That thin, very thin, grey, area...

General discussion of Anime Music Videos
Locked
User avatar
anurok
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 1:30 pm
Org Profile

That thin, very thin, grey, area...

Post by anurok » Tue Nov 27, 2007 12:46 pm

Here I am working on my AMV and I get a PM from my club president on another forum for Scion tC's asking me to make a video for our car club for a contest.

I was more than happy to help out as long as I have good footage to work with (which I don't really...grainy as hell) and I get to pick the song. He agreed.

So I chose Tripping Contact from DDR. It is fast paced and would go well with a driving theme. I work on it and get about 20 seconds into the video. I send it to him to check it out so far.

He PM's me back asking if I have the rights to the song. I tell him of course not...do I really need them? I am not making anything off of it. He tells me it's in the rules of the contest...

I am almost on the verge of emailing konami for rights (like that will happen) or emailing the contest people...

This has come up numerous times but can't rules be bent?

/rant off.
N0OB wrote: Koop edits his s*** in Paint and it looks better than this.

User avatar
Kionon
I ♥ the 80's
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2001 10:13 pm
Status: Ayukawa MODoka.
Location: I wonder if you know how they live in Tokyo... DRIFT, DRIFT, DRIFT
Contact:
Org Profile

Post by Kionon » Tue Nov 27, 2007 12:50 pm

If the contest stipulates you must own the rights, you must own the rights.

And this is not the right forum, if it even belongs on this site at all.
ImageImage
That YouTube Thing.

User avatar
anurok
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 1:30 pm
Org Profile

Post by anurok » Tue Nov 27, 2007 1:01 pm

Kionon wrote:If the contest stipulates you must own the rights, you must own the rights.

And this is not the right forum, if it even belongs on this site at all.
I know what you mean...I just felt like ranting. This argument comes up a lot but I did not care to pay attention to it since it did not affect me much but now it does.

This sucks =/
N0OB wrote: Koop edits his s*** in Paint and it looks better than this.

User avatar
Knowname
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2002 5:49 pm
Status: Indubitably
Location: Sanity, USA (on the edge... very edge)
Org Profile

Post by Knowname » Tue Nov 27, 2007 1:32 pm

would you even need the rights if it's an open source, community owned (underground) song?? I wonder if there's an oc remix to that song. It seems kinda obvious that it's STILL using that song and therefore you may still need the proper licenses. But OC Remixes are re-synthesised. It's like singing a song yourself. You don't need a license to copy it... unless your selling it.

I'd go that route.

maybe?? I'm really clueless when it comes to the law.

User avatar
anurok
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 1:30 pm
Org Profile

Post by anurok » Tue Nov 27, 2007 1:48 pm

Knowname wrote:would you even need the rights if it's an open source, community owned (underground) song?? I wonder if there's an oc remix to that song. It seems kinda obvious that it's STILL using that song and therefore you may still need the proper licenses. But OC Remixes are re-synthesised. It's like singing a song yourself. You don't need a license to copy it... unless your selling it.

I'd go that route.

maybe?? I'm really clueless when it comes to the law.
already contacted DJPretzel of OCremix.com to see if he can help me out haha.

I do not think there is a remix to it so I may have to chose a different song unfortunately =/
N0OB wrote: Koop edits his s*** in Paint and it looks better than this.

User avatar
anurok
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 1:30 pm
Org Profile

Post by anurok » Tue Nov 27, 2007 1:48 pm

Knowname wrote:would you even need the rights if it's an open source, community owned (underground) song?? I wonder if there's an oc remix to that song. It seems kinda obvious that it's STILL using that song and therefore you may still need the proper licenses. But OC Remixes are re-synthesised. It's like singing a song yourself. You don't need a license to copy it... unless your selling it.

I'd go that route.

maybe?? I'm really clueless when it comes to the law.
already contacted DJPretzel of OCremix.com to see if he can help me out haha.

I do not think there is a remix to it so I may have to chose a different song unfortunately =/

OCRemix owns the rights to all music submitted I think...
N0OB wrote: Koop edits his s*** in Paint and it looks better than this.

User avatar
Zarxrax
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2001 6:37 pm
Contact:
Org Profile

Post by Zarxrax » Tue Nov 27, 2007 2:43 pm

Remix songs are illegal as well.
Tell the guy that if he doesn't want your video, tough.

User avatar
bobbias
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2003 10:15 pm
Location: Midland, Ontario, Canada
Org Profile

Post by bobbias » Wed Nov 28, 2007 4:26 am

I was about to say that it'd still be illegal. Part of the reason OCRemix is still allowed is because a good portion of the music they are remixing isn't commercially available anyway.

User avatar
anurok
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 1:30 pm
Org Profile

Post by anurok » Wed Nov 28, 2007 11:12 am

so even if I make my own remix of the song it will be illegal?
N0OB wrote: Koop edits his s*** in Paint and it looks better than this.

User avatar
bobbias
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2003 10:15 pm
Location: Midland, Ontario, Canada
Org Profile

Post by bobbias » Wed Nov 28, 2007 11:46 am

Ok, I'm a little confused here, after further reading the law. It appears that I have found a clause that defends remixes where the creator of the remix has simulated or imitated the original without using any of the original sounds that the original used.

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106
§ 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works

Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:

(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;

(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;

(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;

(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;

(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and

(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#101
A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications, which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work”.
Paragraph (2), § 106 states that the owner of the copyright has exclusive rights to prepare derivative works, which, by definition, include remixes, means that a remix, without getting the right to create it, is illegal.

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#114
§ 114. Scope of exclusive rights in sound recordings

(a) The exclusive rights of the owner of copyright in a sound recording are limited to the rights specified by clauses (1), (2), (3) and (6) of section 106, and do not include any right of performance under section 106(4).

(b) The exclusive right of the owner of copyright in a sound recording under clause (1) of section 106 is limited to the right to duplicate the sound recording in the form of phonorecords or copies that directly or indirectly recapture the actual sounds fixed in the recording. The exclusive right of the owner of copyright in a sound recording under clause (2) of section 106 is limited to the right to prepare a derivative work in which the actual sounds fixed in the sound recording are rearranged, remixed, or otherwise altered in sequence or quality. The exclusive rights of the owner of copyright in a sound recording under clauses (1) and (2) of section 106 do not extend to the making or duplication of another sound recording that consists entirely of an independent fixation of other sounds, even though such sounds imitate or simulate those in the copyrighted sound recording. The exclusive rights of the owner of copyright in a sound recording under clauses (1), (2), and (3) of section 106 do not apply to sound recordings included in educational television and radio programs (as defined in section 397 of title 47) distributed or transmitted by or through public broadcasting entities (as defined by section 118(g)): Provided, That copies or phonorecords of said programs are not commercially distributed by or through public broadcasting entities to the general public.
However, partway through this rather lengthy paragraph we see this text:
The exclusive right of the owner of copyright in a sound recording under clause (2) of section 106 is limited to the right to prepare a derivative work in which the actual sounds fixed in the sound recording are rearranged, remixed, or otherwise altered in sequence or quality. The exclusive rights of the owner of copyright in a sound recording under clauses (1) and (2) of section 106 do not extend to the making or duplication of another sound recording that consists entirely of an independent fixation of other sounds, even though such sounds imitate or simulate those in the copyrighted sound recording.
This actually allows for remixes to be created using different sounds, which means that nearly ever remix that does not directly sample the original is in the clear.
However, I do believe that the actual sheet music's copyright comes into play. Since the music notation is a separate entity in the world of copyright, I do believe that any song that remixes or rearranges any music that is copyrighted as sheet music as well would be illegal and marked as a derivative work of the sheet music, as opposed to the original itself. I can't find any law supporting this theory, but considering that remixes have still been considered illegal for years, I doubt that the above mentioned clause has not been used before in defense of a remix. Therefore, it is logical to assume that even if it has been properly argued using the above clause, there is another way that works have been found as infringing.

This is all theory, on my part, but I think it would be safe to say that remixes are still seen as illegal, one way or another, and would be illegal to use.

I should also point out that if they are so concerned about the rights to the song, then they would likely also not allow you to submit a video which you don't have the rights to the video clips used in either.

Locked

Return to “General AMV”