Farview
Well-known member
Did you read any of the posts? There is no danger putting your song here.
Putting up originals on here that are not copyrighted?
- Thread starter Stubby03
- Start date
gecko zzed
Grumpy Mod
Maybe OP was reading some other thread.
If OP were to engage a risk management consultant the consultant would say that the risk of being ripped off is negligible, and were it indeed to be ripped off, the risk of someone else making money out of it is just as negligible.
Armistice
Son of Yoda
Just so I understand... you're going to release a CD, then get mix feedback, make mix adjustments, and then release the "remix" CD?
Why didn't I think of that? The completist fan base you have will be overjoyed at having more than one of your CDs to buy..
witzendoz
Senior Member
jimmys69
MOODerator
Get over it. Nothing to lose by posting songs here. Seems you have not listened to the comments in the last couple days.
Strange that you would release a product then work on mix after....
Just get it sounding the best you can before pressing. If you think it needs others input, then ask for it.
I promise, I won't steal your songs. Unless you steal mine first. lol
jimmys69
MOODerator
If you do not buy the rights to a 'beat' produced by someone who charges for them, then you risk the chance of being sued.
That being said, you would have to do something with the free beats that sold enough to be worth suing for.
Now, if you are outright stealing music that is owned by an entity that has credibility, you are pushing it to another level. And actually I would find that quite lame.
That being said, you can steal all you want from me. I would be honored. LOL!
You will hear from my attorneys. Bob and Doug.
Not release the cd, wait till the songs are all done, mixed the way I think. Come on, you really think I would release it, then redo it. I never said "release". Its cheaper to copyright a whole cd than song at a time. I hear all your comments, and take them all in. Your song is protected once put on something tangible, I just don't know if that will make me feel good enough. But thanks for all your input.
Look, I want to make one thing clear, Im not saying our songs are the best thing since sliced bread. You all might think they are the worst thing you've heard. But they our songs, the guitar player and I,( bass player), have had some of these songs since high school, around 1986. Its takes so long to get things done, with work, kids, etc. Im putting in tons of work, every day. I just want protection, so 25 years from now, when we look back they are still protected. I know from reading copyright laws, they are somewhat protected when put on something tangible. I just don't think that's good enough for us. I just wanted to get others opinions on the subject. Heck, it took weeks just to get a drum track down. We started in april, and have 4 whole songs done. We have kicked it up on getting things done. But dam, it drives me nuts sometimes. Our drummer is not as excited to put in so much work as I want him to. But the situation works overall.
kevin6string
New member
If push comes to shove the copyright is on your hard drive itself..and it is correct that once it has some kind of fixed form it has a copyright... i have heard both sides of the arguement also that the "poor man's copyright" will stand up on court and i have heard it does not. altho in some cases it has... i would say if it is sent certified mail to yourself and left unopened with a "government's date on it"... should be enough to prove a given date ( if left sealed till needed )
Last edited:
NotThatBright
New member
Well, nobody's stolen any of mine, and mine are AWESOME.
SteveAlton
Member
OP....You've had some of these tunes since 1986 & they haven't been stolen yet, so I think you are okay....They may just be a little "Dated" at this point...
That said, any song of mine I post is always "Copywritten" before I post online....
That said, any song of mine I post is always "Copywritten" before I post online....
Johnny Don't!
New member
Freakin' LOVE this forum. Some really knowledgeable dudes here.
That being said, AVOID the Harry Fox Agency at ALL COSTS. They're a dinosaur and charge WAY too much for licensing. I was under the impression they handled licensing/permission for recording cover tunes but I guess they could also be in the sample-clearing field as well. Just FYI, if anyone here is every looking to release an album of cover tunes or an album with a cover (or covers) on it, check out LimeLight. They do EXACTLY what Harry Fox does but for MUCH more reasonable rates. I believe their site is www.songclearance.com.
Now in terms of copyrighting original songs, there have been some very recent legal developments that have placed the interests of large corporations & huge, established artists over those of the songwriter. The most famous recent case is the one between Rebecca F. & The Memes & Lady Gaga; Rebecca (full disclosure: she's a mutual friend here in Chicago) claims Gaga stole parts of her 1999 tune "Juda" to create the track "Judas."
This is an extremely fucked-up case, and the judge who presided over it made a horrible decision in my humble opinion. Rebecca can not only prove beyond ANY doubt that Gaga had complete access not only to the tune itself but to the ProTools sessions from the recording of "Juda," and while Gaga's song definitely contains elements that are not in "Juda," her song also definitely contains elements that were CLEARLY lifted from Rebecca's song.
Rebecca has a federal copyright; all the evidence in the world that Gaga had access to the song and can prove she heard it prior to writing "Judas" (which isn't even necessary under US copyright law; a writer can infringe upon another writer's content unknowingly, meaning they created a similar work without nefarious intent, which results in a 1x damage payment, whereas if the plaintiff can prove beyond a doubt that the defendant had access to the original song and therefore acted nefariously, the damages are 3x; the most famous case of this is Huey Lewis vs. Ray Parker Jr., where Lewis proved that Parker Jr. not only created a song ["Ghostbusters"] that was extremely similar to his own ["I Want a New Drug"] but that Parker Jr. intentionally ripped it off); and she can also draw direct personal connections between herself and Gaga which accurately & effectively illustrate the path down which the information traveled to arrive in Gaga's hands, but all of that wasn't enough to win the case. They're appealing.
Point is, yes, users have posted accurate information regarding "real" copyrights (the ones you register with the Library of Congress for a small fee) and "inherent" copyrights (the ones that exist the instant you write something original and release it to the world), but when it comes down to it, all that matters is how powerful you are. This is just another step towards the world we have allowed the powers-that-be to create, one in which corporations are all-powerful and have rights traditionally reserved for individuals (Hobby Lobby, anyone?), even though they bear NONE of the responsibilities that individuals must carry in order to receive their individual rights. It's nonsense. And it has to stop soon or we're all screwed. I mean, screwed even more than we already are.
Lastly, the web is chock-full of info regarding clearing song samples for use in derivative works; I also just checked and found out that yes, it seems LimeLight does in fact handle sample clearing. They have a fantastic informational page on the subject: https://songclearance.com/How+to+Avoid+Sampling+Disasters:+A+Step-by-Step+Guide+to+Clearing+Samples
Hope that helps. Feel free to message me with any questions; I'm always willing to help fellow musicians/songwriters/artists.
That being said, AVOID the Harry Fox Agency at ALL COSTS. They're a dinosaur and charge WAY too much for licensing. I was under the impression they handled licensing/permission for recording cover tunes but I guess they could also be in the sample-clearing field as well. Just FYI, if anyone here is every looking to release an album of cover tunes or an album with a cover (or covers) on it, check out LimeLight. They do EXACTLY what Harry Fox does but for MUCH more reasonable rates. I believe their site is www.songclearance.com.
Now in terms of copyrighting original songs, there have been some very recent legal developments that have placed the interests of large corporations & huge, established artists over those of the songwriter. The most famous recent case is the one between Rebecca F. & The Memes & Lady Gaga; Rebecca (full disclosure: she's a mutual friend here in Chicago) claims Gaga stole parts of her 1999 tune "Juda" to create the track "Judas."
This is an extremely fucked-up case, and the judge who presided over it made a horrible decision in my humble opinion. Rebecca can not only prove beyond ANY doubt that Gaga had complete access not only to the tune itself but to the ProTools sessions from the recording of "Juda," and while Gaga's song definitely contains elements that are not in "Juda," her song also definitely contains elements that were CLEARLY lifted from Rebecca's song.
Rebecca has a federal copyright; all the evidence in the world that Gaga had access to the song and can prove she heard it prior to writing "Judas" (which isn't even necessary under US copyright law; a writer can infringe upon another writer's content unknowingly, meaning they created a similar work without nefarious intent, which results in a 1x damage payment, whereas if the plaintiff can prove beyond a doubt that the defendant had access to the original song and therefore acted nefariously, the damages are 3x; the most famous case of this is Huey Lewis vs. Ray Parker Jr., where Lewis proved that Parker Jr. not only created a song ["Ghostbusters"] that was extremely similar to his own ["I Want a New Drug"] but that Parker Jr. intentionally ripped it off); and she can also draw direct personal connections between herself and Gaga which accurately & effectively illustrate the path down which the information traveled to arrive in Gaga's hands, but all of that wasn't enough to win the case. They're appealing.
Point is, yes, users have posted accurate information regarding "real" copyrights (the ones you register with the Library of Congress for a small fee) and "inherent" copyrights (the ones that exist the instant you write something original and release it to the world), but when it comes down to it, all that matters is how powerful you are. This is just another step towards the world we have allowed the powers-that-be to create, one in which corporations are all-powerful and have rights traditionally reserved for individuals (Hobby Lobby, anyone?), even though they bear NONE of the responsibilities that individuals must carry in order to receive their individual rights. It's nonsense. And it has to stop soon or we're all screwed. I mean, screwed even more than we already are.
Lastly, the web is chock-full of info regarding clearing song samples for use in derivative works; I also just checked and found out that yes, it seems LimeLight does in fact handle sample clearing. They have a fantastic informational page on the subject: https://songclearance.com/How+to+Avoid+Sampling+Disasters:+A+Step-by-Step+Guide+to+Clearing+Samples
Hope that helps. Feel free to message me with any questions; I'm always willing to help fellow musicians/songwriters/artists.
Last edited:
Johnny Don't!
New member
PS - read this blog written by Rebecca F. herself for more insight on the case, including the ridiculous, insane, frivolous lawsuit Lady Gag (yes, I omitted the end "a" on purpose) has brought against her. Just nutso.
WHY YOU SHOULD CARE THAT LADY GAGA'S SUING ME FOR $1.4 MILLION | Rebecca F.
WHY YOU SHOULD CARE THAT LADY GAGA'S SUING ME FOR $1.4 MILLION | Rebecca F.
Johnny Don't!
New member
One last note on the whole "sample clearing" issue:
This is extremely important and MUST be handled properly to avoid not only many legal issues but also the loss of revenues derived from your sample-based work, as you will negotiate the split of songwriting credit (and therefore the split of royalties in the majority of cases) at the time you obtain permission to use the sample or samples. A good example of what can happen when you fail to clear a sample comes to us from the most obnoxious sampling producer of all-time, P. Diddy (or Puffy or Puff Daddy or whateverthehellhe'scallinghimselfthesedays):
Mr. Combs created the biggest-selling single of the 90's (and is also one of the biggest-selling singles of ALL-TIME) when he sampled the rhythm guitar lick from The Police's "Every Breath You Take." Unfortunately for Mr. Combs, he neglected to obtain permission to use the sample from the songwriter and the record label. In doing so, he eliminated any chance he had to negotiate for a percentage of the royalties. To avoid a court battle, he settled with Sting out-of-court and gave up 95% of the royalties to the twisty yoga bassist. Granted, Faith Evans, Mr. Combs, and two others share writing credits with Sting but they will never see much of the royalties. You would think a supposedly business-savvy guy like Mr. Combs would've handled this more diligently & professionally, especially because so much money was at stake. Most humble estimates put the amount of money Sting has made from the sample use at around $1 million USD, as it sold over 8 million copies worldwide and was played heavily on terrestrial radio in every single major market in North America, and that's not even counting the vast amount of airplay it received in Europe & Asia.
Just as a further example of how lucrative songwriting royalties (both mechanical & performance) can be, the original version of "Every Breath You Take" was such a huge hit (and still is...it's played thousands of times every single day on various radio stations worldwide, even 30 years after its initial release) that even the most conservative estimates place Sting's income from just this one tune at about $30 million over the past 31 years. It is estimated that he currently makes around $2000 every single day from "Every Breath" royalties, which is a little over $700k/year. Crazy. Just nutso.
This is extremely important and MUST be handled properly to avoid not only many legal issues but also the loss of revenues derived from your sample-based work, as you will negotiate the split of songwriting credit (and therefore the split of royalties in the majority of cases) at the time you obtain permission to use the sample or samples. A good example of what can happen when you fail to clear a sample comes to us from the most obnoxious sampling producer of all-time, P. Diddy (or Puffy or Puff Daddy or whateverthehellhe'scallinghimselfthesedays):
Mr. Combs created the biggest-selling single of the 90's (and is also one of the biggest-selling singles of ALL-TIME) when he sampled the rhythm guitar lick from The Police's "Every Breath You Take." Unfortunately for Mr. Combs, he neglected to obtain permission to use the sample from the songwriter and the record label. In doing so, he eliminated any chance he had to negotiate for a percentage of the royalties. To avoid a court battle, he settled with Sting out-of-court and gave up 95% of the royalties to the twisty yoga bassist. Granted, Faith Evans, Mr. Combs, and two others share writing credits with Sting but they will never see much of the royalties. You would think a supposedly business-savvy guy like Mr. Combs would've handled this more diligently & professionally, especially because so much money was at stake. Most humble estimates put the amount of money Sting has made from the sample use at around $1 million USD, as it sold over 8 million copies worldwide and was played heavily on terrestrial radio in every single major market in North America, and that's not even counting the vast amount of airplay it received in Europe & Asia.
Just as a further example of how lucrative songwriting royalties (both mechanical & performance) can be, the original version of "Every Breath You Take" was such a huge hit (and still is...it's played thousands of times every single day on various radio stations worldwide, even 30 years after its initial release) that even the most conservative estimates place Sting's income from just this one tune at about $30 million over the past 31 years. It is estimated that he currently makes around $2000 every single day from "Every Breath" royalties, which is a little over $700k/year. Crazy. Just nutso.
Last edited:
That sounds like a lot of sour grapes.
Johnny Don't!
New member
Are you saying that it sounds like she's just complaining about nothing? If so, you are part of the problem. Also, put yerself in her shoes and think about how you'd feel: first yer song gets blatantly ripped off; then you lose yer court battle because the judge is basically an idiot; and then you get sued for filing a completely legitimate lawsuit in the first place. You think that's sour grapes?? I highly question your ability to comprehend the situation and the precedent this case has established. It's bad for ALL of us who create intellectual property, but especially for songwriters.
I'm willing to bet you've never made a single dime from any of your musical endeavors, which is why you fail to not only comprehend the seriousness of this situation but also explains yer complete lack of empathy for Rebecca F.
I'm willing to bet you've never made a single dime from any of your musical endeavors, which is why you fail to not only comprehend the seriousness of this situation but also explains yer complete lack of empathy for Rebecca F.