The Intellectual Property Law Server

Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register.
Nov 24th, 2020, 11:46pm

Forums Forums Help Help Search Search Members Members Calendar Calendar Login Login Register Register
   Intellectual Property Forums
   Other
   Copyright Forum
(Moderators: Forum Admin, JimIvey, JSonnabend)
   Music mixes and property rights
« Previous topic | Next topic »
Pages: 1 2 3 4  Reply Reply Send Topic Send Topic Print Print
   Author  Topic: Music mixes and property rights  (Read 3490 times)
JSonnabend
Moderator
Senior Member
*****




   
Email

Posts: 2251
Re: Music mixes and property rights
« Reply #15 on: Sep 18th, 2006, 7:41am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

Jeffery, practical knowledge isn't very practical when it's wrong (or even just baseless).  And it's not helpful to others to share it, either.
 
Your comments on the rights of sound engineers, etc., might be valid in the industry, but the conclusions you reach would not be based on copyright law per se, as far as I can tell.  They could be based on usual industry contracts (or worse still, "industry practices"), but that wouldn't help the OP's.   That is why I asked for some legal support for your conclusory assertions.  
 
While you might have valuable insight to share, your statements on the application and reach of copyright law are almost certainly inaccurate, and definitely nothing anyone could rely on in any meaningful way.
 
- Jeff
« Last Edit: Sep 18th, 2006, 7:50am by JSonnabend » IP Logged

SonnabendLaw
Intellectual Property and Technology Law
Brooklyn, USA
718-832-8810
JSonnabend@SonnabendLaw.com
Cousin isaac
Guest
Re: Music mixes and property rights
« Reply #16 on: Sep 19th, 2006, 2:12pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify Remove Remove

Hi Guys,  
 
Thanks for debating the issue. Sorry it was a bit off topic.
 
In my case, the re-mix will be by adding my vocal only track to either a preexisting "beat" as they say in hip hop (an instrumental), or the re-mix artist will create a new instrumental from scratch, adding my vocal track in. If I wanted to, I could say that since the new work is a derivative work, that it is still all mine, but that is not our agreement. We are trading lyrics for a remix and splitting everything 50/50. I just don't want to give away the original song. After reading up on the matter at the website of copyright office of the liibrary of congress, I am pretty sure that my original song is protected provided the remix is registered as a derivative work.  
 
The circular for Derivative Works has this to say:  
 
"The copyright in a derivative work covers only the additions, changes, or other new material appearing for the first time in the work. It does not extend to any preexisting material and does not imply a copyright in that material"
 
Furthermore:
 
"In cases where the preexisting sounds themselves have been altered or changed in character, space 6b should be used to describe in more precise terms the engineering techniques involved. For example, Educational Records, Inc., remixes the original tracks of a previously released recording of a Beethoven symphony. Space 6a should identify the preexisting material as “sounds previously published.” Space 6b might indicate “remixed from multitrack sound sources” or “remixed sounds.” This new material must result from creative new authorship rather than mere mechanical processes; if only a few slight variations or purely mechanical changes (such as declicking or remastering) have been made, registration is not possible."
 
Thanks again for all your input.  
 
 
IP Logged
JSonnabend
Moderator
Senior Member
*****




   
Email

Posts: 2251
Re: Music mixes and property rights
« Reply #17 on: Sep 20th, 2006, 9:06am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

Quote:
This new material must result from creative new authorship rather than mere mechanical processes; if only a few slight variations or purely mechanical changes (such as declicking or remastering) have been made, registration is not possible.

This is the kind of information provided by the Copyright Office that drives me nuts.  It's a blanket statement that either overstates the law or oversimplifies it, and it's exactly why one should not rely exclusively on the information provided in the Copyright Office circulars.  
 
In the language quoted above, the "purely mechanical changes" language by itself is open to a wide range of interpretations and very well might lead a reader to believe that his or her changes were insufficiently creative, when in fact they may have been the opposite.  If, for example, the selection of "purely mechanical changes" to apply and how to apply them includes a creative component, then such "purely mechanical changes" are subject to copyright protection.
 
Anyway, that's my rant for the day.  Glad we could be of some help.
 
- Jeff
« Last Edit: Sep 20th, 2006, 9:07am by JSonnabend » IP Logged

SonnabendLaw
Intellectual Property and Technology Law
Brooklyn, USA
718-832-8810
JSonnabend@SonnabendLaw.com
jeffery
Newbie
*




   
Email

Posts: 24
Re: Music mixes and property rights
« Reply #18 on: Sep 21st, 2006, 6:32am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

It’s a very appropriate rant Jeffy, my boy. It’s not the first time I have witnessed a professional legal entity like yourself blatantly criticize specific copyright office circulars.
 
I would agree that a lot of copyright issues are very ambiguous thus very arguable.  
 
However, all things considered, copyright law is basis that outlines the economic incentives for those who “create, initiate and express original ideas”.  
 
I’m relieved to know that there is a law in place that prevents one from sharing with creators by just “perfunctory” contribution. It’s the forever arguable de minimis element.
 
Jeff, you totally disregarded my contribution saying that my practical knowledge to this scenario was baseless, but we all here to learn, you are a legal practitioner with experience in the theoretical aspects of copyrights issues,  I am quite sure that you peruse  allot of case work which may be the closest you get to practical experience.  
 
We live the life Jeff we see it as it happens, so statements like “purely mechanical changes” will be easier to decipher when you can put yourself in the shoes of one who is evolved in the mechanical process as well as in the creative process.  . I quote you saying “language by itself is open to a wide range of interpretations”. Freidrich Nietzsche once said  "There are no facts, only interpretations."  
 
I leave with you a question and a suggestion.  
 
My question is, is copyright law based on an Ideological system?  
 
And my suggestion to you is please take the time to visit a recording studio, experience both the creative and mechanical process as it fuses together. I guarantee that you won’t be ranting and raving to such issues as you do now.  
 
IP Logged

"Among the blind, the one eyed man is King".
Pages: 1 2 3 4  Reply Reply Send Topic Send Topic Print Print

« Previous topic | Next topic »
Powered by YaBB 1 Gold - SP 1.3.2!
Forum software copyright © 2000-2004 Yet another Bulletin Board