Hot answers tagged

27

It is legal Because of the first sale doctrine a person may freely sell a copy that they legitimately own. Copyright preserves the owner's right to make copies - Copy-right; once they have made (or authorised) a copy then the physical embodiment of that copy (record, CD, DVD, book etc.) is personal property and can be bought and sold like any other piece of ...


16

No, the musical composition itself (i.e., what you might express tangibly in sheet music) has copyright distinct from the copyright that exists on Led Zepplin's recording of the song. Your new cover will still be a derivative work of the musical composition. When you record a cover of a copyrighted song, you must get permission from the composer (or current ...


10

I know that classical music is public domain, so no-one can claim that they own classical music. That's not quite right, at least not under US law. First off, "classical music" is a style, and music in that style is not automatically in the public domain. The rule for if music is in the public domain depends on when it was written, not what style it's in. ...


9

They can be, and usually would be. If someone uses a a keyboard or other instrument that records a MIDI file, that file is protected by copyright as soon as it is saved. Or if some person or group perform a work and captures the performance with a digital recorder and saves it to a MIDI file, again that MIDI file will be protected by copyright as soon as it ...


9

Facts cannot be copyrighted. Such a project does not violate copyright law, and if you're in the United States, it is protected by the First Amendment.


8

Most countries have compulsory or statutory licences for exactly these situations. You enter a licence agreement with a collecting society, pay them licencing fees, and give them a record of the music you perform. They in turn then distribute royalties to the rights holders. The exact details of which licence you'll need depends on your country, the types ...


8

The midi is an artistic work and protected by copyright just as sheet music or an actual recording would be. It’s possible, even likely, that a midi file running free on the internet is itself an infringing copy. If so, any purported licence is worthless. The onus is on you to validate a clear licensing chain from you back to the copyright holder of both ...


8

Seems unlikely that it will "forestall copyright infringement suits". Some jurisdictions, e.g the USA, say that "Works produced by mechanical processes or random selection without any contribution by a human author are not registrable". On the face of it, in such a jurisdiction copyright can't exist in a randomly generated work. Which the TED talk doesn't ...


8

Technically, this is infringement Overview of US law In the US, Playing copyrighted music in a private setting for personal enjoyment and practice does not require any license or royalty payment. However, uploading recordings in which copyrighted music is played so that others, even a small invited group, could download copies and could, if they choose, ...


8

The title and author(s) of a copyrighted work are not themselves protected by copyright. Many libraries and booksellers and online reference cervices provide such information. Two examples are the IMDB and the ISFDB. That the proposed service is commercial and profit-making is not relevant. Newspapers and other publications include movie and book reviews ...


7

I would say this is equivalent to asking is something typed on paper copyrighted. Yes or No, depending on the process that caused the text to be typed. If you copy a page of Shakespeare and print it out you have not produced something that can be copyrighted. Similarly if you slavishly transliterate a score into a MIDI file you have not exercised any choices ...


6

After referring to Dale's fine answer, something about licenses and copying: You may have purchased an item with a license that allowed certain copies to be made. If you sell the item, the license now applies to the new owner. So unless the license says that you can keep copies even after a sale (which is unlikely with an item that is sold for profit), you ...


6

The question as worded implies that if something is a parody it is automatically fair use or allowed in US copyright law. This is a myth. First of all, in a copyright context, the term "parody" is somewhat limited. In that sense, a "parody" is a new work which comments on the original (often but not always by mocking or ridiculing the original). A mere ...


6

As the question says the "Fugue in A Major" by Shostakovich is not in the public domain. The work was published in 1950, and so would not be PD under US law, and Shostakovich died in 1975, and so his works would not be PD in countries using a life+50, life+70, or longer term. Therefore, simply "making some changes" would be the creation of a derivative ...


6

It’s tricky. I’ll talk about the general then the specific. In general, your notion of "didn't get permission" doesn't really reflect how the music industry works. Generally, a venue pays for a universal license to use recorded music. There are three major licensors: ASCAP, BMI and SESAC. If you get an ASCAP license, you can play any ASCAP ...


5

As for the subject matter (what can be protected), amplitude, frequency, harmonic pattern, duration etc. are all physical facts, and there is no protection for physical facts. The basic requirement is that the thing protected must be "creative". Once you have a creative composition (assuming it is a composition, where infringement is harder to establish), ...


5

The burden rests on A to determine that the work is not protected by copyright, and there is no fool-proof registry where you can look up a particular work. One form of proof would be finding a copy of the song published in the 18th century. It might be possible to establish that the work is no longer protected using expert testimony (e.g. a musicologist who ...


5

The Harry Potter company and John Williams may or may not want credit, but they almost certainly want money. You have to get their permission, at least for their creations. In the case of Für Elise, you can freely use the original score to "rework" that piece, but you can't "rework" a version that is itself a recent "reworking" ...


4

In the United States, when you distribute a recording of a nondramatic musical work, the law grants a compulsory mechanical license allowing anyone to cover the song provided certain formalities are observed, and royalties are paid to the original artist. See 17 U.S.C. sec. 115. If your song falls under this section, then all that is required for your ...


4

How do you know if the copyright claimant or owner of them material you are using is allowing their content on Youtube? You don't. ... does fair use automatically cover you for anything related to this? No Is it illegal to share the music experience of a legally purchased MP3 ... or to provide services that play songs ... but are not hosted by your ...


4

You can do whatever you want for your own personal use. When you then go to publish your derivative products, you run into issues. Just use it for your own enjoyment, and leave it at that. Performing in public, a song written by someone else, whether you copy their arrangement (i.e. play it note-for-note as they played it) or use your own arrangement, ...


4

In general, you cannot contract to do anything illegal. However, ... An argument could be made that permission has been granted to, for example, enter property and remove the item. If permission has been granted, entering property and taking an item is not a crime.


4

It is not "perfectly legal" to transcribe music for personal use. It is pretty likely that you can get away with it. The first thing to understand is that the act of transcribing is the creation of a derivative work (see the definitions part of Title 17). The core protection is section 106, which states that the owner of copyright has the exclusive right to ...


4

When you license your IP (like a song) you can specify the terms and conditions of its use by the licensee, including revenue shares from any derived work. However, if, as your comment suggests, you grant an "informal" license, and later decide that you want to "firm things up" with a license having different terms, that's a matter you would have to either ...


4

Under US law, the use of the converter is irrelevant. The legal situation would be the same if they were posted in MP3 format, or downloaded and played in whatever format they are posted in. The point is making and distributing copies without permission. The first question is: Is the music protected by copyright at all? If the work is old enough, there is no ...


4

There are several possibilities The effects are not the same Minecraft has them under a different licence from the owner Minecraft is committing copyright violation And the most likely: they belong to Minecraft and someone has illegally uploaded them to the site


4

The laws wherever a copy is made or the work is published If the game is going to be distributed online then the laws of every country where this happens.


4

It depends on the terms of your contract with the musicians. Copyright in the performance belongs to the performer so you need to ensure the copyright is transferred or appropriately licensed to you. It is public domain. Copyright for US works published before 1978 is a maximum of 95 years from date of publication. Although written on Christmas Day 1896 it ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible