When songs are available for download by the general public, do you think it's likely that the IMG will be subject to some kind of legal crap do to copyright infringement?
EC I have a question for you.
- Thread starter Mr. Hyde
- Start date
Eddies cellmate
Member
I don't think so Mr Hyde.
From the standpoint of the copyrights of the bands we're covering, we are not using any of thier actual playing (samples) and we're giving them the authoring credits, not claiming authorship as our own. On top of that, we're not selling the songs or marketing them in any way, so there's no issue from that standpoint either.
On the other side, all of the renditions of the songs themselves and the rights of the individual tracks belong to those that played them and the IMG. The IMG is granted a sort of de facto copyright just by posting them on our own website, further by adding an IMG copyright tag to the .mp3s and .wmas.
So I beleive that the rights to the original songs are retained by thier original authors (Iron Maiden, Metallica), the rights to our versions belong to us, and we're not infringing on the original authors because we're producing our own versions, and not using anything from thiers.
I haven't ever checked with a lawyer or anything, but I think that's how it goes. Again, it's unlikely that it would ever be at issue because we're not selling them, or marketing them in any way.
I think I've got that right.
From the standpoint of the copyrights of the bands we're covering, we are not using any of thier actual playing (samples) and we're giving them the authoring credits, not claiming authorship as our own. On top of that, we're not selling the songs or marketing them in any way, so there's no issue from that standpoint either.
On the other side, all of the renditions of the songs themselves and the rights of the individual tracks belong to those that played them and the IMG. The IMG is granted a sort of de facto copyright just by posting them on our own website, further by adding an IMG copyright tag to the .mp3s and .wmas.
So I beleive that the rights to the original songs are retained by thier original authors (Iron Maiden, Metallica), the rights to our versions belong to us, and we're not infringing on the original authors because we're producing our own versions, and not using anything from thiers.
I haven't ever checked with a lawyer or anything, but I think that's how it goes. Again, it's unlikely that it would ever be at issue because we're not selling them, or marketing them in any way.
I think I've got that right.
Eddies cellmate
Member
Oh, and as far as the "available for download to the general public" part of your question goes, it's not an issue because the versions we have posted are our own to do with as we please, as long as we aren't claiming to have written the original songs, which of course, we're not.
Ok. I thought I would ask about it because it seems like everytime something is both fun and free that there must be a law somewhere against it.
I am wondering though...even if none of the img tracks are meant to be used for profit, does that stop the creator of the original works from being entitled to compensation from works released to the public that are based on their creative efforts.
Maybe I worry to much about this stuff.
I am wondering though...even if none of the img tracks are meant to be used for profit, does that stop the creator of the original works from being entitled to compensation from works released to the public that are based on their creative efforts.
Maybe I worry to much about this stuff.
Eddies cellmate
Member
No, I don't beleive that it would Mr. H, because as long as the original author is credited with writing it, and none of the original version was used or sampled, the "cover" version belongs entirely to the artist that covered it.
Now I'm not sure if that goes as far as covering royalties, etc from broadcasts and whatever. It gets pretty complicated after awhile.
I remember a case where Coolio (I think) had tried to sue Weird Al Yankovich for recording his cover of "Gansta's Paradise" (the cover song was named "Amish Paradise", it was funny!). Weird Al had asked for permission to do the song and was denied. He went ahead and did it anyway, releasing it onto his album. Coolio wanted to sue, but was advised by his lawyers that there wasn't anything he could do about it. It was pretty interesting.
Now I'm not sure if that goes as far as covering royalties, etc from broadcasts and whatever. It gets pretty complicated after awhile.
I remember a case where Coolio (I think) had tried to sue Weird Al Yankovich for recording his cover of "Gansta's Paradise" (the cover song was named "Amish Paradise", it was funny!). Weird Al had asked for permission to do the song and was denied. He went ahead and did it anyway, releasing it onto his album. Coolio wanted to sue, but was advised by his lawyers that there wasn't anything he could do about it. It was pretty interesting.
Eddy
Old fart on this board
Similar threads
