Re-mixed music copyright??

dory_breaux

dory_breaux

Todd Wannabe
Hey, an interesting idea has sprung into my head. Of late I have been getting into using a digital synthesizing program (FL Studio) to make my own versions of songs i like. I noticed that when I download MIDI files from the interweb, there usually not EXACT matches to the real song. Sure, they sound close enough to fit my purpose, and I have never bothered to change it. So now I have got the idea that since it isn't really the same as the original, and it doesn't have any lyrics, would there be any copyrights placed on pre-said musical... thing?

Example:

I find a song I want to use in a ski video. The song is lets say for simplicity's sake Nowhere Man by The Beatles. I find an MIDI file, download it, import into FL Studio (awesome program btw, defenetly worth checking out) and change the instruments around and change the tune a little bit. Now, I use it in my video, make the DVDs, sell them at the local ski shop (not that I have one, again, just for arguments sake) and make a couple bucks. Is that copyright infringement? If so, how likely do you think it is that I would get caught/procicuted/whatever it is?

Thank you for any help and I hope this starts some discussion.

Dory
 
What you are proposing is not re-mixing. Re-mixing is taking the original recording and mixing other elements into it. That would not be be copyrightable as you would be using a copyrighted song unless you had permission of the author/copyright holder.

What you are proposing is re-recording the song. If there exists a current copyright of the song you would still be in violation without permission of the author/copyright holder.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and the above statement is my understanding and belief.
 
I think alot of it is going to depend on how much you change it. Thats a sticky area and I dont know the specifics for music. The way I understand it though is that you must change it to the point of unrecognizability. Not sure how they really quantify that though. I'd definitely get an entertainment/copyright lawywer involved if you want to seriously pursue it. But if its just a re-recording like Cryogenic was talking about then yes you would need rights.
 
Leadoff single "Bitter Sweet Symphony" entered the UK charts at #2. The single reached #12 on the U.S. charts, the band's highest position ever in the USA. The song borrowed a reversed looped sample of a symphonic recording of the Rolling Stones song "The Last Time"[1][2]. ABKCO Records, which controls the Rolling Stones' back catalogue, and which had warned The Verve against using the Rolling Stones sample in "Bitter Sweet Symphony," successfully sued The Verve for 100% of the royalties for the song. Further, as a result of the lawsuit, Rolling Stones members Keith Richards and Mick Jagger were given songwriting credits and full publishing rights to the song, which later appeared in a Nike commercial against The Verve's will. After the song was used in the movie Cruel Intentions, The Verve filed a moral rights (copyright) suit to ensure the song was not distributed commercially any more. The Verve is said to have not made a penny from the song. [citation needed]
Click to expand...

I'm not sure of the length of the sample the Verve used, but making something "unrecognisable" is very, very difficult and record companies watch people like hawks for lawsuits (after all, it's how they make all their money these days). A band (or its label) owns copyright not only for the performance of a song, but the master of the song and the song itself (chord progressions, lyrics, etc). Everything is copyrighted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top