The Song Fight Bulletin Board

While this is part sales pitch, the legal part seems right, too.

http://www.ascap.com/playback/2011/01/f ... light.aspx

That only applies if you are selling the song though right? If there is no monitary exchange can they come after you for royalties?

When referring to public domain works...

A simple rule of thumb — if you used sheet music to learn it, then you will need to secure a license.

I guess all those Beethoven sonatas are still copyrighted, eh?

Thanks, Ross. I've been wondering about this stuff for a while now. Like our GOM songs. It seems the artists don't really mind people covering their songs (except Prince, lol) but it's the record companies that don't like it. Obviously because they paid for those rights.

One of the intros I did for the Tokin Daily Show was meant to be a satire of an old song, but I purposely played it in a different key, used different notes, different tempo and it has different lyrics so the music isn't the same, but carries the same melody. So I could be sued for using the melody, which is really the "fame" to the song. The owner of the show knows what song it came from because I told him. It's very obvious to me. But no one has said anything about it. It's been heard now by tens of thousands. (he has over 10k subscribers and over 3 million views) I told Paul for fun that the person that guesses what song it came from, they win their name mentioned on the show. He said, why poke the bear, no one knows and think I just came up with a catchy jingle so just leave it be, lol.

So, without telling anyone where I got this melody, see who can guess what the original song is. (I don't think I've told anyone here)

This is the shows 1 minute outro theme. The melody I'm referring to is when the lyrics come in at the end.
Hear here >> http://www.lightningmp3.com/live/file.php?id=26639

BBABM wrote:That only applies if you are selling the song though right? If there is no monitary exchange can they come after you for royalties?

No I don't think that is right. I think that is what the Prince kerfuffle was about a few years ago. His record company going after bedroom hobbyists.

I am guessing though. Maybe someone who knows what they are talking about could elaborate.

Billy's Little Trip wrote:Thanks, Ross. I've been wondering about this stuff for a while now. Like our GOM songs. It seems the artists don't really mind people covering their songs (except Prince, lol) but it's the record companies that don't like it. Obviously because they paid for those rights.

One of the intros I did for the Tokin Daily Show was meant to be a satire of an old song, but I purposely played it in a different key, used different notes, different tempo and it has different lyrics so the music isn't the same, but carries the same melody. So I could be sued for using the melody, which is really the "fame" to the song. The owner of the show knows what song it came from because I told him. It's very obvious to me. But know one has said anything about it. It's been heard now by tens of thousands. (he has over 10k subscribers and over 3 million views) I told Paul for fun that the person that guesses what song it came from, they win their name mentioned on the show. He said, why poke the bear, no one knows and thing I just came up with a catchy jingle so just leave it be, lol.

So, without telling anyone where I got this melody, see who can guess what the original song is. (I don't think I've told anyone here)

This is the shows 1 minute outro theme. The melody I'm referring to is when the lyrics come in at the end.
Hear here >> http://www.lightningmp3.com/live/file.php?id=26639

Are you talking about where you ripped of the riff for "Smells Like Teen Spirit" at the beginning? Or "Rawhide" at the end? Neither Kurt or Frankie have been dead long enough for you to get away with that. You will be in court for years

Yeah, I was talking about Rawhide. I'm not hearing Teen Spirit though.

Generic wrote:When referring to public domain works...

A simple rule of thumb — if you used sheet music to learn it, then you will need to secure a license.

I guess all those Beethoven sonatas are still copyrighted, eh?

If you have the shirmer edition of the sonata, then the edition is copyrighted. If you have beethoven's original it is not. Check a classical cd, i think you might find that info sometimes.

This is how how book publishers can charge 8 bucks for a paperback of Moby Dick, they own the introduction and the commentary essays.

Ross wrote: I guess all those Beethoven sonatas are still copyrighted, eh?

If you have the shirmer edition of the sonata, then the edition is copyrighted. If you have beethoven's original it is not. Check a classical cd, i think you might that info sometimes.

This is how how book publishers can charge 8 bucks for a paperback of MobynDick, the own the introduction and the commentary essays.[/quote]
Ross, are you iterwebing from a phone? If so, get one with bigger letters to accommodate your giant human sized fingers.

But yes, that is funny how a cover of the cover would be copyright infringement. I blame Hitler.

"Why Poke The Bear" is an excellent title! And as to your other jiggery-pokery in this thread, well, if'n you changed the lyrics and the vibe of the groove you used as a reference (or ghost song) well hell... I'm not getting it. Will the writer?

I'm laughing at how badly I failed at Ross' quote up tharr ^^^^ while ribbing him about the same thing.

...I was a bit tipsy.

Rabz, that would be a good song title. I'd attack it with my bear hands.

Ross wrote:

Generic wrote:When referring to public domain works...

A simple rule of thumb — if you used sheet music to learn it, then you will need to secure a license.

I guess all those Beethoven sonatas are still copyrighted, eh?

If you have the shirmer edition of the sonata, then the edition is copyrighted. If you have beethoven's original it is not. Check a classical cd, i think you might find that info sometimes.

Here's my question, though. I'm aware that some publishers make corrections, annotations, and the like to sheet music, which is how they stake their own copyright claim on it. But I'm not talking about Xeroxing the sheet music and distributing that; I'm talking about recording my own hypothetical version of the same song they used as source material. How would they be able to tell from a recording whose sheet music I used to learn it? It's not as though any of the changes these publishers make are substantive (at least not for the Classical and Romantic Eras; I know they annotate the crap out of the Baroque guys who composed on harpsichords). I fully understand why I can't just cut a sample of a recent recording of someone else playing "Für Elise," but as far as I can see, there's legally no reason why I shouldn't be able to record myself playing it and distribute that without fear of legal ramifications.

This is how how book publishers can charge 8 bucks for a paperback of Moby Dick, they own the introduction and the commentary essays.

Book publishers charge way more than $8, even for older works. A currently in-print edition of Moby-Dick goes for about $30 now, I think. More for hardcover, of course. And yes, it's for the exact reasons you mentioned.

The exception is the Barnes & Noble Classics series and Dover Thrift Editions, which charge anywhere from $2 to $5 for shorter books and about $5-$10 for the longer ones (I got a B&N stamped Complete Works of Shakespeare in hardcover for $20, which is absurdly low when you look at the competition), which they manage by providing NO supplementary material. My copies of Shakespeare and the Canterbury Tales don't even have footnotes. Makes for smoother, more pleasant reading, if you happen to already know what they're talking about. If not? Good luck.

[Edit: Oh, and apparently a lot of Kindle and Nook editions of books whose main text has fallen into the public domain are distributed by Amazon and B&N free of charge. Nice.]

Caravan Ray wrote:

BBABM wrote:That only applies if you are selling the song though right? If there is no monitary exchange can they come after you for royalties?

No I don't think that is right. I think that is what the Prince kerfuffle was about a few years ago. His record company going after bedroom hobbyists.

I am guessing though. Maybe someone who knows what they are talking about could elaborate.

That's craziness. I totally understand someone trying to sell your song, or using your song to sell something, and wanting to be reimbursed... But going after me because I put my video of me playing purple rain on YouTube is madness.

No, it totally isn't. Because when someone enjoys your cover, you just cost the original artist the billion dollars he'd have made if that person had bought his original track instead.
See how it makes complete sense?

Generic wrote:
[Edit: Oh, and apparently a lot of Kindle and Nook editions of books whose main text has fallen into the public domain are distributed by Amazon and B&N free of charge. Nice.]

i am currentlynworking my way through all the sherlock holmes for free on my ipad thanks to the project gutenberg editions, all made available through apples ibook store.

[quote="Rabid Garfunkel"]"Why Poke The Bear" is an excellent title! [quote]

I concur. We should have a "Why Poke The Bear" sidefight where we make new songs but have to plagiarize.

Niveous wrote:

Rabid Garfunkel wrote:"Why Poke The Bear" is an excellent title!

I concur. We should have a "Why Poke The Bear" sidefight where we make new songs but have to plagiarize.

And they can only be Barry Manilow covers. "The Bare"

Billy's Little Trip wrote:

Niveous wrote:

Rabid Garfunkel wrote:"Why Poke The Bear" is an excellent title!
I concur. We should have a "Why Poke The Bear" sidefight where we make new songs but have to plagiarize.

And they can only be Barry Manilow covers. "The Bare"

*shudder*

EDIT: how did y'all screw up the quoting so badly?