Remix Copyright Infringement?

[Willen]

It's almost a given that one's work will eventually be reused in another way.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=2614

http://www.boycott-riaa.com/article/11117

[Infinity Squared]

He has created that remix, so he holds the copyrights of the remix. If he hasn't the license to do that remix, he can be sued by the copyright holder of the original music and he can be forbidden to use it in any way. But the copyrightholder of the original music can't use that remix in any way without the permission of the remixer.

I quite agree with what you say here KOH...

If Nintendo wrote the Mario Bros. Theme Song and copyrighted it, then they hold the rights to all remixes for that song. So JD Harding is not allowed to remix the song without permission from Nintendo.

See, the way I see is that whatever the remix is, Nintendo would still own the "song." However they do not own the "remix." But now you have to define what the remix is.

The remix is the process, the changes, the additions to the song. Those differences are not copyrighted to Nintendo (or whoever owns the song originally). Nintendo can still sue JD Harding, sure, because the original song is still contained within the remix, but as KOH said, they cannot say simply that they also own the remix of JD Harding entirely.

In our case in video making, we have but one avenue for which we can claim ownership. We own the method, the idea, the concept and the editing... we do not own the sources which is where we run into dangerous ground... but we nonetheless have copyright to the editing done. Ideas after all can be copyrighted/patented.

[Keeper of Hellfire]

And even if JD Harding hasn't the permission to remix the music it isn't necessarly copyright infringement, at least not according to German copyright law. Though I don't know the US law, the differences shouldn't be too large, afaik both are based on the Bern Agreement. The German law says that you don't need the permission of the copyright holder if your work is based loose on a copyrighted work. It has to have a certain distance, and sometimes the idea behind it is enough to keep that distance. Of course this is very vague, a case to case decision.

Not long ago there was a good example for this. The creator of the "Bundesadler" ("Federal Eagle", the German weapon) had sued a caricaturist for using that symbol in a caricatur without his permission. But the judges said despite looking like the original eagle the necessary distance was given by the context.

Something similar may apply if music is used in a remix.

[Fluxmeister]

I am starting the JD Harding Project 2006. Anyone else in?

[mexicanjunior]

I am starting the JD Harding Project 2006. Anyone else in?

We should replace his remixes in the projects with midi versions of the game music...

[Zarxrax]

Hmm... so just take down the local downloads and host this stuff on your own servers... what's he going to do then? :p

Seriously though, I can kinda understand someone not wanting their stuff thrown around without permission or whatever, but I'm sure its probably not even feasable to cut videos out of these projects...

[Castor Troy]

I am starting the JD Harding Project 2006. Anyone else in?

How long will it be? 8 tracks?

[amvwizard]

It's like asking if we even have the rights to the footage in our videos.

We've been pissing off alot of music people this amv season.

ehh... so true

[Psygnius]

If Nintendo wrote the Mario Bros. Theme Song and copyrighted it, then they hold the rights to all remixes for that song. So JD Harding is not allowed to remix the song without permission from Nintendo.

See, the way I see is that whatever the remix is, Nintendo would still own the "song." However they do not own the "remix." But now you have to define what the remix is.

The remix is the process, the changes, the additions to the song. Those differences are not copyrighted to Nintendo (or whoever owns the song originally). Nintendo can still sue JD Harding, sure, because the original song is still contained within the remix, but as KOH said, they cannot say simply that they also own the remix of JD Harding entirely

I said it very poorly in my original statement, sorry about that. I mean Nintendo would own the rights to create all remixes of the song. And no one else, without permission, is allowed to remix the original song from Nintendo. All remixes created without Nintendo's permission are basically illegal. I did not mean that all Mario bros. remixes written by other people are automatically legal property of Nintendo.

http://www.boycott-riaa.com/article/11117

In reference to this article, EMI sued Brian Burton aka DangerMouse, for remixing Beatle's White Album with Jay-Z's Black Album. EMI won for infringment since EMI own the rights to the creation of remixes involving Beatles songs as well as the original songs. DangerMouse is still the original creator of the remixes though.

Off Topic: I'd like to add that being sued and fined by EMI was probably one of the best things to happen to DangerMouse. Because due to that lawsuit, the Gorillaz hired him to mix their songs for their album, Demon Days.

[Kalium]

I am starting the JD Harding Project 2006. Anyone else in?

I'm in.