people for further distribution in any manner, that is a publication, which grants you copyright. If it is just a display of your work not intended for any form of distribution past you displaying your work, that would not be considered 'published'.
-Either way as far as DJ's are concerned, publication by an author or a song doesn't matter; a DJ still needs to pay for the record or somehow get some form of right to the record from who(m?)ever holds the rights.

Why does publication matter for authors of works?
-Can affect limitation of exclusive rights of owner
-Affects years of protection (duration)

If a work does not contain a 'notice of copyright' (seal or whatever), is it still protected?
-Yes. Still can be copyrighted even if does not have the copyright symbol on it, although it is recommended to display notice of copyright

-Originally required in 1976 Act, but amended by Berne Convention in 1989.


How Long Does Copyright Last?
-For stuff created (fixed in tangible form) on or after January 1st, 1978: automatically protected from moment of creation and is ordinarily given for duration of author's life PLUS 70 years.

-The whole '50 years' thing is a myth
-Before this date, it's complicated. It was originally that works had 28 years of protection, but laws 105-298 and the 1976 Act, among others, enabled people to extend to 47 years, 67 years, and 95 years. So it depends on whether the people renewed their copyrights or not
-Under current laws, termination of a grant of rights is allowable after 35 years if proper notice is served in a specific time, usually included in contract. Contracts don't have to last this long though.

Registering a Copyright and Why:
-Even though you don't have to officially register through the Copyright office to hold one, it will help in case of legal issues as it provides certain advantages
-Establishes, to the public, claim of copyright
-Before you can sue someone for infringement, you must have registration filed, which may prove more difficult and much more time lengthy if you wait until a suit
-If you register within three months after publication, statutory damages and attorney fees will be available to holder of copyright. Otherwise, you can only get actual damages and profits.
-Registering within five years gets you prima facie, which I'm not to clear on, but basically it's proof of the facts of your copyright, backed up by the government
-$35 to file, more info on the site if you're interested in filing

thehadgi
03-07-2012, 03:14 PM
PART II - Specifics regarding sound, music, performances, and ownership
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap11.pdf



Can I record a live performance, transmit it in any way, and distribute it for free or charge of someone/group without permission?
-Not legally if it isn't you performing

What exactly is not allowed (Online Copyright Infringement)
http://riaa.com/physicalpiracy.php?content_selector=piracy_online_ the_law

-You make an MP3 copy of a song because the CD you bought expressly permits you to do so. But then you put your MP3 copy on the Internet, using a file-sharing network, so that millions of other people can download it.

-Even if you don’t illegally offer recordings to others, you join a file-sharing network and download unauthorized copies of all the copyrighted music you want for free from the computers of other network members.

-In order to gain access to copyrighted music on the computers of other network members, you pay a fee to join a file-sharing network that isn’t authorized to distribute or make copies of copyrighted music. Then you download unauthorized copies of all the music you want.

-You transfer copyrighted music using an instant messenging service.

-You have a computer with a CD burner, which you use to burn copies of music you have downloaded onto writable CDs for all of your friends.

-Somebody you don’t even know e-mails you a copy of a copyrighted song and then you turn around and e-mail copies to all of your friends.

-For DJ companies, it is technically not allowed that copies can be made for multiple DJ's under one company name can use. A seperate license/'purchase' must be made for every user of a song in the DJ company. One DJ franchise in Omaha got smacked with a $10 mil lawsuit because they created illegal copies of their discs for their DJ's.

What is 'fair use'? (Sampling, remixing)
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

**Thanks judge for this** -->
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.
-The use has to be 'transformative' as well, a term ambiguous in itself, but largely falls into the camps of criticism/commentary and parody. 2 Live Crew didn't get away with sampling Pretty Woman simply on the facts; it was because the Supreme Court held that parody falls under the remit of fair use. Bridgeport Music v Dimension Films essentially stated that you need a license if you want to sample a track. It didn't entirely discount sampling being ok under fair use but it went a fair way. Long story short, sampling/remixing are unlikely to fall under fair use.

-Basically fair use says you can use material that is not yours, but the ways in which are 'acceptable' have been determined through many many court cases because of ambiguous wording in law
-Even if you technically abide by what seems to be fair use by common practice, you can STILL get sued AND lose because each case is unique, and a judge in a courtroom is the only person that will decide whether or not it is protected under fair use. So it can still be argued

-The criteria which fair use is determined in court is

1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
2. The nature of the copyrighted work
3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work
-There is a bunch more which I won't bother putting here, but you can check it out here along with all copyright issues --> http://www.copyright.gov/title17/
-So be careful about sampling, because if you get sued….

How much can I get sued for, and why?
-If you illegally COPY or fail to make sure distributed copies of a recording are up to the 'Serial Management System' standards and related rules in §1002,

-Statutory damages are $25 per recording, under §1009, Section D, 1, B, paragraph ii
-Actual damages are the amount set by the suing party at the beginning of trial


***BIG ONE***
-If you illegally *transmit* a musical recording (sharing), the maximum fine, determined by a court, is $10,000.
This is for *each* song. --> §1009, Section D, 1, paragraph iii


-What people try to do to get around this is claiming they 'were not aware and had no reason to believe' that they were in violation. If they claim this and it is agreed upon by the judge, the minimum fine is $250 bucks a song. So we see that ignorance on a person's part can still get them fined a lot, if your kids or someone else is downloading music without you knowing
-According to the http://riaa.com/physicalpiracy.php?content_selector=piracy_online_ the_law though, it seems that you can get 5 years in prison and up to $250,000 if it's your first offense (I'm guessing that's the maximum no matter how much you copy?)


As long as I don't make money off copyrighted work I use without permission, ie youTube, SoundCloud, MixCloud, etc., I can't get in trouble right?
-Absolutely false. You can, and people have been, sued and lost for using copyrighted material in their own works even if they are not for sale.


The "No Electronic Theft Law" (NET Act) is similar on copyright violations that involve digital recordings:

-Criminal penalties can run up to five years in prison and/or $250,000 in fines, even if you didn’t do it for monetary or financial or commercial gain.

-If you did expect something in return, even if it just involves swapping your files for someone else’s, as in MP3 trading, you can be sentenced to as much as five years in prison.

-Regardless of whether you expected to profit, you’re still liable in civil court for damages and lost profits of the copyright holder.

-Or the copyright holders can sue you for up to $150,000 in statutory damages for each of their copyrighted works that you illegally copy or distribute.
(RIAA.com)

-This means unauthorized remixes, promotional material, things made for fun, etc can get you in trouble if publicly distributed, whether for money or free. So technically if you want to remix a track and keep it in your room to yourself, you're legally fine as long as you don't distribute or display it in public.
-Educational use is NOT set in stone across the board to be ok. It varies by state. The Ohio State University's attorney general, for example, has come to an agreement with the courts in Ohio that as long as material created in classes are not publicly distributed or shown in public, it is ok to use copyrighted material in class.
-Once again, doing something without making profit does not protect you, although in a huge majority of cases you're not going to be prosecuted for putting up a mix on soundcloud.

-If you're EVER caught making money though, you're in for some big doggy poo poo, because even if the artist your ripped off is a nice guy, their licensing company/lawyers are not and they will take every penny you have


-REMEMBER - Just because you don't have to pay for something you find online, DOES NOT mean you can use it! If you use something that you assume is royalty free because you did not pay or see any license agreement, that is still on you, so make sure if you ever use images, music, or anything you KNOW what the license agreement is :tup:

thehadgi
03-07-2012, 03:15 PM
If you want to know what's OK to do, here's what you can do (RIAA.com):

Internet Copying

-It’s okay to download music from sites authorized by the owners of the copyrighted music, whether or not such sites charge a fee.*

-Visit*our list of*Legal Music Sites*or*Music United*for a list of a number legal and safe sites where permission is granted and content is available for downloading.

-It’s never okay to download unauthorized music from pirate sites (web or FTP) or peer-to-peer systems. Examples of peer-to-peer systems making unauthorized music available for download include: Ares, BitTorrent, Gnutella, Limewire, and Morpheus.

-It’s never okay to make unauthorized copies of music available to others (that is, uploading music) on peer-to-peer systems.
Copying CDs

-It’s okay to copy music onto an analog cassette, but not for commercial purposes.

-It’s also okay to copy music onto special Audio CD-R’s, mini-discs, and digital tapes (because royalties have been paid on them) – but, again, not for commercial purposes.

-Beyond that, there’s no legal "right" to copy the copyrighted music on a CD onto a CD-R. However, burning a copy of CD onto a CD-R, or transferring a copy onto your computer hard drive or your portable music player, won’t usually raise concerns so long as:

-The copy is made from an authorized original CD that you legitimately own

-The copy is just for your personal use. It’s not a personal use – in fact, it’s illegal – to give away the copy or lend it to others for copying.

-The owners of copyrighted music have the right to use protection technology to allow or prevent copying.

-Remember, it’s never okay to sell or make commercial use of a copy that you make.


So remember there is no statue that says it's your 'right' to be able to 'back up' a music CD or software package or whatever. It is normally ok for personal use though, but if the author of the work wants to put protection on a CD to make it uncopy-able or burnable, it's technically illegal to make a copy. Kinda dumb

DJWhoQE
03-07-2012, 05:34 PM
I feel like this thread should be stickied.

Phil Noize
03-07-2012, 06:44 PM
... in the encyclopedia section.

thehadgi
03-07-2012, 06:47 PM
Well, there are some people this could directly effect, and help. Namely me, other producers, hip hop guys wondering about sampling, and DJ's wondering about starting business, among others :)

Phil Noize
03-07-2012, 07:02 PM
Sorry, I'm not meaning to offend. I was only commenting because this thread is so thorough.

It should be stickied!!

SpeshulEd
03-07-2012, 07:18 PM
Hmm...if I can make a cd backup for personal use, but the artist/record company also has the right to put copy protection on the original cd...I wonder if I could legally crack that protection to make a backup?

Copyright laws are so fun to discuss. Everything always seems to be somewhat open-ended. It's kind of like the RIAA and MPAA always know their lawyers will hand you your ass in a court of law, but if you have a good lawyer and cash, you can probably get the whole case thrown out completely.

thehadgi
03-09-2012, 12:01 AM
Thanks for the props guys :) Prof said he might give some extra credit, so that means he looked through it also and should be pretty accurate

shawno
03-09-2012, 12:16 AM
Wow, that's a lot of legalese.
For those of you that haven't seen it yet, check out "RIP: A remix manifesto". An interesting documentary discussing copyright infringement featuring Girltalk (but don't torrent it or watch it on youtube, buy the dvd) :teef:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6F93z5aFkuY

KLH
03-20-2012, 01:00 PM
This is incredible. Well done, AlanHadgis. Bravo.

Rep - when I refill, of course...

-KLH

Andrew B
03-20-2012, 01:07 PM
Stuck. Really well done. :tup:

c-hawk
03-20-2012, 01:27 PM
PART II - Specifics regarding sound, music, performances, and ownership
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap11.pdf

Can I record a live performance, transmit it in any way, and distribute it for free or charge of someone/group without permission?
-Not legally if it isn't you performing

As long as I don't make money off copyrighted work I use without permission, ie youTube, SoundCloud, MixCloud, etc., I can't get in trouble right?
-Absolutely false. You can, and people have been, sued and lost for using copyrighted material in their own works even if they are not for sale.


Not to open a can or anything but.....the main reasons I (and a few other cats that read through and participate in music forums & message boards) don't post mixes is because of these items. Since we know we can play out for private events, uploading mixes doesn't seem to fall into that category (as it becomes public). Having record companies attempt to shaft us out of a lot of money for posting mixes would suck wind especially after spending some serious duckies buying the music in the first place. Which leads to a question to those in the know: has this ever been an issue for this forum (or any forum/board that you're aware of) with the 'Mix Submissions' thread? Though most (if not all) mixes are posted on mixcloud, soundcloud, etc., would they also try to go after boards for having the links to those sites?

thehadgi
03-20-2012, 01:56 PM
Glad you asked, because that's a really relevant issue for many DJ's and people posting mixes. I've tried looking for specific cases involving Soundcloud, etc but have failed to come up with any results, which could be a good thing. But from what I've researched, as long as you aren't selling mixes on these sites you should be ok.

'Technically speaking', you are not supposed to distribute copies of songs in any way without permission of the person/object holding the copyright license; distribution including soundcloud and mixcloud. But, really this isn't usually an issue because a couple reasons that I'll guess:

1. Not worth it: If people aren't selling the mixes or using them for financial gain, it's not worth all the money for a lawsuit from the copyright holder's end. Plus the vast majority of people uploading on those sites don't have any money to take anyhow.
2. Free press: This one might be debatable since pop music doesn't really need promotion from random dj's soundclouds, but who knows

That's what I've gathered thus far. Technically, yeah you're not supposed to. But I wouldn't worry about it. That being said, there would be a couple steps you could follow to make sure you don't get in trouble or at least only get a warning/smack on the wrist if anything at all-

1. Make it clear you are not making financial gain from it
2. I've seen some requirements by licensers that they allow people to use their music in youtube videos/etc (not commercially of course) but they request a link to their website and a link to where you can buy the track, as well as the id and artist for the song used. So that might be a bit lengthy for a mix of 20 tracks, so maybe just a tracklist and a description (BMI, EMI, etc) of who holds copyright could be useful.

Really you don't have to worry. I think it's more likely that the hosting platforms will go through legal action before dj's uploading their mixes will have to worry, so you will get heads up beforehand. As far as the lawsuits, really those are more instances of dj's selling these mixes without any permission, or youtube people that are making advertising revenue and tons of money off their homemade videos that include licensed songs in them.

All in all, I wouldn't worry. At least for soundcloud and mixcloud, I'm pretty sure they will put out notices of legal requirements if anything happens/changes :tup: If anyone wants to add anything on feel free too

The Judge
03-20-2012, 02:40 PM
What is 'fair use'? (Sampling, remixing)
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
-Basically fair use says you can use material that is not yours, but the ways in which are 'acceptable' have been determined through many many court cases, and nothing is set in stone.
-Even if you technically abide by what seems to be fair use by common practice, you can STILL get sued AND lose because each case is unique, and a judge in a courtroom is the only person that will decide whether or not it is protected under fair use.

To be clear: There is NO set definition on what fair use is. I repeat: no law says the amount of notes, seconds of a song, portions of a mix, etc that is too much to infringe on an author's work. That being said, the whole '30 second' thing when sampling, or 'not used in a majority of a song' is not law. These cases were decided each uniquely, and based off of precedent and laws at the time. So if you get sued for infringement (or you sue someone for infringement), all the facts will be compared to suits that are similar and the ruling will be along the same lines, along with damages and such.
-The criteria which fair use is determined in court is

-There is a bunch more which I won't bother putting here, but you can check it out here along with all copyright issues --> http://www.copyright.gov/title17/
-So be careful about sampling, because if you get sued….

Whoa whoa whoa. You missed out a huge bit of s107.


Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

The use has to be 'transformative' as well, a term ambiguous in itself, but largely falls into the camps of criticism/commentary and parody. 2 Live Crew didn't get away with sampling Pretty Woman simply on the facts; it was because the Supreme Court held that parody falls under the remit of fair use. Bridgeport Music v Dimension Films essentially stated that you need a license if you want to sample a track. It didn't entirely discount sampling being ok under fair use but it went a fair way. Long story short, sampling/remixing are unlikely to fall under fair use.

thehadgi
03-21-2012, 12:30 AM
Ah, right you are. Yep when I wake up tomorrow I'll go back and change it. Thanks!

The Judge
03-21-2012, 04:25 AM
Ah, right you are. Yep when I wake up tomorrow I'll go back and change it. Thanks!

No worries. Well done for getting off your butt and actually doing this. I had planned on doing something on UK and US a while back but I'm far too lazy. Lol.

Will have a read of some of the other stuff later when I get some time.

Pri yon Joni
04-18-2012, 03:39 PM
I noticed in Detroit area, a lot of wedding DJ's like to backstab each other and snitch on other DJ's when they know they're not using licensed music. Really sad.

fueledbymusic
05-28-2012, 08:24 PM
I keep hearing about youtube converter thing. I was reserching this. And it seems like half the people say that its illegal to capture songs using it. And others say its not illegal, cause of the "betamax" case or something like that. Where your allowed to record off youtube, and use the recording for personal use (since you can hear a song free on youtube) Like the days of the 80's when we used to record off the radio onto a cassette, so we can play it back as many times as we want. So since the law dont say anything about PLAYING a song on youtube, what about playing that youtube song in private party?

So all in all, what does the law say about people who records off of youtube onto the sound capture program on a computer or even a regular cassette (since obviously your allowd to hear the song for free)

Dont the RIAA fear that someone can easily record off the youtube song for their personal or private party use???

Nigelshaw
08-13-2012, 12:02 AM
Hi

I don't know about the US but here in the UK, a DJ should have a performance licence from PPL. It costs about £80 per year and allows you to publically perform any music so long as you don't alter the music i.e. Your own special mashup which lets face it, shouldn't be done anyway if you were anything of a good DJ lol!

Every good DJ should have a PPL which also covers you for podomatic and soundcloud because they are classed as public performance even though they could be looked at like file sharing.

Cheers


Nige

alazydj
08-13-2012, 01:29 AM
If USA is anything like Canada, you don't need to have any licence. It's the venue that has to get one. In the great white north it's all covered under SOCAN. In the USA it should be ASCAP, but I never studied American laws.

Nigelshaw
08-13-2012, 08:26 AM
Well in the UK its different. You need PPL licence if you have a radio on in the workplace that might be heard by one or more employees even though a radio broadcast is a free service?

Its a UK way of extortion lol



Nige

alazydj
08-13-2012, 08:40 AM
That's no different for my work. They have a SOCAN licence for the same reason.

DJ Difficult
08-13-2012, 10:57 AM
In Finland you off course need license for public perform and usually this is club owners job, BUT if you use any digital source (computer, usb thumbstick..) or you just use burned cd that contains songs from your orginal disc, you have to pay extra for those. For example if i keep under 900 songs with me that are some way copyed i have to pay about 350€ for that / year. Also legally downloads i.e. from Beatport are under this shit. But if i play from orginal cd / vinyl it doesn't cost extra. Totally fucked up situation. If i keep one song in my playlist that is buyed from Beatport for 5 years, i have to a pay it 7 times. 1: Beatport 2: Teosto (one copyright company) 3: Gramex (organization for record producers). Teosto takes only one payment, Gramex every year.
Subject is relevant for me now because i'm thinkin about to start gigin soon.

LoveBass
08-14-2012, 04:14 AM
Badger badger

rec
09-10-2012, 03:47 PM
So I have a question, If a song is purchased say from amazon.com or where ever, can you legally use that song to play as a DJ if you are charging for your services? Its my understanding that you can.
Please correct me if I am wrong. Thanks

TheWalleh
11-22-2012, 08:54 AM
So I have a question, If a song is purchased say from amazon.com or where ever, can you legally use that song to play as a DJ if you are charging for your services? Its my understanding that you can.
Please correct me if I am wrong. Thanks

I'm adding onto this question. I'm assuming within the bound of legality, a club would count as a private event allowing you to play the tracks that you purchased for the captive audience? Then the moment you distribute it it's technically game over, ya?

Lam
12-14-2012, 07:36 PM
Nice thread, but a couple questions. Lets say I buy music from amazon, etc and mix songs together. A dance club at my school would like me to DJ at their event. Would my school need a license to play copy righted songs? I assume it would be illegal for me to play it in public since it is not for personal use. So how do you get around to preforming for crowds?

ampnation
12-14-2012, 08:42 PM
Publication
-Registering within five years gets you prima facie, which I'm not to clear on, but basically it's proof of the facts of your copyright, backed up by the government


Prima facie means "on it's face." In other words, it is clear to see so it needs no other proof. I don't remember from my IP class how this plays out specifically though. I do remember that once you've filed your copyright, it is very difficult for someone else to come in later and claim they were in fact the legal copyright holder, if it is even possible.


So I have a question, If a song is purchased say from amazon.com or where ever, can you legally use that song to play as a DJ if you are charging for your services? Its my understanding that you can.
Please correct me if I am wrong. Thanks

Yes, it is my understanding that as long as the event you are playing at is private, meaning people don't pay admission, you're okay to play songs you own, or for that matter, songs that the hosts own. But the second a charge is made for entrance like a fee to get into a rave, you need a public performance license which is the responsibility of the club owner or the person who benefits from the admissions... I suppose in the case of a charity, this would actually be the person who assumed the responsibility of organizing the event. example: you hold a benefit for Sandy victims at a warehouse. Jim is the guy who organizes the benefit with proceeds going to the Red Cross. Jim would need the license if I'm not mistaken.

Of course, in reality, I doubt seriously anybody is going to come after someone raising money for hurricane victims. The bad press would be awful. That doesn't mean it couldn't happen though.

djAj90
12-16-2012, 09:13 AM
What about if someone bought music from a site like mp3fiesta.com. It is located in a country where you do not need permission to sell music as long you pay the royalty commission to that organistation in that country that collects and pays the rights holder when they request a payment.

Its perfectly legal to buy it and import it for at least personal use. But what about using the music you bought for commercial use such as a dj,I couldn't find any law making commercial use illegal.

Someone said that If I use that as my main music source,clubs would not hire me and I could get sued big by the RIAA.

thehadgi
12-16-2012, 09:44 AM
What about if someone bought music from a site like mp3fiesta.com. It is located in a country where you do not need permission to sell music as long you pay the royalty commission to that organistation in that country that collects and pays the rights holder when they request a payment.

Its perfectly legal to buy it and import it for at least personal use. But what about using the music you bought for commercial use such as a dj,I couldn't find any law making commercial use illegal.

Someone said that If I use that as my main music source,clubs would not hire me and I could get sued big by the RIAA.

I'd have to look into it. But as far as I know, you may not sell music, in any fashion, that you do not specifically hold or share rights to, unless you are in some form of distribution contract of some type, where you have a written contract to distribute content on behalf of the holding party(ies). So if there are just random people selling other people's music on that site, I do not believe that is legal. It is not up to the rights holder to request royalties from whoever is selling money to collect payment; they own the content and control the distribution at their discretion.

So as far as buying from that site, I'm not sure that just because you are paying for it, it is technically a legal transfer of media to you as the buyer. But, I would guess that you would not have an issue playing in clubs with the music. It's been shown that headliners at festivals have played pirated music before. In my limited experience I've not heard of club owners requesting to see receipts for all the music you play; so unless they do that I am not aware of how they would be able to tell if you purchased the music or not, much less if you purchased from a legal site, or semi-shady site. It is on the club to have a license to play commercial music; not you as the DJ.

Although it should be the responsibility of the DJ to properly obtain all music; my suggestion would be to stick with the standard approved distributors for buying music (iTunes, Beatport, Amazon, Juno, etc) to make sure that the artists you are supporting get their cut, as opposed to these somewhat back-water sites that may or may not ever send a payment to the rights holder. Please correct me if my understanding of the site you described is not how it works.

(The following is my opinion only:) But if you can't buy a track because of a location youre in... I would venture to say I'd find a way to obtain the track through someone else, and reimburse them for the track so that the artist still gets his due. I think geographic restrictions on media is pretty dumb.

djAj90
12-16-2012, 09:59 AM
It hasn't been decided in Russia if sites that have a license by by the Russian Organization for Multimedia and Digital Systems aka "ROMS" (legal body to collect royalties in Russia) are able to distrubite music even if they are paying the 15% royalty without persmission by the rights owner. So currently it is not illegal in Russia for such sites to exist.



I was going to use this site as my bulk music purchase if I decide to do more then clubs. The other stuff I can get from emusic using a VPN,and will be focusing on music in a niche that no one else in my area is doing.

thehadgi
12-16-2012, 10:17 AM
It hasn't been decided in Russia if sites that have a license by by the Russian Organization for Multimedia and Digital Systems aka "ROMS" (legal body to collect royalties in Russia) are able to distrubite music even if they are paying the 15% royalty without persmission by the rights owner. So currently it is not illegal in Russia for such sites to exist.



I was going to use this site as my bulk music purchase if I decide to do more then clubs. The other stuff I can get from emusic using a VPN,and will be focusing on music in a niche that no one else in my area is doing.

Huh. Interesting. I want to look into that now

EDIT: So it took some time to track down some recent information regarding this. From http://www.viennareview.net/news/special-report/legal-tentacles


However, RIAA’s most impressive tour-de-force was its showdown with Russian company AllofMP3. AllofMp3 is a music downloading service much like Apples’ iTunes – except that it charges only $0.12 a song, compared to $0.99 on iTunes.

According to Cassimir Medford of Red Herring.com, the RIAA has labeled AllofMp3 an illegal operation that should be shut down. AllofMp3 has consistently proclaimed their innocence, stating that the RIAA has no jurisdiction in Russia; they already pay all licensing fees required from the Russian Organization for Multimedia and Digital Systems, a government agency, and are not responsible for users outside of Russia.

The RIAA was not content to leave the issue at that. Auspiciously, Russia’s recent moves to enter the World Trade Organization put the RIAA in a position to stipulate certain measures from the Russian government: included on the list of required economic and social reforms was a clause compelling the Russian government to shut AllofMp3 down.

A small website making up an essentially non-existent percentage of the worldwide music download market has therefore become center of a diplomatic tussle with worldwide implications.

According to the IDG News Service, the Russian government has pledged to shut down AllofMp3 immediately. Irrespective of this pledge, AllofMp3 is still in operation at the time of print.

I assume the site you're talking about operates under the same model as AllofMp3? If so, my guess would be that the only thing you'd need to worry about is the RIAA and if they keep pushing Russia's government; but as you're not an operator of the site, legal action if any would not be taken against you as the consumer.

Although a similiar site seems to want to pass the buck on to the customers, per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Organization_for_Multimedia_and_Digital_Sy stems


Soundlike.com - The availability over the Internet of the Soundike.com materials is authorized by the license # 43/17M-10 of the Rightholders Federation for Collective Copyright Management of Works Used Interactively (NP "FAIR") issued for Preluna Group LTD. All these materials are solely for personal use. Any further distribution, resale or broadcasting is prohibited. A difference in Laws, concerning copyright material, in different jurisdictions, does not allow administration of the web site Soundike.com, to say that all of the services which this web site provides are completely legal in all the Countries. Final decree about legality of using Soundike.com services should be made by the consumer of such services

In the end, you're fine. You're technically operating in the legal bounds of the country you're in. If anything changes, ROMS will pass down new laws I'm assuming.

samuelsan
12-17-2012, 11:10 PM
Thanks for this thread!

ampnation
12-17-2012, 11:59 PM
In the end, you're fine. You're technically operating in the legal bounds of the country you're in. If anything changes, ROMS will pass down new laws I'm assuming.

I think HE is in the U.S. Unless there's another New Orleans.

thehadgi
12-18-2012, 04:55 AM
I think HE is in the U.S. Unless there's another New Orleans.

.... Whoops :facepalm:

Not so sure then :eek:

djAj90
12-18-2012, 06:43 AM
I've been looking into this matter for a long time,and there seems to be two sides,one saying its illegal and another saying its legal. It seems to be that the artists are claiming that its illegal to purchase music from such a site. Both the RIAA and IFPI claims that sites like allofmp3 were illegal even in Russia,but they don't mention the following.

1. July 2007 : Russian court deemed visa cutting off allofmp3 was illegal
2. August 2007 : Denis Kvasov(allofmp3 owner) was acquitted of all charges
3. May 2008, The RIAA dropped all copyright infringement claims against allofmp3

ampnation
12-18-2012, 11:57 AM
I've been looking into this matter for a long time,and there seems to be two sides,one saying its illegal and another saying its legal. It seems to be that the artists are claiming that its illegal to purchase music from such a site. Both the RIAA and IFPI claims that sites like allofmp3 were illegal even in Russia,but they don't mention the following.

1. July 2007 : Russian court deemed visa cutting off allofmp3 was illegal
2. August 2007 : Denis Kvasov(allofmp3 owner) was acquitted of all charges
3. May 2008, The RIAA dropped all copyright infringement claims against allofmp3

None of that, however, speaks to the legality of downloading from allofmp3 to you in the U.S.

You know it would be very easy to embed a code in the headers of a digital format of music with a unique code that indicated a transaction number. Distributors could upload their transactions to the copyright holder or agent and buyers could document the purchase in a variety of ways. CD's or other physical media would all have the same code, so checking ownership would come down to, "Do you own the CD." It wouldn't be DRM because it wouldn't attempt to block you from playing, but it would make it easier for people to show they own a license to play it. I know all my Amazon downloaded songs have the Amazon transaction number in the comments section but comments are too easily, accidentally erased. Just a thought, very tangential to the OT.

djAj90
12-18-2012, 03:24 PM
In 1998 the Supreme Court ruled that copyright holders could not restrict the importation of legally acquired materials from overseas. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality_King_v._L'anza So I guess it would make a site like allofmp3 technically legal to use for Americans.

ampnation
12-18-2012, 04:48 PM
In 1998 the Supreme Court ruled that copyright holders could not restrict the importation of legally acquired materials from overseas. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality_King_v._L'anza So I guess it would make a site like allofmp3 technically legal to use for Americans.

Can't get to the full court decision easily atm but that sounds like the case involving college textbooks. In the allofmp3 case, I would think buying in Russia then bringing those songs to the US would be legal but MAYBE buying them while you are physically in the US would be different. Sometimes little stuff like that can make q difference.

I remember analyzing a burglary case where the distinction was about whether or not a part of the perp's body had crossed the imaginary line/plane constituting the boundary, beyond which was considered "inside." If just the tip of his nose was past that line, and the other elements were met, it was burglary.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk 2

djAj90
12-20-2012, 04:16 PM
If I was going to become a mobile dj when i start on my own,i'd consider going to moscow for a week to download a million songs onto a few 2TB hard-drives. But the fact that it would cost at least $1345,plus visa fee etc. I could get nearly 3,000 songs from emusic.com which is probably way more then I need for my sets,means that its to much of a effort.

djAj90
01-29-2013, 11:19 PM
What about getting music from a country where all u.s. copyrights have been suspended and that all WTO approved the resolution including the United States? https://torrentfreak.com/antiguas-legal-pirate-site-authorized-by-the-world-trade-organization-130128/ And that you go to that country to download all the music just to be double sure for the gray market issue that may arise?

DJAkash
01-30-2013, 01:29 AM
So, if I make a remix and use samples from songs and not play songs for more than a chorus. that is still illegal?

thehadgi
02-01-2013, 04:43 PM
What about getting music from a country where all u.s. copyrights have been suspended and that all WTO approved the resolution including the United States? https://torrentfreak.com/antiguas-legal-pirate-site-authorized-by-the-world-trade-organization-130128/ And that you go to that country to download all the music just to be double sure for the gray market issue that may arise?

I researched it. At the moment negotiations are being held with the US and Antigua regarding Antigua's decision to put sanctions, approved by the WTO, in place against the US. The approved sanctions include 'lawful suspension of US intellectual property rights'. It was suggested that Antigua is pondering setting up a site, allowing consumers (does not specify who that includes) to download (or possibly pay for) media that is intellectually copyrighted by the US. Without sending any royalties to US copyright holders.

The issue started with the US imposing restrictions on access to remote gambling, by US citizens, provided by online gambling services in Antigua. Antigua claims these restrictions have severely hurt their economy financially and employment-wise. There were negotiations, and a settlement led to the US paying $500k to Antigua, while Antigua puts the actual losses around $3 billion. So Antigua brought it up again. The WTO held a tribunal, and decided that negotiations in good faith between the good countries should continue until a fair resolution was reached; if not, it would provide approval for Antigua to impose a suspension of intellectual property rights (ie, Antigua not paying the US royalties on anything intellectually copyrighted) as a remedy to earn back revenue lost from the gambling restrictions.

Now Antigua is pushing the WTO to formally approve the sanctions against the US, as they have NOT yet done so. in the meantime Antigua states it hope negotiations will work out, but it's not looking like the US is going to cave. So to repeat: the WTO still has to formally approve these sanctions.

As for buying music or media in Antigua (and Barbuda, I've been forgetting to include them) that is copyrighted in the US, after Antigua decides to 'lawfully suspend' property rights...

This is pretty much a theoretical discussion. First, no one would ever go to another country for the sole purpose of buying large quantities of music for the sake of a slightly lower price (assuming someone couldn't purchase the media from Antigua's site from the US). Second, even if you did, there's really no way of enforcing that policy, as no one ever submits to a 'music' screening at the airport to make sure all media was legally purchased by US standards. Third... I don't have a third.

To sum it up: I don't see the US smiling on music bought from Antigua or any other place where proper royalties were paid to the copyright holder. The US can and does make items that are legal in other countries, illegal here at home. Just because the WTO approves Antigua to do something, doesnt mean the US has to allow another country's 'goods' to be legally recognized as legal in its own borders. Sure, maybe you can buy it in/from Antigua, but still it's theoretical because no one would ever check. Only REAL consequence I can see would be that instead of content creators not being reimbursed for their work because someone pirated their product without paying anyone for it, now they STILL aren't getting reimbursed, and that money is going to Antigua's government.

thehadgi
02-01-2013, 05:26 PM
So, if I make a remix and use samples from songs and not play songs for more than a chorus. that is still illegal?

Yes. Length, by itself, having anything to do with legality of sampling is a myth

Nebula
02-09-2013, 08:18 PM
Great thread thehadgi! Definitely should be stickied.

It looks like you already put a lot of work into this so I won't be offended in the least if you don't want to, but could you possibly clarify some of the copyright laws pertaining to subscription record pools (DJ City, ZipDJ, etc.) and the use of edits/redrums/remixes obtained through them?

Taken from the DJ City Copyright Terms of Use:


Notwithstanding the foregoing, you shall be allowed to reasonably edit, re-mix, blend, mash-up, add intros/outros, compile and create derivative works of the Content and perform the Content online (including on mobile and tablet platforms) and offline in customary media (i.e., spinning at clubs/radio, mixtapes/CDs, mixshows, blogs, social media, audience-driven events, etc.), solely for promotional and non-commercial personal/professional use purposes, and with proper credit given to the Content Providers and underlying performers, producers, songwriters.

This makes it sound like making your own edits/mashups/remixes and recording mixes with these tracks and then posting them online is acceptable as long as it's promotional and you're not making any money off of it. Am I wrong?

EDIT: Here's the link to the DJ City Terms of Use Page: http://www.djcity.com/t-termsofuse.aspx
Copyright Policy is section 7.

thehadgi
02-09-2013, 08:58 PM
^^Hm ok ill try to do some research tmrw, but I feel that in the majority of cases you'll be fine when using those tracks/possible edits at clubs and soundcloud/mixcloud sites, since they are being used for 'promotional' purposes. I'm not an expert on DJ pool sites, so maybe someone else can chime in, but I think in 'reality' you should be fine; if you get an infringement notice from a site you'll just have to comply, but I don't think you'll really need to worry about a lawsuit. At least there is no precedent I'm aware of for a lawsuit against a DJ using a record pool. As always, it's murky waters, but I'd just utilize your best judgement and add 'promotional purposes' to mixes posted online, and that's the best you can do at this point I believe. As stated before, an infringement notice is an infringement notice; just comply and move on, and try to make sure you are utilizing sites that appear to be popular and paying royalties properly (ie, maybe avoid sites located in Russia and Eastern Europe lol)

Ill try to dig up what I can, but that's what I'd guess for the time being.

thehadgi
07-29-2013, 12:32 PM
'Fair Use', according to YouTube (included for those interested in why uploads to YT are blocked, etc)

http://www.youtube.com/yt/copyright/fair-use.html


What is fair use?

In many countries, certain uses of copyright-protected works do not infringe the copyright owner’s rights. For example, in the United States, copyright rights are limited by the doctrine of “fair use,” under which certain uses of copyrighted material for criticism, commentary, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research may be considered fair. U.S. judges determine whether a fair use defense is valid according to four factors, which we’ve listed below for educational purposes. In some other countries, there is a similar concept called "fair dealing" that may be applied differently.
Remember, it is your responsibility to understand the relevant law and whether it protects the use you have in mind. If you plan to use copyrighted material you didn’t create, we'd strongly advise you to take legal advice first. YouTube cannot provide legal advice or make legal determinations.
The four factors of fair use:

1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes

Courts typically focus on whether the use is “transformative.” That is, whether it adds new expression or meaning to the original, or whether it merely copies from the original.
2. The nature of the copyrighted work

Using material from primarily factual works is more likely to be fair than using purely fictional works.
3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole

Borrowing small bits of material from an original work is more likely to be considered fair use than borrowing large portions. However, even a small taking may weigh against fair use in some situations if it constitutes the “heart” of the work.
4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work

Uses that harm the copyright owner’s ability to profit from his or her original work are less likely to be fair uses. Courts have sometimes made an exception under this factor in cases involving parodies.


Some other FAQ page by youtube

http://www.youtube.com/yt/copyright/faq.html

DJ Darkmero
07-30-2013, 02:34 AM
Good thread that actually answers my questions. The one thing I am curious about still is, mainly out of curiosity how would you go about taking a podcast that is remixed that is NOT your work and getting the O.K to put it up publically say on Soundcloud? Is there anyway you can get permission from the Artist? Or is thy far too much work to be worth it? Sorry if this answer was already given I may have missed it. I could see getting permission from each and every DJ in a podcast you mixed to be quite a challenge if not impossible. Long story short, I'm curious as to how Pro DJ's can make podcasts with other people's work and be just fine where people like us can't. Seems kind of discriminatory but I see the reasoning. I am not doing it for money, only because I love it and what to get the DJ's music out there for people to hear. Sorry this is so long and also sorry if this should have been posted in a different thread.

MarcusB
07-30-2013, 08:59 PM
You can get permission. Contact the publishing company itself, explain what you mean to do, how you intend to do it, your target audience, etc. It wouldn't hurt to email the manager of the artist as well. These are often small companies, who are desperate to push the music out. Anyways, the more businesslike you are, the better. More often than not, they'll be grateful you even bothered to ask, and so will grant your request.

Professional djs/musicians have more weight in the market, and by lending their name to a production they give it credibility. As a result, they are able to get licenses much easier than you or I. Indeed, they often receive other people's work with a note saying, "PLEASE LOVE MAH MUZAK AND PLAY IT AS MUCH AS YOU CAN PUHLEEEEZE!" Or something like that.

DJ Darkmero
07-31-2013, 03:31 AM
You can get permission. Contact the publishing company itself, explain what you mean to do, how you intend to do it, your target audience, etc. It wouldn't hurt to email the manager of the artist as well. These are often small companies, who are desperate to push the music out. Anyways, the more businesslike you are, the better. More often than not, they'll be grateful you even bothered to ask, and so will grant your request.

Professional djs/musicians have more weight in the market, and by lending their name to a production they give it credibility. As a result, they are able to get licenses much easier than you or I. Indeed, they often receive other people's work with a note saying, "PLEASE LOVE MAH MUZAK AND PLAY IT AS MUCH AS YOU CAN PUHLEEEEZE!" Or something like that.


Haha that last part was funny but it's the sad truth. Many people will do that I'm sure. Thanks for the information Marcus. Before I get to investing in my own VST software and plug ins and get the Midi board and what not to make my own music, I would be honored and love to get a Artist manager's permission to just make their music known. Like a lot of us I'm sure, we do the music for the sheer love of it and letting people have a great time and let loose. Tha is again for the response Marcus! Spin on, live on.

Syncera
08-26-2013, 02:08 PM
Thanks so much for this info, I really need it about now.

However, I how am I supposed to get stems or remix licensing "rights" from some of these huge artists?

Syncera
08-26-2013, 02:09 PM
Thanks so much for this info, I really need it about now.

However, I how am I supposed to get stems or remix licensing "rights" from some of these huge artists?

I failed to read.above...

saferry
09-09-2013, 03:44 AM
Thanx;)

deepmixxer
09-03-2014, 01:07 AM
So I have a question and you seem to have the answers... If you have multiple tracks that you want to copyright and you don't have the cash to pay for each track, I was told that you can submit multiple tracks at once as a works or compilation and all tracks would hold copyright protection is this true??

KirkMcD
09-03-2014, 05:09 AM
Maybe.
http://copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-register.html#multiple

May I register more than one work on the same application? Where do I list the titles?

You may register unpublished works as a collection on one application with one title for the entire collection if certain conditions are met. It is not necessary to list the individual titles in your collection. Published works may only be registered as a collection if they were actually first published as a collection and if other requirements have been met.

PatrickHughesLive
02-29-2016, 11:03 AM
So let's say you buy a vocal sample off beatport, I was under the impression that allowed you to use it in an original track, but after reading this would that fall under the ownership doesn't grant copyright or is that fair use? I would think since you pay for it and it is specifically sold as a sample it would be good to use but am I wrong?

pete
02-29-2016, 12:31 PM
So let's say you buy a vocal sample off beatport, I was under the impression that allowed you to use it in an original track, but after reading this would that fall under the ownership doesn't grant copyright or is that fair use? I would think since you pay for it and it is specifically sold as a sample it would be good to use but am I wrong?

I think you answered your own question there.
Sampling does not equal original.

PatrickHughesLive
02-29-2016, 03:22 PM
I think you answered your own question there.
Sampling does not equal original.

So when you pay money to buy a sample that doesn't include the right to use said sample?

Crushgroove
12-28-2017, 11:51 AM
I read from page 1, GREAT STICKY!

This stuff directly impacts me in music production.
I think in my case rather than sample a rap vocal or old school movie line I'd be better off using a mic in the studio and recording my own "version" of the sample. That way it's not an actual copy, and is sonically different. If it's too close to the original I could always adjust the pitch or add effects to change it up.
There's a way around it, you just have to be creative is all... Who knows, maybe I could come up with a better sample by trying to emulate the essence of an original.

AstrixtheGoul
10-16-2019, 05:12 AM
I should add a RCA ruling on streaming personal mp3
The following is a message I have seen on a Google Search for BMI. I hope it is of use and will help anyone with concerns I provide a link to its souce from the second life community:


SrC: [url ]https:// [MODERATOR NOTE, FIRST POST LINKS ARE NOT ALLOWED]






Miss [removed]
Yes, it is legal to convert the audio format of legally purchased copyrighted material and playback for your personal use. No, it is not legal to resell copyrighted material without a license to do so. That is, it is only legal to redistribute and resell copyrighted material if either you are the copyright holder or you have obtained a license from the copyright holder to do so. Many free licenses like the GNU Public License, Creative Commons Licenses, BSD license, and so on do expressly convey the right to redistribute and resell copyrighted material.





Hi [NAME REMOVED] Alias [REMOVED]

Actually you do not require any licensing to stream music in SL, according to a BMI representative to whom I personally asked this question speceifcaly about SL. BMI (Broadcast Music Inc,) as you know collects licensing fees on behalf of music performers. I have shared this email on these forums before but here it goes again.


Hi [NAME REMOVED],



In response to your inquiry below, the licensing obligation falls on the website from which music is made available. Therefore, if the music is appearing somewhere other than your own website, you are not responsible for securing a Public Performance license for that use.



Thanks,




[CONTACT DETAILS REMOVED]

[email]XXXXX REMOVED

[url]www REMOVED

Manu
10-16-2019, 01:20 PM
(copy pasted copyright stuff)

Hi, I edited your post in compliance with house rules.

You post is partly wrong. In some countries, you are not allowed to make copies.

Therefore the advice contained above may not apply to some countries.

The broadcaster is responsible for licencing issues and/or paying applicable taxes for broadcasting rights.


Many free licenses like the GNU Public License, Creative Commons Licenses, BSD license, and so on do expressly convey the right to redistribute and resell copyrighted material.

That's wrong, you cannot resell CC material, at least not without the consent from the copyright holder. In any case, you have to specify the original CC licence wherever it gets published. I should know, I have recently battled (and won) against Mixcloud to uphold my CC rights and therefore right to broadcast.

I would suggest in the future that you do not simply copy/paste stuff without thoroughly checking the in and outs of what copyright is about. Thank you.

DJ PINO MILKO
11-02-2020, 11:21 AM
Hello guys, What are the rules when performing live your edit of a popular song. Do you still need permission to upload on Youtube or other platforms? Not for sale obviously.