Copyright procedure

S

Shack

New member
Hi, i'm putting out a 12" single which contains the main single, two remixes of it and another track. One of the remixes is using music which is not my original composition which I have reproduced, i.e. re-performed and not sampled, but I have my song over it. I have kept my vocal tracks but replayed the instrumental of an existing song.

What type of copyright permission do I require? Someone mentioned that I don't need permission and should just state that the track contains an interpolation of the song I am using and state the writers annd the publisher. Is that correct?
 
Just an extra query on this please. How do I actually credit the original writer on the song? The lyrics and melodies are my original composition and I have re-performed the instrumental part of an existing song which now forms the instrumental music to my song.

Just to clarify:

1. I had an orginal song

2. For the remix, I stripped away my original instrumental leaving just the vocals

3. I re-performed the instrumental to an existing song as I didn't want to sample

I am not sure as to how I credit the writer of the song I used.
 
On the song where you used the other composer's music, the credit should read:

Lyrics: Shack (or your real name)
Music: Original composer's name

It's that simple.

Jeff
 
On the song where you used the other composer's music, the credit should read:

Lyrics: Shack (or your real name)
Music: Original composer's name, your name

It's that simple.

Jeff
 
Are you selling the record to make $$$$? If you will not be making any money off this, you do not have to pay mechanical lisences or royalties.
 
irishfolker said:
On the song where you used the other composer's music, the credit should read:

Lyrics: Shack (or your real name)
Music: Original composer's name

It's that simple.

Jeff
Click to expand...
But it's not just the lyrics that are mine, the melodies and choruses are also mine, I have basically taken the bassline and keyboards from that song and re-played them myself, I have added different drums, guitars and other sounds.
 
lucky13 said:
Are you selling the record to make $$$$? If you will not be making any money off this, you do not have to pay mechanical lisences or royalties.
Click to expand...
I am putting it out as a 12". Basically I have the original version of the single and two remixes, one of which is this track. What I have effectively done is similar to a dj remix where they will sample a section and stick under the acapella, I have just decided to play the music as opposed to sampling it. I haven't used any singing parts from the song I am 'biting', just the bassline and the keyboard parts.
 
Shack said:
I am putting it out as a 12". Basically I have the original version of the single and two remixes, one of which is this track. What I have effectively done is similar to a dj remix where they will sample a section and stick under the acapella, I have just decided to play the music as opposed to sampling it. I haven't used any singing parts from the song I am 'biting', just the bassline and the keyboard parts.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but are you selling the 12"? or giving it away for free at shows? If you're giving it away, you don't have to pay any copyright or mechanical lisence fees.

From what you said, you did not sample you recorded what is called a "sound alike". With a sound alike, you have to adheer to the same rules as a cover band. The songwriter needs to be paid their mechanical lisence. That's where the what bennychico said comes into play. You need to contact the Harry Fox Agency, and work that out.
 
My second post is corrected (I didn't think the first one made it through) You should credit yourself and the original composer for the music.

With respect to the charging for it issue, the copyright law makes no distinction between works disseminated for profit and works disseminated for free. That only comes into play when penalties are assessed for an infraction. To copy someone's protected work and disseminate it in any form is a violation of copyright.

From a practical standpoint, however, if you are passing it around among friends, the infringement is small enough that you can probably not worry about anyone coming after you. If you are hoping for wider distribution, you should probably make sure to follow all the rules.
 
irishfolker said:
My second post is corrected (I didn't think the first one made it through) You should credit yourself and the original composer for the music.

With respect to the charging for it issue, the copyright law makes no distinction between works disseminated for profit and works disseminated for free. That only comes into play when penalties are assessed for an infraction. To copy someone's protected work and disseminate it in any form is a violation of copyright.

From a practical standpoint, however, if you are passing it around among friends, the infringement is small enough that you can probably not worry about anyone coming after you. If you are hoping for wider distribution, you should probably make sure to follow all the rules.
Click to expand...

I learned in a music business class that a copyright is only infringed when a derivative work is sold for profit. I will check my notebook and see if I can find a source for that info.
 
lucky13 said:
Are you selling the record to make $$$$? If you will not be making any money off this, you do not have to pay mechanical lisences or royalties.
Click to expand...

although a good rule of thumb to follow...this is not necessarily true. If your work is being played in public, you still will want to pay the mechanical fees to be safe...otherwise you may still be subject to royalty payments and fees. A mechanical license is a written authorization from the publisher to manufacture and distribute a record, CD or audio tape for a specific copyrighted musical composition.
 
bennychico11 said:
although a good rule of thumb to follow...this is not necessarily true. If your work is being played in public, you still will want to pay the mechanical fees to be safe...otherwise you may still be subject to royalty payments and fees. A mechanical license is a written authorization from the publisher to manufacture and distribute a record, CD or audio tape for a specific copyrighted musical composition.
Click to expand...
So says bennychico11, Solicitor at Large.

Sorry, 'benny', but the UK copyright laws bear NO resemblence to those in the US.

Harry Fox is a US company and does not do business overseas.

Bad information all the way around.

Many demerit points for not seeing that the original poster is not a United States citizen, but filling him up with bullshit anyway pretending you know something about what he needs to do next.





.
 
lucky13 said:
I learned in a music business class that a copyright is only infringed when a derivative work is sold for profit. I will check my notebook and see if I can find a source for that info.
Click to expand...

You were probably talking about the Fair Use Doctrine. Information about that is available at http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html (for the US). There are limits, even if nothing is being charged. If you cover somebody's song and make 5 million copies and give them all away, chances are you're gonna get sued. And lose. If you make 5 copies for your family and friends, you can claim Fair Use. Also, the infringement is so minor it's not worth going to court over.
 
ssscientist said:
So says bennychico11, Solicitor at Large.

Sorry, 'benny', but the UK copyright laws bear NO resemblence to those in the US.

Harry Fox is a US company and does not do business overseas.

Bad information all the way around.

Many demerit points for not seeing that the original poster is not a United States citizen, but filling him up with bullshit anyway pretending you know something about what he needs to do next.


.
Click to expand...

fuck off dude.
I don't know what the hell your problem with me is, but you've had a stick up your ass since day one.

My bad for not seeing he was in London, but he never stated UK law...he just asked a copyright question and I assumed he was talking about US because that's where most of these questions come from. Usually people will state "under UK law" since the majority of the forum users are from the US. I don't read everyone's "location" stat.
but attacking my post solely because I didn't know what country he was from...??? come on, man.


ignoring this asshole and back on topic....
Shack-
doing a quick search I came across this:
The Mechanical Copyright Society
http://www.mcps.co.uk/

straight from their site:
When planning to use music in any of your projects, you are not automatically entitled to a licence and therefore must ensure all the required clearances have been obtained BEFORE you make any recordings or use music in any way. If you are producing a music product for a third party and neglect to secure the necessary licence, you could inadvertently expose your clients to any possible claims arising from copyright infringement. To identify the licence you require, please visit our 'Which Licence?' section.
Click to expand...

doesn't appear to me that the UK laws vary that much than the US on usage laws. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
bennychico11 said:
doesn't appear to me that the UK laws vary that much than the US on usage laws. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Yeah, but it looks like one hell of a mess determining which license to get. It looks like even free distribution has a license scheme of its own, with a minimum of 200 pounds per song. That can't be right. Can any UK legal types interpret this stuff for us poor musician types?

BTW, I also failed to notice the OP is in London and gave advice for the US.
 
ssscientist said:
So says bennychico11, Solicitor at Large.

Sorry, 'benny', but the UK copyright laws bear NO resemblence to those in the US.

Harry Fox is a US company and does not do business overseas.

Bad information all the way around.

Many demerit points for not seeing that the original poster is not a United States citizen, but filling him up with bullshit anyway pretending you know something about what he needs to do next.





.
Click to expand...

Was that asshole response really needed? Seriously man, I'd hate to see how you treat clients or others.
 
bennychico11 said:
but attacking my post solely because I didn't know what country he was from...??? come on, man
Click to expand...
You're just digging yourself in deeper and deeper.

I'm right, you fucked up, and you can't stand it being called on it. For some reason that makes you vewy vewy angwy.

I'm going to cut and paste the negative feedback comment you left for me so everyone can see it.

'grow up man, and stop bashing every post I make that has an honest mistake in it.'

That's a pretty big 'honest mistake' --- as a matter of fact, you owe both me and the poster of the original question an apology for your defensive and insecure attitude.

You must be a true joy when faced with any type of adversity in real life if you're this way while hiding behind the wall of a BBS...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top