Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 38

Thread: Copyright laws. Your views

  1. #1

    Default Copyright laws. Your views

    I think some music copyright laws are over the top, outdated, and stupid.

    I would of thought that copyright music that appears on some Youtube videos fits the video perfectly but gets flagged cuz its copyright.

    Though Youtube puts an add on the video which gives the viewer the opportunity to purchase the tune. Which is a good idea.

    I would have thought that the copyright owner would stand a greater chance of selling more tracks this way, after all its free advertising for them. Specially if its something you had never heard before but related it to the video and liked it.

    Thinking about it. if I recorded a hit single I would be delighted it was being used as the background music. Mind you I have since given up my day job and made millions on Youtube.

    What do you think Guys n Gals.

  2. #2

    Default

    The UK copyright law fact sheet outlines the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, the principal legislation covering intellectual property rights in the United Kingdom and the work to which it applies.
    1. Introduction Copyright law originated in the United Kingdom from a concept of common law; the Statute of Anne 1709. It became statutory with the passing of the Copyright Act 1911. The current act is the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
    2. Rights covered The law gives the creators of literary, dramatic, musical, artistic works, sound recordings, broadcasts, films and typographical arrangement of published editions, rights to control the ways in which their material may be used.
      The rights cover; broadcast and public performance, copying, adapting, issuing, renting and lending copies to the public.
      In many cases, the creator will also have the right to be identified as the author and to object to distortions of his work.
      International conventions give protection in most countries, subject to national laws.
    3. Types of work protected
      1. Literary song lyrics, manuscripts, manuals, computer programs, commercial documents, leaflets, newsletters & articles etc.
      2. Dramatic plays, dance, etc.
      3. Musical recordings and score.
      4. Artistic photography, painting, sculptures, architecture, technical drawings/diagrams, maps, logos.
      5. Typographical arrangement of published editions magazines, periodicals, etc.
      6. Sound recording may be recordings of other copyright works, e.g. musical and literary.
      7. Films broadcasts and cable programmes.
      The Copyright (Computer Programs) Regulations 1992 extended the rules covering literary works to include computer programs.
    4. When rights occur Copyright is an automatic right and arises whenever an individual or company creates a work. To qualify, a work should be regarded as original, and exhibit a degree of labour, skill or judgement.
      Interpretation is related to the independent creation rather than the idea behind the creation. For example, your idea for a book would not itself be protected, but the actual content of a book you write would be. In other words, someone else is still entitled to write their own book around the same idea, provided they do not directly copy or adapt yours to do so.
      Names, titles, short phrases and colours are not generally considered unique or substantial enough to be covered, but a creation, such as a logo, that combines these elements may be.
      In short, work that expresses an idea may be protected, but not the idea behind it.
    5. Who owns a piece of work Normally the individual or collective who authored the work will exclusively own the work. However, if a work is produced as part of employment then it will normally belong to the person/company who hired the individual.
      Freelance or commissioned work will usually belong to the author of the work, unless there is an agreement to the contrary, (i.e. in a contract for service).
      Rights cannot be claimed for any part of a work which is a copy taken from a previous work. For example, in a piece of music featuring samples from a previous work, the copyright of the samples would still remain with the original author.
      Only the owner, or his exclusive licensee can bring proceedings in the courts.
    6. Duration of copyright The 1988 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act states the duration of copyright as;
      1. For literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works 70 years from the end of the calendar year in which the last remaining author of the work dies.
        If the author is unknown, copyright will last for 70 years from end of the calendar year in which the work was created, although if it is made available to the public during that time, (by publication, authorised performance, broadcast, exhibition, etc.), then the duration will be 70 years from the end of the year that the work was first made available.
      2. Sound Recordings and broadcasts 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which the work was created, or,
        if the work is released within that time: 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which the work was first released.
      3. Films 70 years from the end of the calendar year in which the last principal director, author or composer dies.
        If the work is of unknown authorship: 70 years from end of the calendar year of creation, or if made available to the public in that time, 70 years from the end of the year the film was first made available.
      4. Typographical arrangement of published editions 25 years from the end of the calendar year in which the work was first published.
      5. Broadcasts and cable programmes 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which the broadcast was made.
      6. Crown Copyright Crown copyright will exist in works made by an officer of the Crown, this includes items such as legislation and documents and reports produced by government bodies.
        Crown Copyright will last for a period of 125 years from the end of the calendar year in which the work was made.
        If the work was commercially published within 75 years of the end of the calendar year in which it was made, Crown copyright will last for 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which it was published.
      7. Parliamentary Copyright Parliamentary Copyright will apply to work that is made by or under the direction or control of the House of Commons or the House of Lords and will last until 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which the work was made.
    7. Restricted acts It is an offence to perform any of the following acts without the consent of the owner:
      Copy the work.
      Rent, lend or issue copies of the work to the public.
      Perform, broadcast or show the work in public.
      Adapt the work.
      The author of a work, or a director of a film may also have certain moral rights:
      The right to be identified as the author.
      Right to object to derogatory treatment.
    8. Acts that are allowed Fair dealing is a term used to describe acts which are permitted to a certain degree without infringing the work, these acts are:
      • Private and research study purposes.
      • Performance, copies or lending for educational purposes.
      • Criticism and news reporting.
      • Incidental inclusion.
      • Copies and lending by librarians.
      • Acts for the purposes of royal commissions, statutory enquiries, judicial proceedings and parliamentary purposes.
      • Recording of broadcasts for the purposes of listening to or viewing at a more convenient time, this is known as time shifting.
      • Producing a back up copy for personal use of a computer program.
      • Playing sound recording for a non profit making organisation, club or society. (Profit making organisations and individuals should obtain a license from PRS for Music.)
    9. Useful addresses The Patent Office
      Concept House
      Cardiff Road
      Newport
      South Wales
      NP10 8QQ
      Tel: 08459 500 505
      Intellectual Property Office - Welcome to the Intellectual Property Office
      PRS for Music
      29-33 Berners Street
      London
      W1P 4AA
      Tel. (0207) 580 5544
      PRS for Music
      Copyright Licensing Agency
      Saffron House
      6-10 Kirby Street
      London
      EC1N 8TS
      Tel. 020 7400 3100
      Copyright Licensing Agency (CLA) : Home
    10. Further reading The original text for the 1988 Copyright Designs and Patent Act can be found at the OSPI (HMSO) website, but should be read in conjunction with all the relevant updates and statutory instruments.
      To avoid confusion, we recommend a copy that includes the amendments since 1988, such as can can be found at www.jenkins-ip.com or download as a PDF file directly from the UK Patent Office.
    This fact sheet is Copyright The UK Copyright Service and protected under UK and international law.
    The use of this fact sheet is covered by the conditions of a
    Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-No Derivative Works License.
    This fact sheet is intended only as an introduction to ideas and concepts only. It should not be treated as a definitive guide, nor should it be considered to cover every area of concern, or be regarded as legal advice.

  3. #3

    Default

    Men At Work stand to lose up to 60 per cent of the income gained from their 1983 hit 'Down Under', after a court ruled it had plagiarised a Girl Guides' song written in 1934.

    Sydney's federal court ordered compensation to be paid to music publisher Larrikin Music, who own the rights to 'Kookaburra Sits In The Old Gum Tree', which was written by Marion Sinclair for a Girl Guides Jamboree. The 1934 song has been sung by Girl Guides for decades since then.

    However, in a statement, songwriter Colin Hay has denied any wrongdoing. He admitted two bars of 'Kookaburra Sits In The Old Gum Tree' are part of the "arrangement" of 'Down Under', but not of the "composition" itself, reports the Herald Sun.

    "It is indeed true, that Greg Ham (not a writer of the song) unconsciously referenced two bars of 'Kookaburra…' on the flute, during live shows after he joined the band in 1979, and it did end up in the Men At Work recording. What's interesting to me, is that Mr Lurie is making a claim to share in the copyright of a song, namely 'Down Under', which was created and existed for at least a year before Men At Work recorded it. I stand by my claim that the two appropriated bars of 'Kookaburra' were always part of the Men At Work "arrangement", of the already existing work and not the "composition".

    A costs hearing for the case is set for late February, with Larrikin Music seeking 40 per cent to 60 per cent of earnings from Men At Work songwriters Hay and Ron Strykert, as well as record labels Sony BMG and EMI, reports BBC News.

    Under Australian law they can claim the last six years of royalties.

    Larrikin Music claimed that the flute riff from 'Down Under' was stolen from 'Kookaburra Sits In The Old Gum Tree'. Adam Simpson, a lawyer for the Larrikin Music, said the ruling was "a big win for the underdog".

    'Down Under' topped the singles charts in the UK, US and Australia.

    SOURCE

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Surrey, UK
    Posts
    10,844
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptionWorld View Post
    I think some music copyright laws are over the top, outdated, and stupid.
    I'll agree with outdated. The problem is finding a better model.

    Over the top? Something is either a copyright infringement or not - I don't see how that can be over the top.

    Stupid? Only in that it has not been developed to work with current methods of copying.

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptionWorld View Post
    Though Youtube puts an add on the video which gives the viewer the opportunity to purchase the tune. Which is a good idea.
    One of several possible ways forward though it is flawed in that it doesn't overcome the basic problem of the copyright owner having any rights as to how his work is used.

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptionWorld View Post

    Thinking about it. if I recorded a hit single I would be delighted it was being used as the background music.
    That's cos you're thinking like a capitalist that some say copyright laws are there to protect.

    If my next holiday home movie is set to the music of the Beatles and I advertise it as
    "The Beatles
    music video

    of Tim's holiday"

    I don't think that really is going to do the Beatles or their reputation much good.


    Similarly if the BNP chose too use one of Billy Bragg's tunes for their signature tune for their forthcoming election campaign, I don't think he'd be very pleased.
    Tim

  5. #5

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    4,192
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    A lot is made about multi-billion dollar corporations and how they can afford to "give away" some music, but it's the small business which rely on the copyright laws to protect them. The wedding videographer who doesn't want to just sell one dvd and have countless copies copied by all the relatives, the small band who find that "their" song paves the way for another group to cover it and get into the charts. Or the small band who rely on Pay-pal MP3 downloads from their website, only to find everyone mailing it to all their friends for free, and so on.

    Some bands might be happy to have anyone listen to their music but would they really be happy to have their music distributed without them earning anything, or getting any credit?

    Copyright law is like the speed limit for me, we know it's there and we tend to ignore it only for small, occasional reasons (a small you-tube vid for example) and hope that our transgression is so small that we get away with it. On the other hand, if you take the p*ss and use other people's material for commercial gain, you deserve to get prosecuted, like doing 70mph in a 30 limit.
    Last edited by Rembrandt Rob; 02-07-2010 at 08:28 PM.

  7. #7

    Default

    Not read thread. Stating briefly my views. In this context 'anything' refers to digital media stuff only - so no straw man bullshit please if anyone wants to blow off in that way.

    Steal anything for commercial purposes, a phil collins track for wedding video or sell copied dvds, go to jail.

    Steal to re use and re shape for creative purposes ONLY with no slight to the AUTHOR of said work, well, er, er - why on earth not. Did anyone die?
    Last edited by vertovian; 02-07-2010 at 08:58 PM.

  8. #8

    Default

    There are some good points of view here. Yes of course using a track for commercial purposes I would expect to pay the royalties no problem.

    I used a track from the owned music in Pinnacle studio which I bought. It was flagged by Youtube for copyright.

    Yes we must stay within the copyright law other wise its not worth the hassle.
    Its a case of Youtube comments like. Great video, Lousy background music.

  9. #9

    Default

    I dont think we should stay within copyright law.

    I speak only personally and in no way should any of what I say be taken any other way.

    The copyright laws as thay stand are farcical and unjust. Selective abuse of them is NOT a moral evil or a civil wrong - often quite the opposite in my view.

    Re use of media and texts and works of creatives by creatives is just the way these creatives types are - it's the fucking capitalists allied with dim biddable lobbied legislators that screw it all up for us.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Surrey, UK
    Posts
    10,844
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Gaffer View Post
    A lot is made about multi-billion dollar corporations and how they can afford to "give away" some music, but it's the small business which rely on the copyright laws to protect them.
    <SNIPPED other valid points with which I agree wholeheartedly>
    But it's more than just that. As Midnight (I think - many apologies if incorrectly attributed) said only last week, these large corporations employ staff of all levels on the back of their income from rights sold to them by artists. So it may not hurt the artist, or the CEO of a large corporation, but somewhere along the line the toilets aren't being cleaned quite as frequently as they used to be and someone is out of a job.

    Another point not yet touched on: Your local struggling composer. When you use for free something which adds value to your product, you are not simply denying the owner of that something a fee, you are alternatively denying your local struggling composer the opportunity to earn a fee for producing original material for your work. You are denying the opportunity for a collaboration where sound is at least as important as visuals.
    Tim

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. we need your views for our science PROJECT
    By tofuness in forum Pimp the Link
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-09-2009, 05:50 PM
  2. Need your views for our Science Project
    By tofuness in forum User Videos
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-09-2009, 10:59 AM
  3. 3 videos i need to get views on
    By rbedy in forum YouTube (and others) channel pimpage
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-07-2009, 01:26 PM
  4. I NEED THE VIEWS please help.
    By gallantry88 in forum User Videos
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-06-2007, 09:13 AM
  5. Views on a wedding montage
    By pseaman in forum User Videos
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 10-21-2004, 09:57 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •