Let me figure it out: the recording was done in 1959. I estimate the members of Negativland in their late 40s - early 50s. No, impossible! They must have been kids when this recording was done.
I suppose, the musicians & singers got a fair contract at the time. How else could they have agreed to participate in that project?
Honestly, I doubt it.
Because the reuse of that material doesn`t cause (financial, at most artistic ) damage to anybody.
If I take the hubcap off a car, the car is incomplete, is more likely to suffer consequential damages (rust etc.), will have less resale value & the owner of the car will have to pay for all that.
Does the same logic apply for a piece of music? Definetely not.
A piece of music on a sound carrier, from which parts get copied or “stolen”, stays intact.
It stands for itself. Either it is profitable or not, it`s as easy as that!
To assume the authors of that work would get ripped off about 50 yrs. later is ridiculous…
I made this clear before, I am not talking about simple reproductions of a song (bootlegs) nor cover versions. The first is a crime, the latter is due to asking for permission & paying roalties, no question.
I understand your concern though I cannot see any damage done to the authors of the original & therefore dont think your arguments hold much water. If you can show me traceable financial losses or any other damage caused by that parody - about 50 yrs. after its first release - I will surely reconsider my standpoint. I simply dont vote for laws which mainly protect the financial interests of an industry that is controlling art & cultural assets in an irresponsible way, & which narrow artistic freedom.
Is utilizing the ‘collage technique’ a way of comparing it to collage in visual art a subterfuge to the legitimization of theft? Is a stolen car given a ‘spray paint job’ make the car any less stolen?
Not that I’m overly religious, but… “Thou shalt not steal.” needs an amendment/subsections/et al provisos?
Almost correct… I’m not trying to make a profit by calling it my own under a false pretense, or attempting to pass it off as being something ‘entirely new.’ It’s a mimicry to expose how easy it is for a scientist to steal another’s work under the guise of calling it an original ‘artwork’ to justify being referred to as having original ‘artistic genius.’ A thief, just like a pig wearing lipstick is still a pig, is still a thief (IMO).
While talking about pets, just one last aspect that seems interesting to me: I have referred to “Regiment” by Byrne & Eno plus the record, of which the vocals were taken for this song.
I know that quite a few people including myself got curious about arabian music thereafter & bought the Tangent record. Id say thats an interesting phenomena that the use of this material by two very popular musicians obviously drew much more intention to the original source and helped increasing sales.
I see your point however I think its a stretch to compare using a sound (synth preset of e note on a guitar) to make a composition and using a borrowed composition to make a (supposed) compostion.I’m conflicted on the issue of sampling but I’m not trying to condemm. Lots of good points made in this discussion
indeed this is a very difficult & controversial subject.
My intention was just to throw some new aspects into a legal situation that I believe needs to be reconsidered.
In all fairness to Joan, my original comment was simply based off of the earlier comments on what is original. I merely pointed out that most don’t create their own patches all 100% from scratch nor do we write the software. Point being if one uses a sample and completely processes it to something new then the sample is more like an oscillator. Again not stating opinions here, I just like to challenge even my own opinions at times.
You can put these things on the net. They don’t sell so no problem. Just make sure it’s not socially or politically offensive as well.
If by chance it does sell then you will be able to afford to pay. But it’s not always about the money. You would not want to offend one of those world-wide nazi parties and their suicide bombers. And the writer of the piece would not want said bombers after him because of another’s insensitivity in thinking it would be “awesome” to use a purloined misplaced quote.
But you should ask as it’s not your rights under present law to do anything with these samples. They have the right to refuse you permission to use their property like they would have the right to refuse your kids permission to use their kid’s bicycle left out on the street in front of their house.
Bernstein famously refused permission to the band the Nice with their rendition of “America” from West Side Story.
Y’know, like, whatever. It’s their stuff. Not yours.
Emerson’s antics spawned controversy with Ars Longa Vita Brevis, which contained a cover of Leonard Bernstein’s West Side Story song “America.” The Nice performed it at the Royal Albert Hall while burning an American flag, and Bernstein subsequently attempted to stop the song’s release in the U.S.
Permission is not required to cover a song, even to record and sell it on one’s album. However, you do need a mechanical license to which you must pay royalties to the original artist. And of course, the original artist must be credited.
In my opinion, no. The issue is money (isn’t it always?). The Negativland thing doesn’t carry the potential to damage the original songwriters (and their estates) negatively – as far as I can tell, it wasn’t created to make money period.
It’s 100% legal to record a cover version of a song without permission or royalty payment, IF the recording isn’t going to be sold.
BTW – although a cover version of a song doesn’t require prior permission from the songwriter, a songwriter can get an injunction against the sale of a cover version of his song if he can show that it deviates significantly enough from the original recording as to constitute a new work. Of course, most never pursue such a course – they’d rather just have the royalty money regardless of how bastardized the cover is
Actually, that’s not entirely true. Copyright “P” covers the sound recording of a composition (and thus covers the composition itself). Any usage of a part of the sound recording is also disallowed. So Joan is in violation if she’s using portions of the original sound recording(s) IF she is trying to make money from it. From what I gather, Joan isn’t trying to make money from it, so she’s safe.
I’m not 100% sure, but I believe that a composition that has been printed but not recorded – which never happens – comes under copyright “C”
In my case, where I use parts of lyrics or melody, but not the original recordings, and assuming I’m going to offer the resulting compositions for sale, it’s a bit of a grey area. I’d never go so far as to use a lyrical phrase And ITS melodic note progression – too risky. If I WERE going to put these songs up for sale, I’d get permission first.
Parody is 100% protected. I’m not sure I agree with that part of the law. I do know that the parodist Weird Al Yankovic gets permission first, even though he doesn’t have to. But since Yankovic has made millions from his parody recordings, in my mind he should pay some sort of royalty to the original artist.
Another interesting fact: although a recording is automatically protected once it’s been made, for all practical purposes you should get it registered with the US Copyright Office… because a US court will not hear a case for a recording that hasn’t been registered, and it won’t award damages, either.
For us hobbyists who put out recordings for sale, you can now get your entire CD copyrighted online at the government site for quite a bit less than if you do it song by song (there are some independent sites that will do this, too, like LegalZoom.com, but of course they charge considerably more). Some of you guys may have done this. I don’t know what it costs, but I do know that the website is not very user-friendly and takes a bit of head-scratching to figure out.
Not necessarily, no.
I have mentioned the Kathryn Kuhlman Foundation, from which I tried to obtain permission for using a sermon. I suspect, they wont grant such a permission to anybody for they might fear Mrs. Kuhlmanns memory to be disgraced.
Id be glad, if this was the case for that would solve all my problems though I dont think you`re right:
“Copyrights
This website and its contents are owned and copyrighted by The Kathryn Kuhlman
Foundation and all rights are reserved. Downloading of materials for placement
on other websites, inclusion in any publications, or for any other use or purpose
is prohibited. No writings, audio/video files, or photographs are to be copied or transferred in any way without the prior written permission of The Kathryn Kuhlman Foundation. Linking to files on the website is also prohibited.”
(http://kathrynkuhlman.com/copyrights.html)
See? No word about money, profit whatsoever. They own it & they control it. That`s it.
Last but not least its also a question of taste/moral. You will have noticed that one participant in this thread calls Negativlands of “My Favourite Things” “defacing intellectual property” & I anticipate, lots of others will agree with him. I tend to see it as a parody.
Though a court won`t base its decision on taste/moral but the given property situation.
PS: Mr. Twilight, is an abbreviation & stands for JOnathan ANdrew Cubaez which suggests I am male though I`m about to discover my female side in this forum.
(I dedicate this smiley to Steve F.
)
) damage to anybody.
