Hi Lathe Trolls,
I am reading posts on this forum a few days now and I find this terribly intresting.
Basically i was looking for a forum about vinyl pressing.
Im about to press a hip hop 12" EP with 6 tracks and maybe a 12" with beats and drum loops.
I am looking for a 12" masteirng and pressing lab in europe that makes 12" records that look like the american ones. (12" singles).
Some of the german pressed hip hop records i have are so thin and i dont want that.
Anyway the best way to find onw is look for myself i guess..
My other questions is this:
I want to press a 12" with drum loops for DJs and every pressing plant wants me to sign a paper that i own the right.
i actually dont to the drum loops.
Ive seen alot of dj use records out there and i dought that the guy that pressed them had the rights to.
How would this work?
Should i sign that i do have the rights?
Im about to press 300 of them and give away the 100 and sell the other 150 and keep the 50 to my self.
Well, if this is some sort of taboo matter please send me a private message.
I need to know how to act on such matter.
I also did my research on the net and seen an eshop in Canada that sells lots of white labels Ive seen The Doors House-Remix, Nirvana House-Remixes and stuff and i know that they are pressed without permission.
Does the pressing plant proceed with their vinyl order if they just sign a paper that they own the rights?
If they listen to the master and see that there are long portions of well known songs, will they act like they dont know?
Thanks.
I need to know how to act on such matter.
I also did my research on the net and seen an eshop in Canada that sells lots of white labels Ive seen The Doors House-Remix, Nirvana House-Remixes and stuff and i know that they are pressed without permission.
Does the pressing plant proceed with their vinyl order if they just sign a paper that they own the rights?
If they listen to the master and see that there are long portions of well known songs, will they act like they dont know?
Thanks.
Most pressing plants will not press discs for you unless 1) you are pressing your own original material and will sign waivers that prove that 2) you are pressing 'covers' of other artist's songs and have purchase what's called a mechanical license which gives you permission to press your own performance of another artist's song, or 3) if you are copying another artist's work verbatim (i.e. 'sampling' etc.) you have purchased BOTH a mechanical license AND a 'master use' license. The master use is purchased from the other artist's record label, management company, or other entity and can be VERY expensive - even for just a few seconds of material sampled or otherwise copied. If you are pressing someone else's work without their permission (they can give you permission to do it for free - without the master use license - but you have to have this in writing and send it along with the order to the pressing plant) you are taking a BIG risk of being sued, even if you are giving away the discs and not charging for or making money on them. The pressing plant will make you sign a waiver that you have all necessary rights, licenses, or permissions, or the material is your own, and if you get sued - you're on your own.
Usually, pressing plants won't press discs at all unless you provide them with copies of any master use or mechanical licenses that apply to the job, or a waiver showing that the material is either public domain or all your own original and you own the rights to it.
Usually, pressing plants won't press discs at all unless you provide them with copies of any master use or mechanical licenses that apply to the job, or a waiver showing that the material is either public domain or all your own original and you own the rights to it.
what about fair use?
"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. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:
1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a 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; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."
"The Supreme Court of the United States described fair use as an affirmative defense in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc..[15] This means that, in litigation on copyright infringement, the defendant bears the burden of raising and proving that his use was "fair" and not an infringement. Thus, fair use need not even be raised as a defense unless the plaintiff first shows (or the defendant concedes) a "prima facie" case of copyright infringement. If the work was not copyrightable, the term had expired, or the defendant's work borrowed only a small amount, for instance, then the plaintiff cannot make out a prima facie case of infringement, and the defendant need not even raise the fair use defense."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
Most sampled beat in history....
"The "Amen break" (usually pronounced /ɑːˈmɛn/) was a drum solo performed by Gregory Sylvester "G.C." Coleman. The "Amen Break," "Amen," or imitations thereof, are frequently used as sampled drum loops in hip hop, jungle and drum and bass music. It is 5.20 seconds long and consists of 4 bars of the drum-solo sampled from the song "Amen, Brother" as performed by the 1960s funk and soul outfit The Winstons. The song is an up-tempo instrumental rendition of an older gospel music classic. The Winstons' version was released as a B-side of the 45 RPM 7-inch vinyl single "Color Him Father" in 1969 on Metromedia (MMS-117), and is currently available on several compilations and on a 12-inch vinyl re-release together with other songs by The Winstons. The Amen Break was used extensively in early hiphop and sample-based music, and became the basis for drum-and-bass and jungle music--"a six-second clip that spawned several entire subcultures"."
"As with many samples, the copyright history of the Amen break is complex. Neither the drummer, G.C. Coleman, nor the copyright owner Richard L. Spencer, the Grammy-award winning composer and performer of the hit "Color Him Father," has ever received any royalties for the sampling."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amen_break
IMHO, I believe that the RIAA wants to stop "sampling" not because of the money issue, but because they are worried about something like this ""a six-second clip that spawned several entire subcultures".". G-d forbid, should there be a new subculture that is not being controlled, and manipulated by big business.
Sampling is not piracy, taking a Madonna recording, and repressing it for commercial gain is in fact piracy.
"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. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:
1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a 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; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."
"The Supreme Court of the United States described fair use as an affirmative defense in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc..[15] This means that, in litigation on copyright infringement, the defendant bears the burden of raising and proving that his use was "fair" and not an infringement. Thus, fair use need not even be raised as a defense unless the plaintiff first shows (or the defendant concedes) a "prima facie" case of copyright infringement. If the work was not copyrightable, the term had expired, or the defendant's work borrowed only a small amount, for instance, then the plaintiff cannot make out a prima facie case of infringement, and the defendant need not even raise the fair use defense."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
Most sampled beat in history....
"The "Amen break" (usually pronounced /ɑːˈmɛn/) was a drum solo performed by Gregory Sylvester "G.C." Coleman. The "Amen Break," "Amen," or imitations thereof, are frequently used as sampled drum loops in hip hop, jungle and drum and bass music. It is 5.20 seconds long and consists of 4 bars of the drum-solo sampled from the song "Amen, Brother" as performed by the 1960s funk and soul outfit The Winstons. The song is an up-tempo instrumental rendition of an older gospel music classic. The Winstons' version was released as a B-side of the 45 RPM 7-inch vinyl single "Color Him Father" in 1969 on Metromedia (MMS-117), and is currently available on several compilations and on a 12-inch vinyl re-release together with other songs by The Winstons. The Amen Break was used extensively in early hiphop and sample-based music, and became the basis for drum-and-bass and jungle music--"a six-second clip that spawned several entire subcultures"."
"As with many samples, the copyright history of the Amen break is complex. Neither the drummer, G.C. Coleman, nor the copyright owner Richard L. Spencer, the Grammy-award winning composer and performer of the hit "Color Him Father," has ever received any royalties for the sampling."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amen_break
IMHO, I believe that the RIAA wants to stop "sampling" not because of the money issue, but because they are worried about something like this ""a six-second clip that spawned several entire subcultures".". G-d forbid, should there be a new subculture that is not being controlled, and manipulated by big business.
Sampling is not piracy, taking a Madonna recording, and repressing it for commercial gain is in fact piracy.
The supreme court finding that you quoted pretty much excludes this poster's intended usage: "...for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright." This does not include playback in a dance club, multiple copies for private use, etc. Fair use is very carefully described and is pretty much limited to academic use only. A documentary might get away with the fair use doctrine but pressing records of other artist's material either for giveaway or personal gain without permissions or licensing clearly doesn't work. This is how pressing plants view the law - basically in a 'CYA' manner. Anal attorney's acting on behalf of "the infringed" would argue that playback in a dance club constitutes public performance for profit, since the establishment would be making money off of drinks, cover charges, etc. However ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC licenses that are usually required to operate clubs, restaurants, etc. where music would be played mechanically or performed live cover this issue. But I would guess that those licenses apply to legal recordings only.
From the information given, the 'Amen Break' that you cite was recorded and released prior to the Copyright Act of 1976 and the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998. If the composer(s) or other rights owners didn't renew their copyrights or establish new copyright under either of those acts, the work would have fallen into public domain 1997 - thus making it 'fair game' for anyone to use after 1997 (assuming it was copyrighted in the year of release you give of 1969). Also, older copyrights didn't specifically cover sampling so it's possible to 'sneak around' older music and use pieces of it because of this oversight at the time, since sampling didn't exist. The first album I know of that specifically stated "sampling" in the rights was Frank Zappa's "Ship Arriving Too Late To Save A Drowning Witch" studio album from 1982. Sampling was beginning to come of age back then (usually with tape snippets patched over and over again to create the 'sample' effect) and Zappa was a very intelligent and shrewd businessman who saw this trend and covered his music when others weren't. This is probably why Coleman and Spencer were never paid, at least for the samples.
I know people have grown to hate the RIAA; they originally started as a technical standards organization in 1952 (we've all heard of the RIAA curve), and continued to issue standards for records, tape, and eventually digital recordings. They also worked with licensing and royalty distribution, which, yes, protects the 'intellectual property' of creative artists. IMHO, the digital age is what ruined the public's and eventually artist's relationships with the RIAA. We used to tape records for friends, use in the car, etc. which was "infringement" (we didn't buy the record, 8-track, AND cassette of the same title for use wherever we went to make sure we were "legal") but their point now is that back then, unless you were specifically in the piracy business, tapes and other "illegal" copies of commercial albums were very, very limited in use and distribution. Along comes the Internet, and one person can supply not only their circle of family and friends with an artist's music, but ANYONE worldwide who stumbles across their "download" site and decides to take what's there.
No one ever looks at the "big picture" from the artist's standpoint. They write, perform, and record to make a living. Years ago, if one person at a high school bought a 45 and taped it for 10 of their friends - there were many, many other people buying that 45, maybe taping it for a few friends, but big deal - not much loss because of the technology limitation. Fast forward to today, prior to the Napster and other download service court cases - I purchase a CD, rip the "single" from that CD, post it on whatever site for download and how many 'hits' does that download get? How many potential sales does that artist lose because of this? Then all of a sudden several artists and the RIAA on their behalf file suit to shut these websites down, create the "pay for download" system, and everybody's bitching because the artist who created the music in the first place is actually getting something, albeit not much considering the fees taken from the average $.99 cost per download, but at least they can make a living again because their work isn't being given away.
I know in the DJ business sampling is a big deal. DJ's cut dubplates so they have quick access to what they need to perform, and in the order they need it. A 'dubplate' is basically a personal use item, and it's playback in a club is covered by ASCAP, BMI, or SESAC licenses held by the club owners. It's not being distributed, free or otherwise, it's just a personal tool just like putting several tracks on a CD-R for the same reason. But, press or duplicate and distribute those mixes, samples, or whatever without proper licensing or permissions and it's a risk of getting in a lot of hot water.
Again, I'm not advocating either side, just stating the facts as I know them and have been advised by pressing plants we work with. I got a full dose (ad nauseum) of "Fair Use" doctrine when I worked in higher education years ago, so I'm very familiar with the ins and outs of it - it don't apply in this case...
Hope this is good information...
From the information given, the 'Amen Break' that you cite was recorded and released prior to the Copyright Act of 1976 and the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998. If the composer(s) or other rights owners didn't renew their copyrights or establish new copyright under either of those acts, the work would have fallen into public domain 1997 - thus making it 'fair game' for anyone to use after 1997 (assuming it was copyrighted in the year of release you give of 1969). Also, older copyrights didn't specifically cover sampling so it's possible to 'sneak around' older music and use pieces of it because of this oversight at the time, since sampling didn't exist. The first album I know of that specifically stated "sampling" in the rights was Frank Zappa's "Ship Arriving Too Late To Save A Drowning Witch" studio album from 1982. Sampling was beginning to come of age back then (usually with tape snippets patched over and over again to create the 'sample' effect) and Zappa was a very intelligent and shrewd businessman who saw this trend and covered his music when others weren't. This is probably why Coleman and Spencer were never paid, at least for the samples.
I know people have grown to hate the RIAA; they originally started as a technical standards organization in 1952 (we've all heard of the RIAA curve), and continued to issue standards for records, tape, and eventually digital recordings. They also worked with licensing and royalty distribution, which, yes, protects the 'intellectual property' of creative artists. IMHO, the digital age is what ruined the public's and eventually artist's relationships with the RIAA. We used to tape records for friends, use in the car, etc. which was "infringement" (we didn't buy the record, 8-track, AND cassette of the same title for use wherever we went to make sure we were "legal") but their point now is that back then, unless you were specifically in the piracy business, tapes and other "illegal" copies of commercial albums were very, very limited in use and distribution. Along comes the Internet, and one person can supply not only their circle of family and friends with an artist's music, but ANYONE worldwide who stumbles across their "download" site and decides to take what's there.
No one ever looks at the "big picture" from the artist's standpoint. They write, perform, and record to make a living. Years ago, if one person at a high school bought a 45 and taped it for 10 of their friends - there were many, many other people buying that 45, maybe taping it for a few friends, but big deal - not much loss because of the technology limitation. Fast forward to today, prior to the Napster and other download service court cases - I purchase a CD, rip the "single" from that CD, post it on whatever site for download and how many 'hits' does that download get? How many potential sales does that artist lose because of this? Then all of a sudden several artists and the RIAA on their behalf file suit to shut these websites down, create the "pay for download" system, and everybody's bitching because the artist who created the music in the first place is actually getting something, albeit not much considering the fees taken from the average $.99 cost per download, but at least they can make a living again because their work isn't being given away.
I know in the DJ business sampling is a big deal. DJ's cut dubplates so they have quick access to what they need to perform, and in the order they need it. A 'dubplate' is basically a personal use item, and it's playback in a club is covered by ASCAP, BMI, or SESAC licenses held by the club owners. It's not being distributed, free or otherwise, it's just a personal tool just like putting several tracks on a CD-R for the same reason. But, press or duplicate and distribute those mixes, samples, or whatever without proper licensing or permissions and it's a risk of getting in a lot of hot water.
Again, I'm not advocating either side, just stating the facts as I know them and have been advised by pressing plants we work with. I got a full dose (ad nauseum) of "Fair Use" doctrine when I worked in higher education years ago, so I'm very familiar with the ins and outs of it - it don't apply in this case...
Hope this is good information...
emoritt,
You not correct about fair use, and the supreme court has ruled the following:
"Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, 510 U.S. 569 (1994)[1] was a United States Supreme Court copyright law case that stands for the proposition that a commercial parody can be fair use. That money is made does not make it impossible for a use to be fair; it is merely one of the components of a fair use analysis.
The members of the rap music group 2 Live Crew—Luther R. Campbell, Christopher Wongwon, Mark Ross, and David Hobbs—composed a song called "Pretty Woman," a parody based on Roy Orbison's rock ballad, "Oh, Pretty Woman." The group's manager asked Acuff-Rose Music if they could license Roy Orbison's tune for the ballad to be used as a parody. Acuff-Rose Music refused to grant the band a license but 2 Live Crew nonetheless produced and released the parody.
Almost a year later, after nearly a quarter of a million copies of the recording had been sold, Acuff Rose sued 2 Live Crew and its record company, Luke Skyywalker Records, for copyright infringement. The District Court granted summary judgment for 2 Live Crew, holding that its song was a parody that made fair use of the original song under § 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976 (17 U.S.C. § 107). The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that the commercial nature of the parody rendered it presumptively unfair under the first of four factors relevant under § 107; that, by taking the "heart" of the original and making it the "heart" of a new work, 2 Live Crew had taken too much under the third § 107 factor; and that market harm for purposes of the fourth §107 factor had been established by a presumption attaching to commercial uses.
The Supreme Court held that 2 Live Crew's commercial parody may be a fair use within the meaning of § 107.
Justice Souter began by describing the inherent tension created by the need to simultaneously protect copyrighted material and allow others to build upon it, quoting Lord Ellenborough: "While I shall think myself bound to secure every man in the enjoyment of his copy-right, one must not put manacles upon science."" -wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell_v._Acuff-Rose_Music,_Inc.
READ THIS:
You not correct about fair use, and the supreme court has ruled the following:
"Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, 510 U.S. 569 (1994)[1] was a United States Supreme Court copyright law case that stands for the proposition that a commercial parody can be fair use. That money is made does not make it impossible for a use to be fair; it is merely one of the components of a fair use analysis.
The members of the rap music group 2 Live Crew—Luther R. Campbell, Christopher Wongwon, Mark Ross, and David Hobbs—composed a song called "Pretty Woman," a parody based on Roy Orbison's rock ballad, "Oh, Pretty Woman." The group's manager asked Acuff-Rose Music if they could license Roy Orbison's tune for the ballad to be used as a parody. Acuff-Rose Music refused to grant the band a license but 2 Live Crew nonetheless produced and released the parody.
Almost a year later, after nearly a quarter of a million copies of the recording had been sold, Acuff Rose sued 2 Live Crew and its record company, Luke Skyywalker Records, for copyright infringement. The District Court granted summary judgment for 2 Live Crew, holding that its song was a parody that made fair use of the original song under § 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976 (17 U.S.C. § 107). The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that the commercial nature of the parody rendered it presumptively unfair under the first of four factors relevant under § 107; that, by taking the "heart" of the original and making it the "heart" of a new work, 2 Live Crew had taken too much under the third § 107 factor; and that market harm for purposes of the fourth §107 factor had been established by a presumption attaching to commercial uses.
The Supreme Court held that 2 Live Crew's commercial parody may be a fair use within the meaning of § 107.
Justice Souter began by describing the inherent tension created by the need to simultaneously protect copyrighted material and allow others to build upon it, quoting Lord Ellenborough: "While I shall think myself bound to secure every man in the enjoyment of his copy-right, one must not put manacles upon science."" -wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell_v._Acuff-Rose_Music,_Inc.
READ THIS:
In most legal proceedings, one of the parties has the burden of proof, which requires that party to present prima facie evidence of all facts essential to its case. If that party fails to present prima facie evidence on any required element of its case, its claim may be dismissed without any response by the opposing party. A prima facie case may be insufficient to enable a party to prevail if the opposing party introduces contradictory evidence or asserts an affirmative defense. Sometimes the introduction of prima facie evidence is informally called making a case or building a case.jaydc wrote: "The Supreme Court of the United States described fair use as an affirmative defense in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc..[15] This means that, in litigation on copyright infringement, the defendant bears the burden of raising and proving that his use was "fair" and not an infringement. Thus, fair use need not even be raised as a defense unless the plaintiff first shows (or the defendant concedes) a "prima facie" case of copyright infringement. If the work was not copyrightable, the term had expired, or the defendant's work borrowed only a small amount, for instance, then the plaintiff cannot make out a prima facie case of infringement, and the defendant need not even raise the fair use defense."
Jay:
Again, I'm not disagreeing that there are "circumstances" that constitute 'fair use' and may hold up in court - however, remember that the case you cite involved a parody and not just a verbatim copy of another artist't material. I'm not familiar with the exact music, but if they performed the music themselves and added their own original vocal work, then all they (technically) would have to have would be a mechanical license for the music alone - Acuff-Rose wouldn't (and didn't) have a case. If their work involves an exact copy of Orbison's original record, then they *might* have a case, but I tend to be in total agreement with the justice that stated "I'm not against someone enjoying their copyright, but I don't want to put manacles on... etc.". And, you have to remember in cases where someone or a company does sue, you might luck out and win, or you might get a judge that's pro-company and you'll lose. In any case, it's going to cost you from the get-go.
I occasionally do re-issues of recorded material originally released from 1890 - 1924. ALL of the people involved - composers, performers, arrangers, lyricists, etc. are ALL dead... AND the 28+ year "extension" that could have been granted on most of this music has also expired. Just because Sony BMG bought up all the metal parts and whatever "rights" were left of many old record companies' property, does that mean they have the right to sit on the material and not release it, release it with badly done "restorations" by kids who have no clue about the original technology used to record such records, or bully people like me who issue correctly restored and sounding versions of the original material - that - there is a very limited market for anyway, just in the name of "we own it"??? IMHO, the answer is a resounding NO. However, anything from around 1950 onward, I DO believe that if the original artists or members of their immediate family (children or brothers/sisters, NOT cousins, distant nieces, etc. who SHOULDN'T have claim to such "rights") should be protected for their lifetime, and their immediate family for a portion of theirs. Not renewal after renewal "protecting" such rights for successors, assigns, and yes, record companies, that happen to 'buy up' rights just so any time someone wants to use a tune that should be public domain they can jump up and bully whoever for more than the song is worth at that point.
As far as whether or not a pressing plant will press something they're not sure about, it's pretty much up to the company doing the work. Most of the houses we work with *REQUIRE*, up front, copies of any mechanical or master use licenses, or a copyright statement that the material on the disk is the artist's own. No such paperwork, no disks get pressed.
Again, I'm not disagreeing that there are "circumstances" that constitute 'fair use' and may hold up in court - however, remember that the case you cite involved a parody and not just a verbatim copy of another artist't material. I'm not familiar with the exact music, but if they performed the music themselves and added their own original vocal work, then all they (technically) would have to have would be a mechanical license for the music alone - Acuff-Rose wouldn't (and didn't) have a case. If their work involves an exact copy of Orbison's original record, then they *might* have a case, but I tend to be in total agreement with the justice that stated "I'm not against someone enjoying their copyright, but I don't want to put manacles on... etc.". And, you have to remember in cases where someone or a company does sue, you might luck out and win, or you might get a judge that's pro-company and you'll lose. In any case, it's going to cost you from the get-go.
I occasionally do re-issues of recorded material originally released from 1890 - 1924. ALL of the people involved - composers, performers, arrangers, lyricists, etc. are ALL dead... AND the 28+ year "extension" that could have been granted on most of this music has also expired. Just because Sony BMG bought up all the metal parts and whatever "rights" were left of many old record companies' property, does that mean they have the right to sit on the material and not release it, release it with badly done "restorations" by kids who have no clue about the original technology used to record such records, or bully people like me who issue correctly restored and sounding versions of the original material - that - there is a very limited market for anyway, just in the name of "we own it"??? IMHO, the answer is a resounding NO. However, anything from around 1950 onward, I DO believe that if the original artists or members of their immediate family (children or brothers/sisters, NOT cousins, distant nieces, etc. who SHOULDN'T have claim to such "rights") should be protected for their lifetime, and their immediate family for a portion of theirs. Not renewal after renewal "protecting" such rights for successors, assigns, and yes, record companies, that happen to 'buy up' rights just so any time someone wants to use a tune that should be public domain they can jump up and bully whoever for more than the song is worth at that point.
As far as whether or not a pressing plant will press something they're not sure about, it's pretty much up to the company doing the work. Most of the houses we work with *REQUIRE*, up front, copies of any mechanical or master use licenses, or a copyright statement that the material on the disk is the artist's own. No such paperwork, no disks get pressed.
So, could I get my master works, that I wrote, that contain couple of bits of sampled vocal material no more the 1-2 seconds in length pressed without all the licensing jibber jab? Seems like it could be "fair use" due to the fact that it is not the whole recording of the sampled work that is being reproduced. Would the factories press it, if I send in the documents that it is my original work, b/c technically it is..
Jay:
I'm not a lawyer, but I think maybe I'm miscommunicating the concept of "exact copy" - I don't mean the whole thing or a lengthy part thereof. I mean taking 1 or 2 or more seconds, minutes, etc. of another recording and inserting it into your own. i.e. an outright duplicate of the other artist's recording. This would constitute "master use" licensing because you're using material from their "master". Now, if what you're using isn't really recognizable, then perhaps you might get it pressed. But, if you use, say, the line "people are still having sex" - and nothing more - from LaTour's song, it's very recognizable, and you might have issues.
If, however, you are performing a short musical motif from another artist's song yourself (say you take the first 18 notes of The Beatles "Eleanor Rigby" and play them very fast - but the tune is recognizable as such), then you'd need a mechanical license.
As to whether or not the pressing house will stamp copies for you, again, that's up to how they uphold their policies. Most don't want to get sued, or even take the risk. Our customers allow us to license things that need to be, and register their own works for them so they are protected once the discs are pressed, and we have the proper paperwork to send along with the master lacquers for processing.
Yeah, I know it's a 'can of worms', but unfortunately everybody's cracking down since in the last 15 years congress has put copyright issues in everybody's face and down our throats. Like the song says "if I swallow anything evil, stick your finger down my throat"...
I'm not a lawyer, but I think maybe I'm miscommunicating the concept of "exact copy" - I don't mean the whole thing or a lengthy part thereof. I mean taking 1 or 2 or more seconds, minutes, etc. of another recording and inserting it into your own. i.e. an outright duplicate of the other artist's recording. This would constitute "master use" licensing because you're using material from their "master". Now, if what you're using isn't really recognizable, then perhaps you might get it pressed. But, if you use, say, the line "people are still having sex" - and nothing more - from LaTour's song, it's very recognizable, and you might have issues.
If, however, you are performing a short musical motif from another artist's song yourself (say you take the first 18 notes of The Beatles "Eleanor Rigby" and play them very fast - but the tune is recognizable as such), then you'd need a mechanical license.
As to whether or not the pressing house will stamp copies for you, again, that's up to how they uphold their policies. Most don't want to get sued, or even take the risk. Our customers allow us to license things that need to be, and register their own works for them so they are protected once the discs are pressed, and we have the proper paperwork to send along with the master lacquers for processing.
Yeah, I know it's a 'can of worms', but unfortunately everybody's cracking down since in the last 15 years congress has put copyright issues in everybody's face and down our throats. Like the song says "if I swallow anything evil, stick your finger down my throat"...
-
dietrich10
- Posts: 842
- Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 2:18 pm
- Location: usa
- Contact: