#41

I was wondering about machine learning. I understand that pictures can have copyright code embedded into them so they can be discovered “easily”. I also understand that the time limit for suing is around 3 years since anyone published anything

#42

While various forms of steganography are possible, this isn’t really necessary. It’s quite simple to write a crawler that can recognize degrees of similarity for pretty much any type of content.

I’d have to talk to a lawyer to get specific about statute of limitations for civil actions. There’s no limit on what people can try to get you to do “voluntarily” by sending frightening letters from fancy lawyers.

#43

Online publication is an ongoing infringement

2 Likes
#44

Great post.

I think there’s no black and white answers on this topic, but it can be pretty much summarized as follows (from the post):

If you’re borrowing inspiration from any copyrighted material, even if it seems clear to you that your use is transformational, you’re in danger. If your use is commercial and/or potentially objectionable, seek permission (though there’s no guarantee it’ll be granted) or be prepared to defend yourself in court.

And:

Anyone can file a lawsuit and the costs of defending yourself against a claim are high, regardless of how strong your case is. Combined with vague standards, the result is a chilling effect for every independent artist hoping to build upon or reference copyrighted works.

6 Likes
#45

@WhiteNoise, don’t know whether you’re in the US, but my argument in a situation like this would be that it falls under “Fair Use”.

There are four main factors in whether or not something can be considered Fair Use, all of which are case-by-case:

  1. The “purpose and character of the use”, which takes into account whether or not the use is commercial, to what extent is it “transformative”, etc etc. Not that it’s applicable to what we’re discussing here, but uses like research, criticism, commentary & parody are specifically protected by fair use.

  2. The “nature of the copyrighted work” – a kind of fuzzy area. Facts and ideas aren’t copyrightable but their expression can be. Things that get considered would be things like, is the work fictional / non-fictional, has it been published or not, etc.

  3. The “amount and substantiality” of the use.

  4. The “effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work”. In the hypothetical case of random YouTube guy – does the copyrighted work even HAVE a “market”? Is it monetized? And if so, does the hypothetical use take away from it in some way? Are people going to be listening to whatever you make out of his sample INSTEAD of his YouTube video and depriving him of some sort of income? Is it a substitute for it? I’m kind of guessing not.

Caveat emptor;I am not a lawyer, just a layman enthusiast intellectual property law geek…

(edit: spelling)

#46

They may be, but as it has been said earlier, litigation is costly even if what you’re doing is legal.

1 Like
#47

Very gray area, not good for the risk averse…

3 Likes
#48

This is true. And fair use is an “affirmative defense” – it’s not automatic, the burden is on the defendant (i.e., you) to demonstrate it. It’s not a Get Out of Jail Free card.

I do rely on it occasionally though. I feel like, if they haven’t gone after Girl Talk, they’re unlikely to go after me. :laughing:

4 Likes
#49

Another paranoid question is: can these crawler find breaches of copyright even when the proof has been deleted? Can you get sued after you delete the copyrighted pictures from your blog?

#50

The crawlers run continuously, and the letter might come much later. So, no, they can’t find deleted things, but yes, they’re likely to find infringement when it’s available on the web for any amount of time.

Keep in mind, I’m speaking from experience with stock photography infringement. Comments in this thread give me the impression that the music industry never got quite so draconian, but then again, it also sounds like they have the tools available to become draconian at any moment.

And it also seems to depend on venue. For example, if you put any more than a few seconds of a commercial track in the background of a youtube video, all the monetization for the video will go to the rights holder for that track. That’s pretty draconian! And it doesn’t involve lawyer letters or courts. If you want to appeal, you’re going through youtube bureaucracy, and my impression is that you aren’t likely to prevail.

Adam Neely has an older video about how this really violates the spirit of fair use, but it is what it is.

4 Likes
#51

I think your post is still relevant, as we all do covers for our albums on bandcamp or we put pictures along tracks on soundcloud or we use pictures as backgrounds in music sharing services

1 Like
#53

How much of this advice/warnings applies to an album containing cover versions?

I’m just finishing an album which is like half covers. In past I sold albums only through cd sales at gigs or a busking pitch or whatever… And obviously never had an issue with that!

The new one I might want to put on bandcamp once it’s done, no samples are used and the covers are not that close, I try to make my own version unique - different licks, tempos and arrangements. I think for each cover more than 50 years since original recordings released.

#55

Haha, this is superinteresting. We haven’t recorded anything yet, but live we have made use of several sources to sample as interludes between tracks. We mix the spoken audio with CC licensed sounds but they’re pretty clear and recognisable. I don’t imagine we’ll be on anyone’s hitlist though :joy:

#56

For cover versions, you need a Mechanical License, which (in the US) you can get from songfile.com. I know the UK and some other jurisdictions have a similar process.

1 Like
#57

I purposely get royalty free ones haha

1 Like
#58

My fav blatantly copyright infringing sample based album got by distributing it in a country with better copyright laws but that was so long ago I’m sure it’s not relevant. Worth a listen tho.

4 Likes
#59

I work at a music company (nowhere near the size of a UMG or Sony) and we almost always try to find a business solution for unauthorized derivative works (e.g. samples, translations, whatever…). That means negotiating a fee and share of copyright (maybe even 100%) of the new work. At least in the US you need permission before creating a derivative work.

It’s generally not worth the money or our lawyer’s last few hairs to sue “judgment proof” people. We may rattle a lot of sabers, but I can’t recall an instance where we weren’t able to work something out after the fact.

Edit: And don’t forget to clear both the sound recording and composition! If you decide to go legit.

4 Likes
#60

I’ve been dejectedly following this thread (more out of curiosity than immediate practical interest), and there’s little here to alter my conclusion that our existing copyright law is anything less than a gigantic smothering wet blanket broadly suppressing natural and glaringly obvious human creativity.

  • a cloud of murky legal peril, where you are guilty until proven innocent and can have only as much “justice” as you can afford
  • routinely paying artificial gatekeepers arbitrary fees for “safe” (generic) material
  • copyright enforcement bots and takedown processes
  • inherently retrograde (i.e., of questionable contemporary relevance) notions of what constitutes originality
  • starving of the public domain (the commonwealth)

These things have everything to do with privatization and very little to do with creative honesty.

27 Likes
#61

@lazzarello Lee, I remember that Kid606 album… Great stuff. Also lots of great things came before that, anybody remember the original Plundersphonics Album by John Oswald and the debates that sprang up around that…? Here we are having the same debate more or less?

@mdoudoroff don’t get dejected by this, for sure all you say is correct but there is a whole lot of creativity in sampling and its part of culture that can’t be put back in the box.

4 Likes
#62

What if the copyright holder gives me permission to sample his track or voice or whatever but then after some time someone else acquires the rights to the material? Do I need to ask again for permission?