|
View unanswered posts | View active topics
Author |
Message |
kwilsonjr
|
Posted: Tue Aug 12, 2008 5:51 pm |
|
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2002 11:43 am Posts: 37 Location: San Diego, CA Been Liked: 0 time
|
Rising_Phoenix @ Tue Aug 12, 2008 5:07 pm wrote: I just saw this reply pop up, so I'm going to assume you want me to name 3 songs.
Ok.
Ave Maria (Not to say that it is a real karaoke show-stopper) Danny Boy (you'd be surprised how often I've heard this sung for St. Patrick's Day) Happy Birthday (traditional version) Santa Lucia Star Spangled Banner (4th of July shows) Almost every traditional Christmas carol known to human-kind
Should I go on?
No, you've already stuck your foot in it. You, like many others have the mistaken impression that because a song is old, it is in the public domain.
For example, and to prove my point, the licensing rights for the song 'Happy Birthday To You' are alive and well. Two sisters wrote the song and still collect royalties from it to this day.
I won't even go into the Christmas carols that are still licensed.
And like I said, most of the other stuff is for all intents and purposes useless in a karaoke show. "Ave Maria"? Never been sung at one of my shows since 1989.
Source: http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/birthday.asp
_________________ Ken Wilson
San Diego DJ & Karaoke
|
|
Top |
|
|
Rising_Phoenix
|
Posted: Wed Aug 13, 2008 12:12 am |
|
|
Senior Poster |
|
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2004 4:43 pm Posts: 240 Location: Santa Barbara, CA Been Liked: 0 time
|
I'll be the first to admit if I'm mistaken, so please correct me if I'm wrong; however, as I understand this, any recording of any song, irregardless of whether the song itself is considered to be part of the public domain, would still require the user to obtain a "fair-use" <not sure if this would be the correct term here> license from the performer of the background track (or his/her/their agent) simply because the backing recording (considered to be a performamce) can never enter the public domain.
So, a song can be considered to be part of the public domain, but would still require that a "fair use" license be obtained for any performance simply because of the perceived "uniqueness" of the performance of the background being used.
And I will concede that "Happy Birthday to You" may be copyrighted (I won't challenge this), so you might scratch that particular song off the list. As for Christmas carols, I did not mean to include "in-the-style of...." performances; rather I meant generic verions of say, "Silent Night", or "O Holy Night" (aka "Cantique de Noel") such as you might sing as part of a generic Christmas program or pageant (I know there are such generic versions available on several karaoke labels). Looking beyond Christmas songs, other examples which support the argument would be generic versions of "God Bless America" (and I stress a NOT in the style of any particular artist), many gospel songs (one of my favorites: "Shall We Gather at the River?" ), many traditional folk songs, and so on. So, all of these listed would still have "fair-use" license requirments, but are public domain material.
So, if I may add to my list:
I include for your consideration, the following:
"God Bless America"--- Generic versions
"Shall We Gather at the River"--- Generic versions
"Molly Malone"---- another one heard around St. Patrick's Day
Generic versions of Classic Christmas carols (and I stress GENERIC versions-- not attributable to any particular artist)
"America"--- (Not to be confused with the song from "West Side Story")
"Battle Hymn of the Republic" --- Yet another 4th of July staple that can be heard
"Auld Lang Syne"--- A New Year's tradition
"Summertime"???--- Generic version (reference to the original Gershwin version from "Porgy and Bess"). N.B.: I am not certain whether this has actually entered public domain, so if it truly hasn't, then disregard this song.
Oh, and by the way, I have heard "Ave Maria" performed several times, especially around Christmas.
And I don't want to get into any war-of-words with you, so I will respectfully finish by saying that regional differences in the taste of music will dictate what is useful, and what isn't, with respect to venues in general.
|
|
Top |
|
|
karyoker
|
Posted: Wed Aug 13, 2008 1:24 am |
|
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 3:43 pm Posts: 6784 Location: Fort Collins Colorado USA Been Liked: 5 times
|
One recording or reproduction does not require a license. Two or more is considered distribution and does require the music and sync licenses.
_________________ Join The Karaokle Singers Social Network. Upload Your Music!!
|
|
Top |
|
|
Rising_Phoenix
|
Posted: Wed Aug 13, 2008 6:56 am |
|
|
Senior Poster |
|
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2004 4:43 pm Posts: 240 Location: Santa Barbara, CA Been Liked: 0 time
|
Thanks karyoker for the clarification regarding license requirments. I see why karaoke manufacturers state that a "fair use" license is required in the event a backing is used for public performances or for potential commercial recording.
|
|
Top |
|
|
kwilsonjr
|
Posted: Wed Aug 13, 2008 9:51 am |
|
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2002 11:43 am Posts: 37 Location: San Diego, CA Been Liked: 0 time
|
Guys, I hate to be a thorn in anyone's side. I just rediscovered this forum after a 6 year absence. I didn't even realize I was a member until I tried to register and it said my username was taken, then I tried my old password and it logged me in.
'Fair Use' is not a license. That term is from a provision in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DCMA) that says there are certain exclusions to copyright holders rights.
An example of 'Fair Use' is taking that CD you bought and ripping it to MP3 to play on your computer. You are making a copy of a CD that you purchased legally, but it is for your own personal use. That is called 'Fair Use'
To use a song for profit, or public performance, you must obtain at least one, and sometimes 2 or 3 different licenses. An example of these are:
Mechanical
Synchronization
Performance
Master
There is a boatload of information out there on this subject. I recommend everyone in this business take a look at some of it.
Here is a good place to start http://www.ascap.com/licensing/termsdefined.html
I encourage everyone to purchase their music from a reputable source and not use illegally downloaded, 'borrowed' or 'eBay hard drive' collections. People are hurting the very industry they love by using bootleg media.
_________________ Ken Wilson
San Diego DJ & Karaoke
|
|
Top |
|
|
kwilsonjr
|
Posted: Wed Aug 13, 2008 10:12 am |
|
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2002 11:43 am Posts: 37 Location: San Diego, CA Been Liked: 0 time
|
Yes, Tricerasoft is a legal source for many different brands of excellent karaoke in MP3+G format that you can download.
I am an affiliate. (moderator please take this link down if it violates forum rules)
http://store.sandiegokaraoke.com
You guys are free to download the free karaoke player from that web page. I think it even comes with a couple free songs.
_________________ Ken Wilson
San Diego DJ & Karaoke
|
|
Top |
|
|
Rising_Phoenix
|
Posted: Wed Aug 13, 2008 10:55 am |
|
|
Senior Poster |
|
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2004 4:43 pm Posts: 240 Location: Santa Barbara, CA Been Liked: 0 time
|
I've been trying to get some clarification as to how songs which are considered to be part of the public domain, yet made into copyrighted karaoke versions, are treated by copy right laws. So far, this is what I've been able to gather, so if you can add to, or correct any mis-information, please feel free to post:
1. There are obviously songs which fall into the public domain which are available on marketed karaoke discs (I've already listed a few, albeit there may be some dispute).
2. If a karaoke disc (or any other pre-recorded medium) is used as part of a public pergformance, or to record an original disc by an artist for the purpose of for-profit distribution, all appropriate licenses need to be obtained by the user prior to such use, regardless of whether or not a song is public domain.
3. Any song which is still copyrighted, obviously is protected under copyright laws. Songs which have entered the public domain do not enjoy such protection (although there must be exceptions).
4. A song or track is considered to be obtained legally as long as there is no change in format relative to the orignal format under which it was originally produced (i.e. a legal copy of an MP3+G track can be downloaded onto a hard drive as long as the format remains as an MP3+G file and not changed in any way whatsoever). Now as to whether the original MP3+G file in question is legal in the first place is a whole different issue. (This is what I've been told by a professional kj).
5. Downloading a "legal" copy of an MP3+G file onto a hard drive and then copying it onto a portable disc is NOT legal (strictly private usage may be an exception--- but does this include the usage of such portable discs at karaoke shows?) since this constitutes a change in the medium that the file was originally presented.
I am struggling to get some clear-cut answers on this issue, so any help is greatly appreciated.
P.S.: I can't believe this started out as a friendly challenge to list 3 public domain songs which are considered to be "useful" for karaoke. (I hope you realize that this is just a bit of good-natured ribbing, and nothing more).
|
|
Top |
|
|
kwilsonjr
|
Posted: Wed Aug 13, 2008 11:59 am |
|
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2002 11:43 am Posts: 37 Location: San Diego, CA Been Liked: 0 time
|
actually I knew you would include Happy Birthday as one of your examples. It is played at many karaoke shows sometimes several times a week. My 'challenge' was just to illustrate an example that there are many songs people think are in the public domain that are not.
Harry Fox Agency recommends searching http://www.pdinfo.com/ for a reliable list of public domain songs.
(to another poster) The RIAA has said publicly that they do not consider ripping a legally purchased CD to MP3 a violation (Fair Use). So I can't but think that ripping to MP3+G would follow that same logic.
_________________ Ken Wilson
San Diego DJ & Karaoke
|
|
Top |
|
|
Dr Fred
|
Posted: Thu Aug 14, 2008 12:06 pm |
|
|
Super Poster |
|
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 5:22 pm Posts: 1128 Location: Athens, GA Been Liked: 4 times
|
Quote: I am struggling to get some clear-cut answers on this issue, so any help is greatly appreciated.
There are well paid lawyers on the both sides of the issue that will give you two completely different interpretations of the law.
Problem with karaoke is that the technology changes fast, and it is a relatively minor part of the music industry, and no-one person or comany (individually) has a big enough incentive to settle the issue one way or another if it is going to cost hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars worth of lawyer time.
|
|
Top |
|
|
kwilsonjr
|
Posted: Fri Aug 15, 2008 3:08 pm |
|
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2002 11:43 am Posts: 37 Location: San Diego, CA Been Liked: 0 time
|
Dr Fred @ Thu Aug 14, 2008 12:06 pm wrote: Quote: I am struggling to get some clear-cut answers on this issue, so any help is greatly appreciated. There are well paid lawyers on the both sides of the issue that will give you two completely different interpretations of the law. Problem with karaoke is that the technology changes fast, and it is a relatively minor part of the music industry, and no-one person or comany (individually) has a big enough incentive to settle the issue one way or another if it is going to cost hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars worth of lawyer time.
That is exactly correct. Anyone seeking a 'clear cut definition' will continue to be frustrated because there is none. Best thing to do at this point is do your best to stay legal and use common sense. Buy your music from reputable sources. Don't share it, sell it, lend it, or make more copies than you need for legitimate backup purposes. If you think it may be questionable then it probably is.
Imagine yourself in a courtroom full of high powered attorneys, on the witness stand and them asking you the hard questions about your music. Can you answer confidently?
_________________ Ken Wilson
San Diego DJ & Karaoke
|
|
Top |
|
|
Randy J
|
Posted: Sat Aug 16, 2008 11:01 am |
|
|
Senior Poster |
|
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2008 6:22 pm Posts: 176 Location: Seattle-ish Been Liked: 0 time
|
no clear-cut answers, that's for sure
the legit discs themselves are printed with "unauthorized public use prohibited" ... So if my venue pays their ASCAP, BMI, and other fees, then it's "authorized" ? (interesting word, author-ized)
or is the KJ supposed to pay those fees?
|
|
Top |
|
|
kwilsonjr
|
Posted: Sat Aug 16, 2008 11:59 am |
|
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2002 11:43 am Posts: 37 Location: San Diego, CA Been Liked: 0 time
|
Randy J @ Sat Aug 16, 2008 11:01 am wrote: no clear-cut answers, that's for sure
the legit discs themselves are printed with "unauthorized public use prohibited" ... So if my venue pays their ASCAP, BMI, and other fees, then it's "authorized" ? (interesting word, author-ized)
or is the KJ supposed to pay those fees?
ASCAP, BMI etc require the establishment owners to pay a fee based on many factors including how many TV's they have, maximum occupancy, if they have a jukebox etc. etc. KJ's and DJ's are not required to pay those fees.
Since we are mobile, and the keyword for ASCAP, BMI etc seems to be 'Establishment', it is the venue's responsibility to obtain these licenses.
SOURCE: BMI http://www.bmi.com/licensing/entry/C1289
_________________ Ken Wilson
San Diego DJ & Karaoke
|
|
Top |
|
|
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 449 guests |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
|