Music Copyright Question

[glenn71x Profile Private message]

Not sure if this is the right place for this post....

What is the law about using music on your shows. Here is my issue..
If I purchase a song by download I can use it in my personal show, right? Can I also post my show for personal use on the web. Facebook and You Tube have both deleted my shows before because they claim it is illegally used music. Is it though? If I purchased a song can't I post my personal show on my facebook page. I am not selling it or using it for personal gain. Just curious...

Thanks all!

[Barkingmad Profile Private message]

When you purchase music for download, that gives you the right to listen to it ... not the right to use it in shows, personal or otherwise - unless you have purchased royalty free music for this purpose.
A quick search for copyright music in this forum will bring up loads of information on this topic.

[Robert Barnett]

Take a look here:

http://www.archive.org/index.php

All of the stuff on this site is either out of copyright or copyrighted but the owner is allowing free use. I have found a lot of useful things here. Including music and video.

Robert

[DickK Profile Private messageWebsite]

Big topic. But the questions you've asked all have "no" as the likely answer.

More information here:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=8583
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=8758
and quite a few other threads here.

The quick version is that when you buy music you, in general, got the right to listen to it. That's it. Doing anything except that will, in general, infringe the rights of the copyright holder. There are several types of exceptions to that, but unless you have specifically acquired the other rights as part of the transaction, you don't have them.

Whether enforced or not, if you include commercial music (downloaded or ripped from media) and include that music in a slideshow, it will probably violate terms of your license and infringe the rights of the actual rights holder. Posting that show online may make both you and the website vulnerable.

Many people ignore all of that and many sites don't take action against violators but they can.

Dick

[BarbaraC Profile Private messageWebsite]

Robert, I just drilled down through the site you linked to, looking for music that could be used even commercially, and I finally hit pay dirt! Thank you for sharing it.

Anyone else looking through the site: Pay very close attention to the terms of use. In many cases, you can use the items personally but not commercially unless given permission.

Barbara

[debngar Profile Private message]

Ah yes, the never ending discussion about copyrights..... LOL

As Barbara pointed out, it's wise to check terms of use for any item you intend on using. They are going to vary from one thing to another.

Seems to me that unless the website owner of archive.org actually OWNS ALL the copyrights to ALL that material on the site, he/she is deluding people into believing it's "public domain" and free to use etc. I wonder how they have the right to offer the files if they don't own the copyrights?

It looks like even THIS organization doesn't "own" the copyrights to photos of Louis Armstrong on their website for instance. Copyrights vary from image to image as the pictures were taken by various photographers and some copyright holders are not identifiable.
http://www.louisarmstronghouse.org/

I noticed some audio/music files offered on archive.org didn't have any kind of "terms of use" assigned to them. Unless I missed something, as example, see the Louis Armstrong file here:

http://www.archive.org/details/Misbehavin

This is the website "terms of use" disclaimer but is still a slippery slope I would think.

http://www.archive.org/about/terms.php

[BarbaraC Profile Private messageWebsite]

I think that, unless the copyright was renewed on the Armstrong recording, it would be in the public domain at this point since it's now 80 years later, but you're totally correct, Debbie, to think about every single one of the items, not taking anyone's word for it. There's more than enough evidence that the world at large doesn't have a good handle on copyright.

Barbara

[AMD Profile Private message]

It is my understanding that there are no "recordings" that are in public domain at all. I believe this is the result of the 1972 law which added protection to all recordings in existence at the time. Someone, please correct me if I am wrong.

Ann

[BarbaraC Profile Private messageWebsite]

Ann, is it possible that, when they changed the length of copyright and the manner in which copyright was renewed that they did some kind of blanket thing covering all recordings from a certain date up through that year? I remember something about this, but it's so darned fuzzy in my head that I don't dare say another word about it for fear of appearing an even greater fool than I already am.

Barbara

[BarbaraC Profile Private messageWebsite]

Ann, I could find no 1972 law, but I did find this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1976

Reading it carefully, I found nothing to indicate that all recordings ever made are still covered by copyright, but it's obvious that it handled the problem where a lot of stuff that should have been covered ended up being rightfully covered.

Barbara

[debngar Profile Private message]

I could be wrong but thought I'd read somewhere that the heirs of an original copyright holder could officially renew copyrights associated the piece of work.

Still a very complicated matter.

Ah ha! I just found this. As is stated in this link a ways down, the devil is in the (complicated) details!

http://www.copylaw.com/new_articles/copyterm.html

This may be an eye opener to some.
Copyright Myths:
http://www.copylaw.com/new_articles/copy_myths.html

Locating Copyright Holders:
http://www.copylaw.com/new_articles/permission.html

[BarbaraC Profile Private messageWebsite]

Oy! I give up! I shall henceforth assume that everything after DaVinci is copyrighted!

Barbara

[AMD Profile Private message]

Barbara,

Check out this info regarding public domain work. Look at the area under recordings. I believe that the 1972 law covered any recordings already done at the time--if I am understanding correctly. I had seen that information other places also--just don't remember exactly where.

http://www.pdinfo.com/faq.php

Ann

[BarbaraC Profile Private messageWebsite]

Ann, though I found mention of recordings prior to 1972, I couldn't find anything about what happened in that year. Did I miss it? I probably did since there was a huge amount to read. Can you point it out to me because I'm insanely curious about the law that seems to have confused things for so many of us.

I really liked it when a copyright was in effect for x-number of years, and then if so desired, the copyright could be extended for another x-number of years. I could understand it.

Barbara

[BarbaraC Profile Private messageWebsite]

Found this and don't understand it because I believe it was written in Martian:

"a -With respect to sound recordings fixed before February 15, 1972,
any rights or remedies under the common law or statutes of any State
shall not be annulled or limited by this title until February 15,
2067. The preemptive provisions of subsection (a) shall apply to any
such rights and remedies pertaining to any cause of action arising
from undertakings commenced on and after February 15, 2067.
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 303, no sound recording
fixed before February 15, 1972, shall be subject to copyright under
this title before, on, or after February 15, 2067."

See what I mean? Martian, for sure.

Barbara