Atlantic Records vs a guy who pays riffs online for fun?

thegummy

Ravenous said:

There are LOTS of examples of advertisers wanting to use a particular song for their tacky product and being refused by the owner. Pretty basic right really.

But is that the actual record or being denied the right to do a cover?

Ravenous

thegummy said:

Ravenous said:

There are LOTS of examples of advertisers wanting to use a particular song for their tacky product and being refused by the owner. Pretty basic right really.

But is that the actual record or being denied the right to do a cover?

Oh no! I'm talking purely about use of originals (there have been examples of that.)  I don't know of a re-recorded version for an advert causing trouble.

Sorry if I gave the wrong impression. 

thegummy

Ravenous said:

thegummy said:

Ravenous said:

There are LOTS of examples of advertisers wanting to use a particular song for their tacky product and being refused by the owner. Pretty basic right really.

But is that the actual record or being denied the right to do a cover?

Oh no! I'm talking purely about use of originals (there have been examples of that.)  I don't know of a re-recorded version for an advert causing trouble.

Sorry if I gave the wrong impression. 

No worries. I think that if the kareoke version does use the original backing track then it would come under the same as just using the actual record even sans-vocals.

If the kareoke tracks are re-recorded then surely it would be a cover and be allowed?

Interesting that it was mentioned about tweeting to the original singer - I wouldn't put it past some nerd who's in charge of her twitter account being the one who reported it.

Ravenous

thegummy said:

If the kareoke tracks are re-recorded then surely it would be a cover and be allowed?

Oh I just thought of another thing - if these karaoke tracks are licensed by the copyright owners, but use of these is limited to amateur home use or similar, then using them for a "published" version could probably be argued as a breach.

And use of lyrics (if any) is very likely to be a breach unless covered by one of these "fair use"/"fair dealing" exemptions.

Not that I'm a lawyer of course

thegummy

On one hand it's funny that we're getting into the legal technicalities when it was a little girl singing along to a pop hit.

On the other hand, it could be the next young Michael Jackson, better than most current pop stars and bypassing copyrights because of his age

Ravenous

thegummy said:

On one hand it's funny that we're getting into the legal technicalities when it was a little girl singing along to a pop hit.

On the other hand, it could be the next young Michael Jackson, better than most current pop stars and bypassing copyrights because of his age

Also I've just realised it's funny that I'm not sympathetic to the guy this thread started about - an adult doing guitar tunes online - but I am more sympathetic to the kid singing karaoke online.  I am an inconsistent old bugger aren't I?

Wolfetone

I am of two views on this for separate reasons.

Firstly, I feel for the guy as FB deleted his entire account with a lot of personal stuff which was incredibly harsh of them. I can sympathise with the fella. I think that if they applied that measure to the internet, there'd be nothing left.

On the other hand, he seems to think that stealing copyright or intellectual property is OK when there's no money being made. It isn't. people could misrepresent the product and bring it into a bad light or cause it to represent a view that the creator didn't intend.

Frightening stuff. We all play something of someone elses.

NelsonP

Back in the beginnings of online photosharing I had a Kodak Easyshare account. This meant that at any events I could share photos with friends and they could share theirs with me.

When Kodak went under it didn't occur to me to check the Easyshare website. A few months later I tried to log onto it to post some photos. And guess what. The website had been taken down, along with my photos.

Lesson learned: don't trust all of your photos and online memories to someone else who can easily take them away from you.

thegummy

I hate that since photo bucket introduced their ridiculous priced restriction, millions of potentially useful forum posts have been rendered useless. So much knowledge gone.

crunchman

NelsonP said:

Back in the beginnings of online photosharing I had a Kodak Easyshare account. This meant that at any events I could share photos with friends and they could share theirs with me.

When Kodak went under it didn't occur to me to check the Easyshare website. A few months later I tried to log onto it to post some photos. And guess what. The website had been taken down, along with my photos.

Lesson learned: don't trust all of your photos and online memories to someone else who can easily take them away from you.

Whatever photos I have online I have most of them on two computers plus backed up on two separate USB hard drives.  Call me old school but I'd never trust all my important data to iCloud/Googledrive/Dropbox.

ICBM

crunchman said:

NelsonP said:

don't trust all of your photos and online memories to someone else who can easily take them away from you.

Whatever photos I have online I have most of them on two computers plus backed up on two separate USB hard drives.  Call me old school but I'd never trust all my important data to iCloud/Googledrive/Dropbox.

This. I treat online hosting as just that - hosting. For sharing with both your multiple devices for convenience, and with the world when you want to - not storage.