TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Production Studio
-- vocals and copyright

vocals and copyright

Hi,

I was wondering, if you buy some vocal samples, and you have the right to use the vocals in your productions, and edit them etc, then are you allowed to get a singer to sing different lyrics to the same vocal melody?

Thanks.

yes.. it's almost the same like using synths in your tune

Even if the vocals were not royalty-free, it would be legal to get your own vocalists to sing the exact same vocals in the exact same melody. Copyright laws only prevent you from using pre-recorded material in your own work without a license.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Even if the vocals were not royalty-free, it would be legal to get your own vocalists to sing the exact same vocals in the exact same melody. Copyright laws only prevent you from using pre-recorded material in your own work without a license.

Nope. This myth is along the same lines as the old, if you mail something to yourself, it's copywritten...

In the United States you must acquire a mechanical license from the music publisher in order to re-record a copywritten sound recording. If you are going to sample from the original sound recording, you must acquire permission from both the music publisher and the copyright owner of the physical sound recording. If either says no, then you cannot sample the recording.

You may not re-record copywritten lyrics or a copywritten melody without first purchasing a mechanical license from the copyright owner of the music publication.

So, to answer your question, you may re-record the lyrics, as long as it's not explicity stated somewhere within the CD or the CD inlay that you cannot re-record the lyrics. Most CDs allow you free reign with what you purchase, but there are some that require that you pay additional fees to use the material beyond what you paid for the CD. I would even go so far as to contact the music publisher, if you are planning to use the re-recorded lyrics in any kind of commercial release where you intend to profit from the sale of the reproduction.

no i meant singing DIFFERENT lyrics to the same vocal melody.

My understanding would be the the melody would be covered under the copywrite of the written score (songs have 2 copywrite : score(music) and lyrics) so using different lyrics would bypass the song copywrite but not the score one.

I'd say best thing would be to contact the relevant agency in your country to clarrify from them. Of course if your not looking to release the track for financial gain it wouldn't really matter anyway.

Be curious to know what info you can find out if you do look into it, so let us know.

quote:

Originally posted by trancey_spacer no i meant singing DIFFERENT lyrics to the same vocal melody.

Your question was answered in the above response. If the melody is copywritten, then you would have to acquire copyrigt approval for the actual melody through a mechanical license from the music publisher, IF you intend to commercially release the re-recorded melody.

Bullshit. a lot of chords have been used in the same way in tons of songs, there is no such thing as copyright on a melody these days. Especially not in trance which is just filled with basic chords and chord progressions.

I don't get why people always get 110% into stuff that doesn't mean shit in the end. Copyright is important but you really need to now when to apply those laws and when not to. Singing another text on top of an existing chord progression is one of those things which just can't be proven *unless* you are talking about a very special and easy to recognise melody/chord progression. There are tons of songs using the same chord progressions, I don't see all producers of those compositions meeting up in court.

Hell, I would have been contacted by a 10000+ lawyers in the past few months if it was like that.

@zenperson: wouldn't it be weird to call it a crime to copy melodies and release them commercially and to condone private copying? That doesn't make sense. Think about it. Downloading music privately, which is another form of copying (and yet remarkably the same), isn't legal either.

You can't copyright a melody. Period. It doesn't make sense to say that one can't re-record a copyrighted melody because there is no such thing. Anyway, when copyright law talks about re-recording, it's referring to analog copies, not hiring your own vocalists and doing your own version. People do that all the time without asking for permission and without getting sued!

As for sending oneself a CD via registered mail, that's not a myth, although it is a misunderstanding to reason that the act of mailing it is what establishes the copyright. A published work is automatically copyrighted as soon as it's created - sending it to yourself through registered mail, sealed, is just a way of proving that you owned the copyright on the postmarked date.

So the melody is not considered part of the score? I thought that was what makes up the score? (or at least part of it)

quote:

Originally posted by skot_e So the melody is not considered part of the score? I thought that was what makes up the score? (or at least part of it)

If it's actually part of a published score, then yes, it's protected by copyright, but the only protection that copyright affords is that another person can't publish their own version of the score. There are no restrictions on playing what's on the score and recording that - orchestras and bands across the globe do this every day, and often record their own CDs, without paying a time to the publishers.

You guys that are saying that it's unreasonable... well, that actually doesn't mean anything to the court. The bottom line is, IF, you record a melody, and you submit your melody, in a tangeble form to the United States Patent and Trademark office, using a form PA, and pay your 45.00, then that melody is copywritten. Therefore, if someone were to re-record the melody, it would require that they seek permission of the copyright holder. Now, chord progressions do not count as melodies, because they're fundamental in the development of music.

The prime difference here is that most melodies that you hear, are representative of people who aren't that serious about suing. BUT, if you take the melody line from lets say, Pink Floyd's, Comfortably Numb, remove the lyrics and re-record the melody, and commercially profit from it, then yes, expect to be sued by a major label for copyright infringement. Or even if I took PVD's, Another Way, and re-recorded the melody on piano and mixed in a downtempo beat, I could expect to be hearing from Vandit wanting their money...

BRAINS ON BEFORE HANDS ON...

I'm only telling you the safe route to go about things. ALL of this I learned from an attorney. I'm not making this stuff up and i'm not just reasoning it out, as I suspect some of you might be.

And as for the mailing it to yourself, that's not a viable legal option to prove copyright. I learned that from the lawyer too... A court does not recognize that because there's no way to prove that you actually composed that work on that day and mailed it to yourself...I could hear my friend record a melody, go home, record that same melody, mail it to myself before he does, and BAM, it's mine. That's why the copyright office exists.... To establish standards.

Remember, this is all in the United States.. I have NO idea what Canada's standards are or any other country for that matter...

quote:

Originally posted by Storyteller @zenperson: wouldn't it be weird to call it a crime to copy melodies and release them commercially and to condone private copying? That doesn't make sense. Think about it. Downloading music privately, which is another form of copying (and yet remarkably the same), isn't legal either.

Private downloading of music is illegal, unless you pay a price to download the music. You're actually not allowed to then make copies of that downloaded track to give to anyone else, under US law. You are allowed to use your downloaded track for your own uses, but the moment you give that track to someone else OR profit from that track commercially, then you are breaking the law.

If you are a DJ and playing that track, then you're not profiting from that track commercially... you're actually marketing the artist and their music, so you're never going to be sued for that. BUT, if you plan to commercially release a track on a mix record or remix record, then yes, you'll have to have permission to sell your mix album or remix, from the original copyright owner, because you will be making money using their stuff.

Geez people.... i don't make the laws. I'm just telling you what they are because this is a forum to help people be better at what they do and there are laws that govern how you can and can't go about making money, using other peoples' music.

quote:

Originally posted by zenperson I'm only telling you the safe route to go about things. ALL of this I learned from an attorney. I'm not making this stuff up and i'm not just reasoning it out, as I suspect some of you might be.

Not surprising that a lawyer would tell you to do things the laborious and expensive way - and generally a way in which you'd need legal counsel to do it properly.

I'm obviously not saying that I know more than a trademark attorney, but I think copyright cases like that are sort of like speeding ticket cases, you can do everything the prescribed legal way if you want but it isn't necessary and most of the time the courts won't care. A judge can easily decide that a copyrighted work isn't novel, just like he can with a patent, and attempting to copyright a short melody is almost guaranteed to produce that outcome if someone "steals" it.

Submitting your melody in a "tangible form" means publishing it. It's then the published work that's copyrighted (not copywritten, that's not a word), not the notes themselves.

perfect thread- will be amazing for the report im writing about sampling, intellectual propery etc.



Some of your posts may be used in my report? Everyone ok with that?

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Not surprising that a lawyer would tell you to do things the laborious and expensive way - and generally a way in which you'd need legal counsel to do it properly. I'm obviously not saying that I know more than a trademark attorney, but I think copyright cases like that are sort of like speeding ticket cases, you can do everything the prescribed legal way if you want but it isn't necessary and most of the time the courts won't care. A judge can easily decide that a copyrighted work isn't novel, just like he can with a patent, and attempting to copyright a short melody is almost guaranteed to produce that outcome if someone "steals" it. Submitting your melody in a "tangible form" means publishing it. It's then the published work that's copyrighted (not copywritten, that's not a word), not the notes themselves.

Sorry dude, but you're wrong. And I'm not going to go on with this argument forever and ever... A work need not be published to be COPYRIGHTED ..... i can record my sound recording, submit it to the patent office and bam, it's now my my posession. As for your your judges being reasonable, dude, it has nothing to do with what you think is reasonable or not reasonble... it has to do with law.

So, stop telling us what you think the judge would do, and go with what you know is fact. I took the time to get educated so that I would know what was right and what was wrong, not so I could entertain my own thoughts as to what I think might happen when I copyright my melodies. You're right.. the notes are not copyrighted.. but, the sequence is... If you copy my sequences, and we play them back, and they sound the same, and I had my sequence copyrighted, then yes, you will lose the law suit.

So, I've said all I'm going to say... The original author of this thread obviously isn't participating anymore, so it is what it is.

And yea Allied, go ahead and use it... These are all facts, not my personal opinions.

quote:

Originally posted by zenperson A work need not be published to be COPYRIGHTED ..... i can record my sound recording, submit it to the patent office and bam, it's now my my posession.

I think you're misunderstanding the term "published" to mean something like "commercially released". Published simply means some sort of tangible property - sheet music, a recording, etc. And that property specifically is what becomes copyright - you submit a recording, the recording is copyrighted, not the melodies you used in it.

quote:

As for your your judges being reasonable, dude, it has nothing to do with what you think is reasonable or not reasonble... it has to do with law.

Lots of patents get through the patent office that end up being struck down in court. Same thing happens with copyright and trademarks. I'm not telling you what I think is reasonable, I'm telling you what actually happens in court and you need only look at some case history to verify that.

I respect that you took the time to get educated and I never said that you were wrong about the legal technicalities, just that you seem to be misinterpreting the part about what is actually protected. You submit a published work (and there is a published work, that's what you're submitting by definition), then the published work is copyrighted. Not its component parts, i.e. the melody.

It just won't work in court. Any melody you tried to "copyright" is practically guaranteed to have been used in some prior work, either in full or in a form similar enough to count it as not novel and have the case thrown out of court. There's a world of difference between the wholesale digital or analog copying of a recorded work and the recreation of said work using some of its melodies or progressions (which happens hundreds of times every day). It's bizarre that anyone wouldn't see or acknowledge the clear difference.

I've taken the time to get educated on this too; we obviously just got educated from different sources.

I'd have to agree with diginut here

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.