Remixing a well known artist

[Protohumans]

hello

i am wanting to do a remix on a prodigy song to help promote my project

i wanted to know what i need to do or write in the description so i don't do any copyright infrigement?

lots of artists do this and put the track up free but im not sure if they payed any money to the original artists?

i know you can like use 3-6 secs of a song without infringing copyrights i think but for instance i want to make a full remix of a song and ill use more than 3 secs of it so can i put it on soundcloud for free download stating i do not own copyrights of the song ?

did a few remixes but they were contest remixes and i could up them to SC np but in this case is different...

maybe i should contact the records label asking tem this ?

any help is very much appreciatted cheerios!

 

[Protohumans]

in this article Remix - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia i think this answers my question " The Fair Use agreement allows users to use copyrighted materials without asking the permission of the original creator (section 107 of the federal copyright law). Within this agreement, the copyrighted material that is borrowed must be used under specific government regulations. Material borrowed falls under fair use depending on the amount of original content used, the nature of the content, the purpose of the borrowed content, and the effect the borrowed content has on an audience. Unfortunately, there are no distinct lines between copyright infringement and abiding by fair use regulations while producing a remix.[SUP][9][/SUP] However, if the work that is distributed by the remixer is an entirely new and transformative work that is not for profit, copyright laws are not breached. The key word in such considerations is transformative, as the remix product must have been either sufficiently altered or clearly used for a sufficiently different purpose for it to be safe from copyright violation."

so if i do it diferent enough and for free download on soundcloud should be ok yeah? or with a band like prodigy theyr too protected and soundcloud will remove my song??

cheerios again !

 

[bandcoach]

fair use doctrine is for two purposes only:

critical review and
educational examples/assessment

you are not using the sample for either purpose so the fair use doctrine does not apply

it is also important to remember that even 0.5 seconds is too much when it comes to using material without license or permission

it is also irrelevant whether the work is released for profit or not: it is the fact that you have used the sample without permission that breaches copyright

relying on wikipedia as your legal opinion is reckless: consult your own lawyer to better understand what is misrepresented in this wikipedia article

you have identified the relationship between authorised and unauthorised remixes in your first post: if you are entering a competition then you are authorised/licensed to use the material you have; if you are creating something without permission, then you are leaving yourself wide open to litigation

 

[SFTRAXX]

I believe there's one more "fair" use...

Satire.

..which obviously doesn't apply here...so carry on.

lol

 

[SFTRAXX]

so if i do it diferent enough and for free download on soundcloud should be ok yeah? or with a band like prodigy theyr too protected and soundcloud will remove my song??

Good luck with that.

Soundcloud is known for pulling remixxes.

The more popular the artist the more likely it'll get pulled.

 

[Protohumans]

fair use doctrine is for two purposes only:

critical review and
educational examples/assessment

you are not using the sample for either purpose so the fiar use doctrine does not apply

it is also important to remember that even 0.5 seconds is too much when it comes to using material without license or permission

it is also irrelevant whether the work is released for profit or not: it is the fact that you have used the sample without permission that breaches copyright

relying on wikipedia as your legal opinion is reckless: consult your own lawyer to better understand what is misrepresented in this wikipedia article

you have identified the relationship between authorised and unauthorised remixes in your first post: if you are entering a competition then you are authorised/licensed to use the material you have; if you are creating something without permission, then you are leaving yourself wide open to litigation

yeah im sure wiki is not the most reliable source for sure although, you say not even 0.5 sec? i was pretty sure there was a timeframe u could use from certain song that would comply with copyright terms? same as i think songs with 50 plus years are legal to remix ? prodigy used old songs to create most of theyr first tunes due to that legislation no?

 

[bandcoach]

I believe there's one more "fair" use...

Satire.

..which obviously doesn't apply here...so carry on.

lol

true enough but as most people do not understand what satire is let alone are competent enough to pull it off, I do tend to omit to be safe (no point in being accused of misleading someone when it is their own misunderstanding of the language that got them into their mess in the first place)

yeah im sure wiki is not the most reliable source for sure although, you say not even 0.5 sec? i was pretty sure there was a timeframe u could use from certain song that would comply with copyright terms?

if a sample is identifiable then you have used too much. this is similar to the 12 note rule: there is no such thing, some courts used a heuristic that said if the first 12 notes were substantially similar (i.e when put into the same key the first 12 notes came out the same then there was plagiarism/copyright infringement) if this were still the standard today everyone is ripping everyone else off - there are so many tunes that use the same basic melodic movement that it comes back to the durations now used to distinguish them as well as overall melodic similarities

same as i think songs with 50 plus years are legal to remix ? prodigy used old songs to create most of theyr first tunes due to that legislation no?

I would like more info on what the prodigy actually did as the limit for using copyright works is 70 plus the life of the creator/author of that work; i.e. the work cannot be used in any manner, full or part, before those time limits elapse

the 50 year rule thing is a little more complicated than that

a recording is automatically safe for 50 years prior to first communication to the public(broadcast)

once broadcast that recording has an automatic 70 years of protection prior to publishing to the public

once published (make commercially or freely available as a unit for sale/download) that recording has a further 70 years automatic protection

these three figures relate to recordings; there is no new protections if you decide to publish into different mediums,i.e. vinyl, cd, digital formats do not bring additional protection time frames

maximum total is 190 years (broadcast on the last day of the 50 years since the recording was made, publish on the last day of the 70 years since the first broadcast = 70+70+50 = 190 years)

 

[SFTRAXX]

true enough but as most people do not understand what satire is let alone are competent enough to pull it off, I do tend to omit to be safe (no point in being accused of misleading someone when it is their own misunderstanding of the language that got them into their mess in the first place)

Word.

I think a lot of people who read about fair just choose to use what they've read to justify their behavior rather than nullify it.

I think the bottom line is:

If its music or vocals that you cannot copyright as your own, its probably safe to say that its not legal for you to use. For profit or not. And if you choose to use it, don't be surprised if it comes back to haunt you.

 

[Protohumans]

true enough but as most people do not understand what satire is let alone are competent enough to pull it off, I do tend to omit to be safe (no point in being accused of misleading someone when it is their own misunderstanding of the language that got them into their mess in the first place)



if a sample is identifiable then you have used too much. this is similar to the 12 note rule: there is no such thing, some courts used a heuristic that said if the first 12 notes were substantially similar (i.e when put into the same key the first 12 notes came out the same then there was plagiarism/copyright infringement) if this were still the standard today everyone is ripping everyone else off - there are so many tunes that use the same basic melodic movement that it comes back to the durations now used to distinguish them as well as overall melodic similarities



I would like more info on what the prodigy actually did as the limit for using copyright works is 70 plus the life of the creator/author of that work; i.e. the work cannot be used in any manner, full or part, before those time limits elapse

the 50 year rule thing is a little more complicated than that

a recording is automatically safe for 50 years prior to first communication to the public(broadcast)

once broadcast that recording has an automatic 70 years of protection prior to publishing to the public

once published (make commercially or freely available as a unit for sale/download) that recording has a further 70 years automatic protection

these three figures relate to recordings; there is no new protections if you decide to publish into different mediums,i.e. vinyl, cd, digital formats do not bring additional protection time frames

maximum total is 190 years (broadcast on the last day of the 50 years since the recording was made, publish on the last day of the 70 years since the first broadcast = 70+70+50 = 190 years)

damn

but yeah any way u can like do a remix and put it up for free in social media ? what i need ta know !

 

[bandcoach]

no - not unless you want to reap the rewards of unlicensed use - a lawsuit and subsequent fines and fees