It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Subscribe to our Patreon, and get image uploads with no ads on the site!
Base theme by DesignModo & ported to Powered by Vanilla by Chris Ireland, modified by the "theFB" team.
Comments
My Trading Feedback | You Bring The Band
Just because you're paranoid, don't mean they're not after youLegionreturns said: Tbh, Facebook for all of their billions of worth could really not afford to start paying anyone a publishing fee... think about the total amount of “copyrighted” content actually shared on that platform! Everything from extracts of books, music videos, peoples personal photos, news stories etc etc.
If Facebook paid a fee to everyone it actually need to pay would be out of business within a day!. Probably sooner!
Much easier (cheaper) just to shut an account down when someone breaks the law and gets caught doing so!...
That still wouldn't protect his Facebook account because I'm sure they have there own terms/conditions around this stuff.
Q) do you own the rights to the song?
If the answer is yes... fill ya boots!
if the answer is no...
do you have permission of the rights holder?
If the answer is yes... fill ya boots
if the answer is no... you are breaching copyright.
as for using the same chords? I guess it depends on how you use them... Tom petty got a fair chunk of cash from Sam Smith... still waiting for Marvin Gaye’s lot to have a pop at Ed Sheerhan
***edit*** they did indeed go for Ed:
https://amp.theguardian.com/music/2016/aug/10/ed-sheeran-sued-allegedly-copying-marvin-gaye-lets-get-it-on-thinking-out-loud
YouTube have an agreement in place, Mary Spender highlighted to this in her Tuesday Talks video, said that if you cover an artist song and choose to monetize it, a portion goes to the copyright holder. She specifically said Facebook do not.
Facebook are the worst anyway so I don't know why people put so much effort in to using such a flawed social media platform. Won't remove a video of a woman being decapitated despite numerous requests from users but sure as shit remove some randoms cover of songs because a record company has rattled their sabre.
He should just upload his videos to YouTube if he was making money out of it and is upset that his revenue has been forfeit.
Also - With regards to the "people get really upset if someone tries to sell a fake Gibson/Fender" I think most people get upset because people try to pass them off as genuine. If you want to sell a replica I have no problem with it at all as long as you're honest about it, if you're trying to sell it as a genuine then yes it is a problem and we all know that about 95% of replicas people try to sell as genuine. That's the issue for me, receiving a replica when I thought I was getting the genuine article, not whether Fender, who increase their prices on a bi-weekly basis it seems are getting paid.
Some interesting things on gov website on exceptions to copyright and fair use within the UK.
I'm also not sure if it would count if it were a reproduction... if he were to critique the riff it would probably be expected that he just use the original recording. That he could get away with - but I guarantee he'd have a major fight on his hands to do so, as most of the process for copyright strikes is automated.
He's in the US I think, so that's just a moot point...
Copy from the link...
Parody, caricature and pastiche
There is an exception to copyright that permits people to use limited amounts of copyright material without the owner’s permission for the purpose of parody, caricature or pastiche.
For example a comedian may use a few lines from a film or song for a parody sketch; a cartoonist may reference a well known artwork or illustration for a caricature; an artist may use small fragments from a range of films to compose a larger pastiche artwork.
It is important to understand, however, that this exception only permits use for the purposes of caricature, parody, or pastiche to the extent that it is fair dealing.
The other thing Youtube have that Facebook don't is their content payment system, that identifies and monetises things like covers of songs, and compensates singed-up content owners accordingly.
It's one of the reasons so many albums are uploaded and can be played through Youtube while not getting taken down, they actually are slightly monetised in many cases for the copyright owners. I'd presume the PRS are amongst the beneficiaries.
Mary Spender commented in a video about something similar, she had content taken off Facebook but instead Youtube shared a proportion of any ad revenue with the copyright holder.
Yes, sorry Fair Dealing is the correct term. But I have been told by a Law Professor at my university that a reproduction can be used for the purposes of criticism and review (I'm doing a Computer Science degree but there is sections on copyright law).
Strikes me as overreach.