Seed64

[C64GLeN]

Anyone else aware of this? Just came across this via twitter, seems an like a complication of c64 remixes (some from remix.kwed.org) released on a creative commons license.

http://www.headphonica.com/?p=1063

[Chris Abbott]

They simply can't legally do that, since they're granting rights they don't own. But hey, the German court system would probably give them ownership of "Axel F" or something...

[Jan Lund Thomsen]

There used to be a time when I thought Creative Commons was a great idea. Mind you, that was before people started slapping it on stuff that wasn't CC'ed in the first place, or that they didn't create themselves and thus had the every right to do with as they pleased.

Then again, it might just be me getting grumpier over the years.

[Analog-X64]

Were any of you contacted about the compilation? If I was ever going to do something like this, I would as a courtesy send an e-mail asking for permission, and I got a no for an answer I would respect the request.

[headphonica]

fyi: every single artist on this compilation confirmed it's ok to use his piece of music, especially since it's under a non-commercial+sharealike license.
concerning copyrights on the original compositions you might do some research yourself before posting insulting comments.
we do consider any use of compository pieces Fair Use.

[C64GLeN]

concerning copyrights on the original compositions you might do some research yourself before posting insulting comments.
we do consider any use of compository pieces Fair Use.

Oh, wow. You might want to do 'some research yourself' on who you are talking to.

[headphonica]

well, what's the problem?
aynthing you do not consider fair use?

just in case you're not aware of it:
"Copyright protects the particular way authors have expressed themselves. It does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in a work."
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

[Analog-X64]

concerning copyrights on the original compositions you might do some research yourself before posting insulting comments.
we do consider any use of compository pieces Fair Use.

No insult was intended by my comments, however you need to realise that this is a touchy subject around these parts.

Many complications have been made in the past without any permission requests, and against the composers wishes.

[headphonica]

yes, we are aware of the importance of copyrights in general.
but copyright cannot be the reason to take down creative works as such.

obviously nobodys copyrights get hurt with a compilation like this, we think, as these are coverversions which are distributed completely non-commercial (& share-alike).
of course you can contact your lawyer and try to cease-and-desist this compilation.
well done then.
but to whoms effort?

in other words: which kind of license would you have prefered in this case?
none?



p.s. to everyone who thinks the "Axel F"-theme is owned by someobody specifically, eat this:
http://freemusicarchive.org/music/Ergo_ ... _Hills_Cop

[Analog-X64]

p.s. to everyone who thinks the "Axel F"-theme is owned by someobody specifically, eat this:
http://freemusicarchive.org/music/Ergo_ ... _Hills_Cop

MCA Records holds the copyright to "Axel F" do your homework.

[headphonica]

[quote="Analog-X64"][quote="headphonica"]
p.s. to everyone who thinks the "Axel F"-theme is owned by someobody specifically, eat this:
http://freemusicarchive.org/music/Ergo_ ... _Hills_Cop
[/quote]

MCA Records holds the copyright to "Axel F" do your homework.[/quote]

it seems neccessary for us to leave this forum due to a massive lack of humor.
see you elsewhere.

[Jan Lund Thomsen]

No one said anything about taking the compilation off-line before you brought it up.

What is being pointed out, however, is that remix artists do not have ownership of the underlying work - so even if you do ask them for permission to have their performances of a composition featured on a compilation, that right isn't theirs to give away. Now, if you also got the composers approval then everything would be fine and dandy. But you haven't mentioned that, so naturally people will be assuming that you didn't talk to the composers. Did you?

Also, playing the "It's Creative Commons, so it must be OK" card doesn't automatically make things OK.

[headphonica]

you're absolutely right - there was no mentioning of the composers approval which to a certain degree makes this compilation suspicious of infringing someone's copyrights. but nevertheless you should reflect this compilation does _not_ include any "remix" at all.
so the conflict we're talking about here is rearranging someone's composition, right?

ok. let's do the serious business then.
hmm, has anybody done their homework yet?
any expert here able to list all _original_ composers of the compository pieces included in this compilation?
please don't just list the names of the musicians who did the "original" score for each game, information which - interestingly enough - is included in each tracks id3tag [for linux-users we recommend "puddletag", for windows-users please use "mp3tag" to search the tags, thank you], _but_ the _original_ composer of the tune.
ok?
[just one hint: you did know that e.g. the tune of "delta" was originally composed by philip glass?]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5q3DaDgIN0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXSpMM5PGXA

then let's assume all these original composers haven't been asked nor gave their permission in any way.
we now do play the "fair use"-card, not the creative commons one, as each piece of music on this release is a unique creative work which only includes minimal quotations from the original compositions compared to its/their entirety.
the alterations in instrumentation, structure and complete outcomming of the pieces made by the musicians on this compilation qualifies all of them to be works on their own, we think.
as these are complete re-arrangements it'll need a professional witness in each case to make sure copyrights of the _original_ composer have been infringed, what we doubt.
and another proof for absolutely "fair use" in this case is the complete noncommercial consistency [ok, now we do play the CC-card ].
please remember: the intention of copyrigth itself has never been censorship or prohibition of creative works.
that'd be absurd.

now, still assuming all these original composers haven't been asked, you'd still prefer not releasing this compilation in the first place?
[quote="Chris Abbott"]They simply can't legally do that, ...[/quote]
the other question still remains unanswered: which kind of license would you have prefered in this case?

rest assured: we do believe that nobodys copyrights got hurt with this release.

[Chris Abbott]

You do realise that arguing stuff on this board doesn't actually change reality, don't you? Or that no one is suggesting you take your work down? And that no one is planning to sue you?

Do you also realise that I'm the publisher for quite a lot of the original tunes?

Here's some actual facts.

1) musical copyright has its own set of laws and rules: the concept of fair use excludes musical works.

2) The original composers (or their publishers) own the "Mechanical Copyright" (musical content) in remixes by default. The remixes are derivative works, but the right to authorise the creation of a derivative work is purely the decision of the copyright holder. Any composing shares in the new work are the subject of negotiation between parties, but cannot be unilaterally declared by the remixer. A remix carries a composer's work with it, and so the copyright holder has theoretically complete control over the circumstances of how the remix is published.

3) This means that remixes based on original copyrighted material cannot legally be re-licenced (for instance, through a Creative Commons licence) to third parties, since the mechanical copyright (as opposed to the phonographic copyright, which is the sole property of the remixer unless samples of the original have been used) that exists in the piece does not belong to the person doing the licencing.

4) Did I mention that sheet music (and thus music itself, thanks to arcane case law) is immune from fair use laws? You cannot even legally photocopy one sheet of music without infringing copyright. Not even one bar.

5) Your question "which licence..." shows a sense of entitlement that you're (ironically) not entitled to. If you use others' work in any way at all, then you do not have full rights as to what happens to the end result. If you want control, do something original. You can't offer it with any licence at all. If you want to distribute it, then just put a link there, but don't try to grant licences you're legally not entitled to grant. There aren't any.

This is the legal position. Don't shoot the messenger, or argue here in the misguided belief that reality will change because you want it to, because it won't.

Having said that, just because you're infringing copyright doesn't mean that anyone will feel motivated to do anything about it. That would be a waste of valuable time. Large parts of the C64 scene are copyright infringing, but encouraged as long as people give appropriate credit, give their stuff away, and don't try to impose licence terms which aren't legal.

Chris

[headphonica]

hey chris,
we're honoured to meet you.

nevertheless you're wrong on many points.

1. "fair use" does apply on music / compository works. please proove me wrong, thank you. (links accepted

2. there's not even 1 (!) remix on this compilation, just original works. so "Mechanical Copyright" has no effect under this circumstances.

3. we consider the pieces on this compilation original works (explained in my last posting above already) by the musicians which allows them to set the license.

4. irrelevant here, isn't it?

5. as said in 3.) the musicians who created the music we published have the right to choose from any license option they like.


ok. thinking about your statement, i cannot assume you really read my posting or listened to the music.
hmm, that makes things difficult...