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
did I violate copyright?!? Effects Pedals, Units & Accessories
Old 17th September 2011
  #1
Gear Head
 
Multiplier's Avatar
 

did I violate copyright?!?

I just had a track taken down from SoundCloud because of a copyright dispute.

does taking 6 seconds of an acapella I found on the web (I think someone's home-made acapella) mean I violated copyright?


thanks
Old 17th September 2011
  #2
Yes. Even using a fraction of a second of someone else's sound recording, without authorization, is copyright infringement. Sometimes people get away without the offended party finding out and/or filing a claim/charges.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Gearslutz.com
Old 17th September 2011
  #3
Gear Head
 
Multiplier's Avatar
 

what about "fair use"?

I done some googling and it appears to be a grey area. especially since I completely changed the nature of the track (when compared to the original work).
Old 17th September 2011
  #4
Is the acapella clip used once or multiple times? Sometimes law is one big grey area. Is it chopped up or are you using an entire melody line? If your using the track with the sampled song for financial profit, I'm not sure fair use ever covers that.

I'm no entertainment lawyer but unless this is non-profit or educational use, use caution because your intent was and you did post it where many people could listen to it. Anytime you are using another sound recording in your track it is best to get permission.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Gearslutz.com
Old 17th September 2011
  #5
Gear Head
 
Multiplier's Avatar
 

I used the short sample 4 or 5 times throughout.

I've done some more reading into this (partly because I'm interested, partly because Im using SoundCloud to build a fan base and I was initially crazy ill-informed about copyright).

from what I gather, "fair-use" is a US law thing, and me in the UK has a much much weaker "fair-deal" thing. and I definitely don't have a case for "fair-deal", but I think I would theoretically have a very strong case for "fair-use". regardless, I'd wager that more than half of SoundCloud violates copyright anyway, and by the way they give you warnings (i.e. giving you a warning and then removing the track, instead of going straight into legal stuff), I have to just except it. Although I'm ethically in the right, legally I might technically be in the wrong, so it's best to let it slide.

bad move on SoundCloud's side though have this auto-detection software... I don't like it and am looking into viable alternatives to get my stuff out there.
Old 17th September 2011
  #6
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Multiplier View Post
I just had a track taken down from SoundCloud because of a copyright dispute.

does taking 6 seconds of an acapella I found on the web (I think someone's home-made acapella) mean I violated copyright?


thanks
yes
you violated copyright

what makes you think that you didnt ?
Old 17th September 2011
  #7
Lives for gear
 
mlange's Avatar
 

At what point did copyright attach to the material? How was it copywritten?
Old 17th September 2011
  #8
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Multiplier View Post
I used the short sample 4 or 5 times throughout.

I've done some more reading into this (partly because I'm interested, partly because Im using SoundCloud to build a fan base and I was initially crazy ill-informed about copyright).

from what I gather, "fair-use" is a US law thing, and me in the UK has a much much weaker "fair-deal" thing. and I definitely don't have a case for "fair-deal", but I think I would theoretically have a very strong case for "fair-use". regardless, I'd wager that more than half of SoundCloud violates copyright anyway, and by the way they give you warnings (i.e. giving you a warning and then removing the track, instead of going straight into legal stuff), I have to just except it. Although I'm ethically in the right, legally I might technically be in the wrong, so it's best to let it slide.

bad move on SoundCloud's side though have this auto-detection software... I don't like it and am looking into viable alternatives to get my stuff out there.
to get your stuff out there
then use *your* stuff
dont violate copyright by using other peoples stuff

ethically you are wrong just as you are wrong legally
Old 17th September 2011
  #9
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Multiplier View Post
what about "fair use"?

I done some googling and it appears to be a grey area. especially since I completely changed the nature of the track (when compared to the original work).

derivative work is not fair use

fair use is slightly gray
but you are way over in the black side
Old 17th September 2011
  #10
Gear Guru
 
drBill's Avatar
Simply put.

YES.
Old 17th September 2011
  #11
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mlange View Post
At what point did copyright attach to the material? How was it copywritten?
copyright attaches at the moment a work is fixed in a medium
so if yo usampled it then it was already in a medium so you could sample it from that medium hence copyrighted

registering the copyright is a second step
you need to do that to sue and get damages and penalties and....more .....
but registering is not necessary to get your *** tossed off a sight if you violated a copyright

write your own stuff
stop stealing others work by sampling
you can get sued and lose a bunch for less than 6 seconds
Old 17th September 2011
  #12
Lives for gear
 
RedTuxedo's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by mlange View Post
At what point did copyright attach to the material? How was it copywritten?
It was put in a tangible form (the a cappella recording).

Someone might have paid to make that recording, and then the OP just decided to use it without asking, paying....
Old 17th September 2011
  #13
Gear Guru
 
drBill's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldeanalogueguy View Post
copyright attaches at the moment a work is fixed in a medium
Actually on a theoretical-technical level, copyright attaches the moment an idea is written. It does not have to be recorded to be "copywritten". For instance, if you write a song, and play it for a buddy, he cannot go home and rip it off even though you have not recorded it yet. It's already copywritten once you write it. For all practical purposes though, you care correct.

This whole thread is distressing. I remember the good old days when people KNEW they were stealing, and hid it. heh Now, they just assume anything is fair game......
Old 17th September 2011
  #14
Gear Head
 
Multiplier's Avatar
 

my logic:

just about every genre of music (rock, jazz, dance, etc..), and just about every form of music (live, production, DJing, etc..) take other people's ideas and transform them into something new.

and that was why I didn't think I was breaking copyright. I'd heard a little about "fair-use", and it turns out would have a relatively strong "fair-use" case. It's a US Law though, and the UK Law is a much stupider "fair-deal" thing.
Old 17th September 2011
  #15
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Multiplier View Post
my logic:

just about every genre of music (rock, jazz, dance, etc..), and just about every form of music (live, production, DJing, etc..) take other people's ideas and transform them into something new.
look, I'm all for sampling, but what you are doing is taking someone's ideas and using them wholesale within your own work in such a way that they are recognizable enough to get *yoinked* for copyright infringement.

most people find a snare sound they like from some obscure 60's record, pitch/EQ/compress it, make it something new. what you are talking about is an outright transplant.
Old 17th September 2011
  #16
Lives for gear
 
Paul Vnuk Jr.'s Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Multiplier View Post
my logic:

just about every genre of music (rock, jazz, dance, etc..), and just about every form of music (live, production, DJing, etc..) take other people's ideas and transform them into something new.
Also be aware that over the years many bands from the Beatles to Led Zeppelin have been sued AND LOST over this very thing, and I am not talk sampling, I am talking "sounds like" riffs and such.

XJ
Old 17th September 2011
  #17
Gear Head
 
Multiplier's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by LimpyLoo View Post
look, I'm all for sampling, but what you are doing is taking someone's ideas and using them wholesale within your own work in such a way that they are recognizable enough to get *yoinked* for copyright infringement.

most people find a snare sound they like from some obscure 60's record, pitch/EQ/compress it, make it something new. what you are talking about is an outright transplant.
nah, I sampled 6 seconds of vocals (I didn't even just transplant it in, I tweaked the pitch in Melodyne, and changed the vibe of the vox with Ozone and Nectar too). and wrote a completely new song around it.

ok, well I guess I used the same chord progressions for some of the bits (completely different instruments and timing though still), but you can't copyright a chord progression or a melody. well actually you might be able to, but if you can, thats legal BS, thats like when the early tech companies tried to copyright stuff like "hyperlinking". it's stupid.
Old 17th September 2011
  #18
Gear Head
 
Multiplier's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by xj32 View Post
Also be aware that over the years many bands from the Beatles to Led Zeppelin have been sued AND LOST over this very thing, and I am not talk sampling, I am talking "sounds like" riffs and such.

XJ
hmmm, did not know that.

guess the law is stupider than I thought

EDIT: I should stop saying "stupid" so much. I'm not a 12year old, I'm actually a real person.
Old 17th September 2011
  #19
Unfortunately for some, no matter how you feel about it we have to play by the rules. They are set up to fuel the creation of new creative works. You may not think they are fueling your creative works, but just imagine if songwriting was your full time job and someone else made money from 6 seconds they took from you and used it in every chorus in their hit song. Wouldn't you think your entitled to a cut?

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Gearslutz.com
Old 17th September 2011
  #20
Lives for gear
 
RedTuxedo's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Multiplier View Post
nah, I sampled 6 seconds of vocals (I didn't even just transplant it in, I tweaked the pitch in Melodyne, and changed the vibe of the vox with Ozone and Nectar too). and wrote a completely new song around it.

ok, well I guess I used the same chord progressions for some of the bits (completely different instruments and timing though still), but you can't copyright a chord progression or a melody. well actually you might be able to, but if you can, thats legal BS, thats like when the early tech companies tried to copyright stuff like "hyperlinking". it's stupid.
Chord progressions are not copyrightable, melodies are FOR SURE.

So are arrangements.

You sound like you're trying to skate on this.

You took someones creative idea. It might have taken a few minutes to come up with that idea, but a lifetime of experience to get there.

And you didn't come up with it.

BTW, I actually downloaded your version prior to it getting pulled, and used a snippet of it for a track I'm doing. It's not a chorus part. I have an ad agency really interested in the piece. They are looking to pay me a good bit of money for it. Hope you don't mind.....
Old 17th September 2011
  #21
Gear Head
 
Multiplier's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jkchuma View Post
Unfortunately for some, no matter how you feel about it we have to play by the rules. They are set up to fuel the creation of new creative works. You may not think they are fueling your creative works, but just imagine if songwriting was your full time job and someone else made money from 6 seconds they took from you and used it in every chorus in their hit song. Wouldn't you think your entitled to a cut?

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Gearslutz.com
nope. but Im starting to think my views on this are different to the norm.

I think it's like me trying to copyright the word "HADOOGOLLYDONK" (which I just made up). if it can't be enforced short of irrational cost, I don't think it should be copywritable. I can't stop you saying HADOOGOLLYDONK, so I shouldn't be able to copywrite it.

I wholeheartedly agree with the spirit of these laws, I just don't like it when they semi-randomly enforce it.



I think it's time for me to admit I was/am in the wrong. But I was only doing what I thought was fair game, and short of studying copywrite law, is all I could do.
Old 17th September 2011
  #22
Lives for gear
 
RedTuxedo's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Multiplier View Post
nope. but Im starting to think my views on this are different to the norm.

I think it's like me trying to copyright the word "HADOOGOLLYDONK" (which I just made up). if it can't be enforced short of irrational cost, I don't think it should be copywritable. I can't stop you saying HADOOGOLLYDONK, so I shouldn't be able to copywrite it.

I wholeheartedly agree with the spirit of these laws, I just don't like it when they semi-randomly enforce it.



I think it's time for me to admit I was/am in the wrong. But I was only doing what I thought was fair game, and short of studying copywrite law, is all I could do.
But imagine if HADOOGOLLYDONK was being used on a TV show. And then it became the next big thing and every show was using something you came up with.

I can say it everyday, but when someone else is profiting from your idea, it becomes an issue. Why should someone else profit without you also making money?
Old 17th September 2011
  #23
Gear Addict
 
frawnchy's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Multiplier View Post
HADOOGOLLYDONK
Finally, my record label has a name!

Now I just need some records to release...

Hey...uh, you guys... you guys wanna donate six-second snippets of your tracks to my label?

Fair use though, amirite?
Old 17th September 2011
  #24
Gear Head
 
Multiplier's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by frawnchy View Post
Finally, my record label has a name!

Now I just need some records to release...

Hey...uh, you guys... you guys wanna donate six-second snippets of your tracks to my label?

Fair use though, amirite?
i genuinely wouldn't mind.
Old 17th September 2011
  #25
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Multiplier View Post
nope. but Im starting to think my views on this are different to the norm.

I think it's like me trying to copyright the word "HADOOGOLLYDONK" (which I just made up). if it can't be enforced short of irrational cost, I don't think it should be copywritable. I can't stop you saying HADOOGOLLYDONK, so I shouldn't be able to copywrite it.

I wholeheartedly agree with the spirit of these laws, I just don't like it when they semi-randomly enforce it.

I think it's time for me to admit I was/am in the wrong. But I was only doing what I thought was fair game, and short of studying copywrite law, is all I could do.
definitely not the norm ideawise

you cant copyright a word or a title
you might trademark one that is mad eup

jsut cause the law doesnt nail someone else
doesnt mean they wont destroy you for breaking it
Old 17th September 2011
  #26
Lives for gear
 
RedTuxedo's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Multiplier View Post
i genuinely wouldn't mind.
Then sign here.....

When I drive by in my Lambo, think about this....
Old 17th September 2011
  #27
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Multiplier View Post
nah, I sampled 6 seconds of vocals (I didn't even just transplant it in, I tweaked the pitch in Melodyne, and changed the vibe of the vox with Ozone and Nectar too). and wrote a completely new song around it.

ok, well I guess I used the same chord progressions for some of the bits (completely different instruments and timing though still), but you can't copyright a chord progression or a melody. well actually you might be able to, but if you can, thats legal BS, thats like when the early tech companies tried to copyright stuff like "hyperlinking". it's stupid.
you can definitely copyright melody
and probably most chord progressions that are not the same 3 used by all pop songs today

derivative work is protected
does not make it yours to use

legal bs to you
is the law to the rest o fthe world
fight it and you will end up in jail eventually
bankdrupt and still owing big judgements
Old 17th September 2011
  #28
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Multiplier View Post
my logic:

just about every genre of music (rock, jazz, dance, etc..), and just about every form of music (live, production, DJing, etc..) take other people's ideas and transform them into something new.

and that was why I didn't think I was breaking copyright. I'd heard a little about "fair-use", and it turns out would have a relatively strong "fair-use" case. It's a US Law though, and the UK Law is a much stupider "fair-deal" thing.
not exactly
derivative works are illegal
inspiration for your own idea is not

you have NO fair use exemption in the usa
what you did is outright theft per the copyright law
Old 17th September 2011
  #29
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by drBill View Post
Actually on a theoretical-technical level, copyright attaches the moment an idea is written. It does not have to be recorded to be "copywritten". For instance, if you write a song, and play it for a buddy, he cannot go home and rip it off even though you have not recorded it yet. It's already copywritten once you write it. For all practical purposes though, you care correct.

This whole thread is distressing. I remember the good old days when people KNEW they were stealing, and hid it. heh Now, they just assume anything is fair game......
true
but
in this case it was written to media when played
Old 17th September 2011
  #30
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Multiplier View Post
my logic:

just about every genre of music (rock, jazz, dance, etc..), and just about every form of music (live, production, DJing, etc..) take other people's ideas and transform them into something new.
But you didn't just take their idea, you took their Sound Recording, which is copyright Them. You did not even hire a bunch of singers, teach them that line and make your own recording of that melody, did you?

The people who sample stuff professionally have learned the hard way to clear those samples first. You can usually negotiate a very reasonable step-up deal, or you can just take it and wait to get sued for every dime you have.

Unless you are planning to argue the case on Constitutional grounds in front of the Supreme Court, "your logic" is not going to change what the law is or how it is interpreted.

It's not us here in this thread you would need to convince.
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump