The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
copyright question Virtual Instrument Plugins
Old 3rd December 2009
  #31
Audio Alchemist
 
Lagerfeldt's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward_Vinatea View Post
Lagerfeldt, you are from Denmark, we are in the USA. It's here where serious money derived from publishing is usually made [...]
I think that's a very condescending way of putting things, but two can play that game ;-)

Since I'm the one who sold 6 million units internationally I have a fairly good grasp of what serious publishing money is - and you're the one who sold... I'm guessing zero.. let's just leave it there.

Quote:
Do you still advise to not worry about copyrighting or registering one's work?
I never wrote that, to the contrary. I specifically wrote "it's a good idea" to register your work.

And again: you do not need "to copyright" your work, it happens automatically, which is what you misunderstand.

Let's drop it before this thread descends into another Ed-thread, simply because you can not stand to be corrected.

For the record, most of what you originally wrote was in fact true and - unusually for you - made a lot of sense. As if it was paraphrased right out of Donald S. Passman's excellent book "All You Need To Know About The Music Business".
Old 3rd December 2009
  #32
Moderator
 
narcoman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward_Vinatea View Post
Adam, the bottom line is that a copyright is your best protection, new master, new remix, new edit version or not. An ISRC only registers the contents of intellectual properties for identification purposes only. It does not establish authorship or ownership of such intellectual properties and would be easily challenged by anyone who produces a PA or SA form from our Library of Congress located in Washington DC.

Here is how it works: If you were to whistle or even play with a toy piano a few melodic lines into a cassette recorder, then send your cassette to Library of Congress of the U.S.A. for registration, your melodic lines will be protected under The Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA) of 1998 which extended copyright terms in the United States by an extra 20 years. Add the Copyright Act of 1976 which would last for the life of the author plus 50 years, or 75 years for a work of corporate authorship and you arrive to the expiration date.

Obviously, people send CDs these days but there are other methods to send in for registration.

What does this all mean? If you heard any music that resembles pretty much your music lines, anything too similar in a techno, rock or even a classical record, guess what? You can sue the label and get an injunction and/or better yet, have them pay you a very steep price for their copyright infringement. Here is the caveat, if in court the label lawyers or the defendants {authors} involved in the dispute, submit a copyright entry "PA" or "SA" that can establish that their works were protected prior to your entry, your case will be dismissed and you get nothing.

This is what can devastate a songwriter. Ever heard people who argue their music was stolen? They didn't copyright their ideas.

In some cases the poor man's copyright method might help you establish that you came up with the melody first, but don't take this method to the bank.

I hope you understand now, since apparently you didn't on my previous post.
That is for writing. This thread is about the copyright of the master recording. Nothing to do with publishing. A recording copyright has nothing to do with the lifetime of the author.... as you probably know. Need to make that clear since this thread is about the recording copyright and not composition.
Old 3rd December 2009
  #33
Moderator
 
narcoman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward_Vinatea View Post
Very different from when Freddie Mercury and Bowie sued Vanilla Ice for "Ice Ice baby". Van Winkle's defense was that the bassline had "an extra note". His defense didn't fly, he finally admitted sampling 8 bars from the record, thus the sample was proven as being taken from "Under Pressure" and Ice had to pay $4M. If Vanilla Ice had had the copyright registration, he would have had to have written the bassline when he was a baby.

The infringed sample had nothing to do with the writing - If V.Ice had played the same note sequence in a different context - in other words it would pretty much have to have NOT sounded like under pressure (which it did) then he would have been fine ..... PLAY it on a piano etc etc. As it is - he sampled it..... the master sample made an water tight case... and the track was clearly and audibly based on the Queen original. The court case was brought under the pretext of an uncleared sample - not an infringement of composition. As an effect OF sampling the record - a publishing copyright is de facto infringed.... but it is important to make the distinction.

THIS is not what we're discussing in the thread. We are chatting about whether or not a remix, remaster or edit constitutes a new work and copyright. It doesn't.

With respect to Harrison et al - I fail to see what this has to do with infringing a recording copyright since it was a case purely about composition. A case, I might add, that has bounced forward and backwards through the courts for many a year AND , in my business partners expert opinion, should never have gone to court in the first place..... a LOT to do with the initial judge knowing fek all what he was talking about.
Old 3rd December 2009
  #34
Lives for gear
 
Edward_Vinatea's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lagerfeldt View Post
I think that's a very condescending way of putting things, but two can play that game ;-)

Since I'm the one who sold 6 million units internationally I have a fairly good grasp of what serious publishing money is - and you're the one who sold... I'm guessing zero.. let's just leave it there.
And again: you do not need "to copyright" your work, it happens automatically, which is what you misunderstand.
I don't have to sell 6 million copies to know about copyright. And as far as being condescending, I am not when the facts are well known and long time established. If I say to you that "You are a big fish in a very small tank", that's condescending. If I say you are in Denmark we are in USA, it just means that people here feel the stakes are higher and will take you to court and that the laws are a bit different. Don't get offended as you do when someone corrects you, but your response and reaction this time is more of an amateur rather than someone who sold 6 million of {fill whatever}. Who cares.

Quote:
Let's drop it before this thread descends into another Ed-thread, simply because you can not stand to be corrected.
For the record, most of what you originally wrote was in fact true and - unusually for you - made a lot of sense. As if it was paraphrased right out of Donald S. Passman's excellent book "All You Need To Know About The Music Business".
Let's not drop it. What is a"another ED-Thread"? You are not correcting me at all just confusing the subject when it should be clear and simple.
Grow up man and don't speak in an insulting manner or expect me to revere you as some million seller song writer. This has nothing to do with what you learned from your alleged million selling records and it is about giving people the reason why registering their work is important.

Quote:
I never wrote that, to the contrary. I specifically wrote "it's a good idea" to register your work.
If it's a good idea why you argue my point?
Old 3rd December 2009
  #35
Lives for gear
 
Edward_Vinatea's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by narcoman View Post
The court case was brought under the pretext of an uncleared sample - not an infringement of composition. As an effect OF sampling the record - a publishing copyright is de facto infringed.... but it is important to make the distinction.
The penalties maybe different but the law sees it as a copyright infringement.

Quote:
THIS is not what we're discussing in the thread. We are chatting about whether or not a remix, remaster or edit constitutes a new work and copyright. It doesn't. With respect to Harrison et al - I fail to see what this has to do with infringing a recording copyright since it was a case purely about composition. A case, I might add, that has bounced forward and backwards through the courts for many a year AND , in my business partners expert opinion, should never have gone to court in the first place..... a LOT to do with the initial judge knowing fek all what he was talking about.
In order to understand why a remaster is not a new work but a derivative, the concept of copyright needs to be understood. Also, why Bright Tunes Music vs. HarrisongsMusic was mentioned? From the Copyright site:
Quote:
Why should I register my work if copyright protection is automatic?
Registration is recommended for a number of reasons. Many choose to register their works because they wish to have the facts of their copyright on the public record and have a certificate of registration. Registered works may be eligible for statutory damages and attorney's fees in successful litigation. Finally, if registration occurs within 5 years of publication, it is considered prima facie evidence in a court of law. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section “Copyright Registration” and Circular 38b, Highlights of Copyright Amendments Contained in the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), on non-U.S. works.
Prima Facie evidence was what Harrison lacked. The judges agreed that the melody was too close and Harrison might have heard at some point the Chiffon's record and he unconsciously copied the melody to work on his own song.

{EDIT} The bottom line: If some mastering guy makes a claim that he owns the recording because he mastered the record or an editor because he brilliantly edited a version, etc, fine. But, that won't get him royalties {unless a special agreement} and it means nothing in the scheme of publishing rights. Their work is in nature "For Hire". And if a ME decides to sell copies, then he has infringed upon the copyrights of the original authors.
Old 3rd December 2009
  #36
Moderator
 
narcoman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward_Vinatea View Post
The penalties maybe different but the law sees it as a copyright infringement.

In order to understand why a remaster is not a new work but a derivative, the concept of copyright needs to be understood. Also, from the Copyright site:
Prima Facie evidence was what Harrison lacked. The judges agreed that the melody was too close and Harrison might have heard at some point the Chiffon's record and unconsciously copied that to work on his.

{EDIT} The bottom line: If some mastering guy makes a claim that he owns the recording because he mastered the record or an editor because he brilliantly edited a version, etc, fine. But, that won't get him royalties and it means nothing in the scheme of publishing rights. Their work is in nature "For Hire".
The sense of copyright in a writing work is entirely distinct from the type of intellectual property in a recording. The two cannot be directly compared. They are different areas and protected in different ways. There is NOTHING protecting a recording copyright to 50 years after an authors death simply because a recording copyright caries no author. In many territories it is 50 years since the date of recording..... in fact many 50's recordings are out of copyright even though the publishing copyright is still in enforcement. They are NOT subject to the Sony-Bono extension or any others in any territory which refers to works of authorship.

They are as distinct areas as writing a book and a song and are subject to different area of law.

The remaster is not even considered a derivative - it is the SAME COPYRIGHT, since the copyright lies with the recording of the performance - the intellectual property of the commissioning body of performance artists.... ie the label.

The judge, the first time the Harrison case went to court, was ill advised and ill educated in matter copyright. Harrison lost the case unfairly. If you check out what has happened since you will see that the decision has been changed several times.
. A mastering engineer making claim to a new copyright would not be supported in law since any work he is "mastering" is already under copyright..... regardless of work for hire or any other contractual misfit!! If the recording is out of copyright and he/she masters it - then it would still not constitute a new copyright since a derivative work in music only refers to acts of composition enacted in a NEW performance.

This is an important topic and surely deserves some careful handling so that those who do not have in depth daily dealings with international copyright can understand the distinction between the two musical copyrights in existence AND understand what a recording copyright actually is : the performance of the music itself only as temporal preserve since we cannot time travel!! heh
Old 3rd December 2009
  #37
Lives for gear
 
Edward_Vinatea's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by narcoman View Post
Edward - you have completely failed to understand my point. We are not discussing compositional copyright AT ALL. There is no general "copyright" detail to understand. The sense of copyright in a writing work is entirely distinct from the type of intellectual property in a recording. The two cannot be directly compared. So please - get on topic in this one. you are confusing the issue for a lot of people who are trying to grasp the copyright connotations in a recording...so please.....stop smudging the point with publishing copyright. They are different areas and protected in different ways. There is NOTHING protecting a recording copyright to 50 years after an authors death simply because a recording copyright caries no author. In many territories it is 50 years since the date of recording..... in fact many 50's recordings are out of copyright even though the publishing copyright is still in enforcement. They are NOT subject to the Sony-Bono extension or any others in any territory which refers to works of authorship.

They are as distinct areas as writing a book and a song and are subject to different area of law.

The remaster is not even considered a derivative - it is the SAME COPYRIGHT, since the copyright lies with the recording of the performance - the intellectual property of the commissioning body of performance artists.... ie the label.

The judge, the first time the Harrison case went to court, was ill advised and ill educated in matter copyright. Harrison lost the case unfairly. If you check out what has happened since you will see that the decision has been changed several times. Simpler: the judge was wrong and has caused myriad complications. You will note there have been no similar cases over the years because this landmark case spelled out precisely how such things should be handled. Harisons case was grossly mishandled and in no small part scuttled by Alan Klein.

So let me make it clear for ya one last time : we are not discussing publishing copyright. A mastering engineer making claim to a new copyright would not be supported in law since any work he is "mastering" is already under copyright..... regardless of work for hire or any other contractual misfit!! If the recording is out of copyright and he/she masters it - then it would still not constitute a new copyright since a derivative work in music only refers to acts of composition enacted in a NEW performance.
Narcoman, We are talking about music copyrights.

What is "publishing copyright" and "compositional copyright"? Show me an article not written by you but a reputable site that states the definition of such new terms.

The OP had basically 2 questions:
Quote:
Does a mastered version of a "final mix" and/or "compilation" become a different sound recording than the pre-mastered version, for copyright purposes?
Answer: NO. Because the certificate of registration already exists and only if a derivative work is created, for example a new mix version with something different in it {which naturally gets mastered} it can be submitted for registration under the DERIVATIVE WORKS classification. The fact that someone mastered any version is irrelevant.

Quote:
And if so, does the person paying for the mastered version then become the copyright owner? (presuming the mastering company is "for hire")
It depends, if the person paying for the mastering is the owner of the copyright and/or the author of the composition, that's a YES but not because he paid for the service but because he already held the copyright registration. And, the mastering lab is always "for hire".

A copyright is an intellectual property that gives the author exclusive rights of use, but as per Berne Convention, it doesn't have to be declared. Copyright is created at the momemt of the creation and needs not registration IF it's fixed to a medium. This is what Lagerfeldt also said.

That's all he needs to know about it as far as USA goes, it shouldn't be too difficult, should it?
Old 3rd December 2009
  #38
Moderator
 
narcoman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward_Vinatea View Post
Narcoman, again get your facts straight. We are talking about music copyrights!

What is "publishing copyright" or "compositional copyright"? Show me an article not written by you but a reputable site that states the definition of such new terms.

The OP had basically 2 questions:
Answer: NO. Because the certificate of registration already exists and only if a derivative work is created, for example a new mix version with something different in it {which naturally gets mastered} it can be submitted for registration under the DERIVATIVE WORKS classification. The fact that someone mastered the new version is irrelevant.

It depends, if the person paying for the mastering is the owner of the copyright and/or the author of the composition, that's a YES but not because he paid for the service but because he already held the copyright. And, the mastering lab is always "for hire".

That's all he needs to know about it as far as USA goes, it shouldn't be too difficult, should it?
The little {c} and {p} symbols on all recordings pretty much refer to what we're discussing.



A compositional copyright - Sony Bono extension? for example.. Carries no weight in the recording copyright. As it carries no weight in the copyright of a book or movie. !

The OP asked about the new copyright potential on a recorded work. No whether he could claim a new copyright on a new recording - an established recording under copyright. Nothing to do with publishing at all. whether the publishing had expired is not relevant - if he was discussing a 2008 recording of "Mars the Bringer of War" it'd be a copyright recording but an out of copyright composition. The two are distinct.


The OP had one question : "Is my master a new copyright?". No it is not - because you cannot copyright a master since it has no standing in law. The recording is he only thing copyright in the physical sense. Not the remix, not the master, not the broadcast. Not the Itunes version. Not the Iphone version. The first recording. That;s it. Sufficient to protect it internationally in all copyright honoring nations. NOT the USA copyright office which carries no weight other tan a provable source of initial copyright. The reason a new copyright is not granted has nothing to do with the copyright office at all. It is to do with establishing prior copyright - and the provable copyright, even to a new master , is the delivered prior dated multitrack file.

Oh - and you do know that if a copyright can be proven as PRIOR to a USA copyright office registered piece that the prior work gets preference? And again - we're not discussing compositional copyright. we are discussing performance copyright - a recording.

Understand his distinction : A song is written. Five versions are recorded. You have ONE writing copyright and FIVE recording copyrights. Everyone who works in this business understands this......
Old 3rd December 2009
  #39
Lives for gear
 
oceantracks's Avatar
 

"Harrison lost the case unfairly"

Harrison lifted the melody for heaven's sake, bless his heart.

TH
Old 3rd December 2009
  #40
Lives for gear
 
Edward_Vinatea's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by narcoman View Post
I can't argue with your ignorance of what's being discussed here. You keep bringing it back to something we are not discussing. And stop prattling on about he USA as if you're the only fekkin person living there. My country of origin says UK - but do you think the company I own hasn't done several hundred million dollar worth of licensing in the USA

As for for publishing and recording copyrights - if you cannot get the distinction then again - I just cannot discuss it with you. you can have several recoding copyrights of the same single publishing copyright. One song covered by 5 artists.... come on? Are you so basic in your misunderstanding of how this works? You're supposed to be a professional - your lack of ability to distinguish between the two is worrisome and on this forum - troublesome. Your giving out misinformation. Or rather your answering arguments that are not there.

A compositional copyright - Sony Bono extension? for example? Carries no weight in the recording copyright. As it carries no weight in the copyright of a book or movie. Do you know what this is? I didn't write it!! My understanding of copyright law comes from experience - daily basis with millions of dollar worth of international product. Not some studio owning conjecture!! So stop spreading misinformation!!


So now - get YOUR facts straight. The OP asked about the new copyright potential on a recorded work. No whether he could claim a new copyright on a new recording - an established recording under copyright. Nothing to do with publishing at all. whether the publishing had expired is not relevant - if he was discussing a 2008 recording of "Mars the Bringer of War" it'd be a copyright recording but an out of copyright composition. The two are distinct.


The OP had ONE question. Not your random interpretation - one single question. Is my master a new copyright. No it is not - because you cannot copyright a master since it has no standing in law. The recording is he only thing copyright in the physical sense. Not the remix, not the master, not the broadcast. Not the Itunes version. Not the Iphone version. The first recording. That;s it. Sufficient to protect it internationally in all copyright honoring nations. NOT the USA copyright office which carries no weight other tan a provable source of initial copyright. The reason a new copyright is not granted has nothing to do with the copyright office at all. It is to do with establishing prior copyright - and the provable copyright, even to a new master , is the delivered prior dated multitrack file.

Oh - and you do know that if a copyright can be proven as PRIOR to a USA copyright office registered piece that the prior work gets preference? And again - we're not discussing compositional copyright. we are discussing performance copyright - a recording.

Understand his distinction : A song is written. Five versions are recorded. You have ONE writing copyright and FIVE recording copyrights. Everyone who works in this business understands this......

No one argues that you could have a new recording derived from another one, BUT you still have to pay the publisher or the original copyright holder for that.
Old 3rd December 2009
  #41
Moderator
 
narcoman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by oceantracks View Post
"Harrison lost the case unfairly"

Harrison lifted the melody for heaven's sake, bless his heart.

TH
So said the first judge. Coincidence says I !!
Old 3rd December 2009
  #42
Moderator
 
narcoman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward_Vinatea View Post
No one argues that you could have a new recording derived from another one, BUT you still have to pay the publisher or the original copyright holder for that. So, who is ignorant?
No one is questioning payments or copyrights of publishers. The chap was asking about whether a new MASTER could constitute a new copyright. He was told "no". You mentioned the publishing - of which a new master has no connection to whatsoever - as i showed you in my example of an out of copyright work. The new recording would be copyright.

Two things are copyrightable in music.


The composition.

The recording.


That is it. NOTHING else. It's what the {p} and {c} are for.
Old 3rd December 2009
  #43
Lives for gear
 
Edward_Vinatea's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by narcoman View Post
Edward.

The little {c} and {p} symbols on every recording for ever.? Do you know what they mean?

This thread IS a good thread about RECORDING copyright - until you decided to derail it by discussing a parallel subject. PM me and find out a little more about me before you decide to publically berate me.
What does that have to do with issue at hand, whether {P} or {C}, they both warn that a work is protected by copyright laws, whether it's true or not. And again where are the links to your terms?
Old 3rd December 2009
  #44
Lives for gear
 
Edward_Vinatea's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by narcoman View Post
Again - Edward - you fail to even stay on your own topic!! No one is questioning payments or copyrights of publishers. The chap was asking about whether a new MASTER could constitute a new copyright. He was told "no". Then you chimed in about publishing - of which a new master has no connection to whatsoever - as i showed you in my example of an out of copyright work. The new recording would be copyright.

Two things are copyrightable in music.


The composition.

The recording.


That is it. NOTHING else. It's what the {p} and {c} are for.
It doesn't matter, you can still own that intellectual property so long as you can prove you created it. The best way is using either forms PA or SR. They hold up in court much better than anything else.
Old 3rd December 2009
  #45
Moderator
 
narcoman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward_Vinatea View Post
What does that have to do with issue at hand, whether {P} or {C}, they both state that a work is protected by copyright laws. And again where are the links to your terms?
the {p} is publishing copyright. The {c} is recording copyright. What more can I say? These aren't my terms Edward. They represent internationally honored copyright precepts!! I haven't argued that works aren't copyright! I've argued that a new master doesn't depend on a publishing copyright either way. It only depends on the recorded work..... the reason a new master isn't a new copyright is because a master NEVER constitutes an element of copyright. The recording - the bit eluded to in the {c} on any internationally recognized copyright work - is the protected art. As I keep ayig - not the mix or master. Hells teeth, Edward - I commission and license these ruddy things on a daily basis!!

EDIT = I've got these the wrong way round - being the idiot I can be!! I'll leave it unchanged but for the record:

P refers to the recording
C refers o he copyright of the composition.
Old 3rd December 2009
  #46
Lives for gear
 
Edward_Vinatea's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by narcoman View Post
the {p} is publishing copyright. The {c} is recording copyright. What more can I say? These aren't my terms Edward. They represent internationally honored copyright precepts!! I haven't argued that works aren't copyright! I've argued that a new master doesn't depend on a publishing copyright either way. It only depends on the recorded work..... the reason a new master isn't a new copyright is because a master NEVER constitutes an element of copyright. The recording - the bit eluded to in the {c} on any internationally recognized copyright work - is the protected art. As I keep ayig - not the mix or master. Hells teeth, Edward - I commission and license these ruddy things on a daily basis!!
You are implying that if you heard a music line I created then you cleverly used it on a new techno track and can claim it as yours because you recorded it. You are making a huge mistake if you think I can't take you to court and make you stop selling the record and even pay me a fine. I can do that even if you never heard my line but I can prove I have Prima Facie evidence. All I'd need is a registration of copyright to collect money from you.
Old 3rd December 2009
  #47
Lives for gear
 
Taurean's Avatar
Under contract, a publisher is a person or entity that has control over how a body of work or album or composition is duplicated and distributed. For example, an artist can be signed to a label and the label under contract owns the mechanical publishing of the record but of course the artist is the creator and owner of the composition(s) itself. Could the owner also have publishing? Of course, but they are two distinct things on paper.
Old 3rd December 2009
  #48
Moderator
 
narcoman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward_Vinatea View Post
You are implying that if you heard a music line I created and then you cleverly used it on a new techno track and claim it as yours because you recorded it, you are making a huge mistake if you think I can't take you to court and make you stop selling the record and even pay me a fine. I can do that even if you never heard my line but I can prove I have Prima Facie evidence.
Not quite
I have said that a new master is not a new copyright because the recording is where the performance copyright lies. That is all. Nothing more can be inferred. No mention of the publishing being breeched. Nothing about ignoring any other rights. Only the mention that the reason a master cannot have a new copyright attached to it's recording processing is because it is merely a re-representation of an already copyright work. The publishing is still intact either way....
Old 3rd December 2009
  #49
Lives for gear
 
Edward_Vinatea's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by TranscendingM View Post
Under contract, a publisher is a person or entity that has control over how a body of work or album or composition is duplicated and distributed. For example, an artist can be signed to a label and the label under contract owns the mechanical publishing of the record but of course the artist is the creator and owner of the composition(s) itself. Could the owner also have publishing? Of course, but they are two distinct things on paper.
Agreed, however, we are discussing a scenario where the publisher is also the artist, which is now becoming norm, and which some things still don't change: copyright protection.
Old 3rd December 2009
  #50
Lives for gear
 
Taurean's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward_Vinatea View Post
You are implying that if you heard a music line I created then you cleverly used it on a new techno track and can claim it as yours because you recorded it. You are making a huge mistake if you think I can't take you to court and make you stop selling the record and even pay me a fine. I can do that even if you never heard my line but I can prove I have Prima Facie evidence. All I need is a certificate of copyright to collect money from you.
Edward, this is not necessarily true. Just because these elements are separate on paper, it doesn't imply that a recording is orphaned or free game. Technically, if the artist expresses an original idea and records it, the expressed idea is theirs as well as the recording. Really, publishing under contract is the deviation from that.
Old 3rd December 2009
  #51
Lives for gear
 
Taurean's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward_Vinatea View Post
Agreed, however, we are discussing a scenario where the publisher is also the artist, which is now becoming norm, and which some things still don't change: copyright protection.
An artist most certainly can be their own publisher, yes. But the technical terms are still distinct and independent for the scenarios of contractual agreements where the distinction must be clear for legality.
Old 3rd December 2009
  #52
Lives for gear
 
Edward_Vinatea's Avatar
 

I have those examples to establish the importance of registering one's work.
Old 3rd December 2009
  #53
Lives for gear
 
Taurean's Avatar
Just to reinforce what Narcoman said, "mixing and mastering" are works for hire. That's the nature of those services. Unless (underhandedly) stated in some contract, they do not change the state of ownership for that copyright.
Old 3rd December 2009
  #54
Lives for gear
 
Edward_Vinatea's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by TranscendingM View Post
An artist most certainly can be their own publisher, yes. But the technical terms are still distinct and independent for the scenarios of contractual agreements where the distinction must be clear for legality.
Correct, except, lots of people are now also their own record company, so go figure the scope of things being taken out of this equation.
Old 3rd December 2009
  #55
Moderator
 
narcoman's Avatar
 

yes - true indeed. But not what this thread was about!!!
Old 3rd December 2009
  #56
Lives for gear
 
Taurean's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward_Vinatea View Post
Correct, except, lots of people are now also their own record company, so go figure the scope of things being taken out of this equation.
Sure... this stuff can easily be confused because the legality of the terms are usually looked at first where as the technical meanings, which are simpler, can tell you what is what.
Old 3rd December 2009
  #57
Lives for gear
 
Edward_Vinatea's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by TranscendingM View Post
Edward, this is not necessarily true. Just because these elements are separate on paper, it doesn't imply that a recording is orphaned or free game. Technically, if the artist expresses an original idea and records it, the expressed idea is theirs as well as the recording. Really, publishing under contract is the deviation from that.
The only recordings I know of that are "free game" are those who belong in the public domain or have not been yet registered, or a new idea, whatever. Show me an article that supports your contention to the otherwise and I will be revise my knowledge per the new evidence. As far I know, there is no such thing.
Old 3rd December 2009
  #58
Lives for gear
 
Taurean's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward_Vinatea View Post
The only recordings I know of that are "free game" are those who belong in the public domain or have not been yet registered. Show me an article that supports your contention to the otherwise and I will be revise my knowledge per the new evidence. As far I know, there is no such thing.
But most of these public domain material are usually after the life of an artist plus the 70 years that have passed or they were intentionally made for public domain.
Old 3rd December 2009
  #59
Lives for gear
 
Edward_Vinatea's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by TranscendingM View Post
But most of these public domain material are usually after the life of an artist plus the 70 years that have passed or they were intentionally made for public domain.
Right, I think we are pretty much on the same page. as far as the OP first questions, I alraedy answered best as I could on post #36.

Regards,
Old 3rd December 2009
  #60
Moderator
 
narcoman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward_Vinatea View Post
The only recordings I know of that are "free game" are those who belong in the public domain or have not been yet registered, or a new idea, whatever. Show me an article that supports your contention to the otherwise and I will be revise my knowledge per the new evidence. As far I know, there is no such thing.
Well yes - precisely. A recording that is in the public domain is by definition "free game". In fact the only "free game" recordings would be public domain. There are quite a few from the 50's !! Many Beatles recordings are very close to being public domain too - a few more years {not the songs - just he recordings.... just so we are also on he same page!!}. I rather suspect that great contentions will be made in this area.
Top Mentioned Products
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
10 Dollars / So much gear, so little time
14
homestudioguy / So much gear, so little time
4
djsandman / Music Business
14
emazeone / Rap + Hip Hop engineering and production
2

Forum Jump
Forum Jump