In the past I've had disagreements with Raul about the copyright status of some of the music he has been uploading. In these cases he has received permission from the recording artist, but the recording artist may not have had the right to grant permission due to the music itself being new and copyrighted, or due to the performer working off copyrighted score.
Clearing rights for music is a complex and difficult area to deal with, and I gave up arguing it with Raul at the time as it's clear that his intentions were good and that we could deal with it when someone finally complained.
However, Raul recently uploaded http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Morissette_-_Ironic.ogg
I brought this issue up to him, and his reply was that yes, it looks somewhat fishy but the boilerplate copyright waver on a government website should be sufficient.
I am pretty much without words on this. I think Raul's behavior on the matter of music copyright is negligent. I know this is a harsh thing to say, ... I gave him the benefit of the doubt on the classical music, but there is no other way I can describe the uploading of the Ironic song.
Overall, wikipedia's handling of material taken from government websites has been playing it fast and loose (it's only PD if the government created it, if they bought it from someone they might have the right to distribute it, but *we* may not) but we've really stepped over the line with this one.
We need to have a discussion of how to handle music copyright issues.
We need to have a discussion of how to handle music copyright issues.
Unfortunately, the recording company rather than the author has to grant permission. Or better, both of them have to do so, certainly as long as the cd is still in stores. Please throw them off, or we'll be in big trouble soon. And if Raul goes on doing things like these, we'd better block him.
Wouter
_________________________________________________________________ Nieuw: Download nu MSN Messenger 7.0 http://messenger.msn.nl/
On 5/15/05, Wouter Steenbeek musiqolog@hotmail.com wrote:
We need to have a discussion of how to handle music copyright issues.
Unfortunately, the recording company rather than the author has to grant permission. Or better, both of them have to do so, certainly as long as the cd is still in stores. Please throw them off, or we'll be in big trouble soon. And if Raul goes on doing things like these, we'd better block him.
I'm not sure about habits at this point, but I think that this only holds if we use the cd recording. If the piece is recorded on a separate occasion, I think it is only the composer and the musicians who have to give permission (and the text writer in case of a song). Can someone acknowledge or correct me?
Andre Engels
On Sunday, May 15, 2005 10:22 AM, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/15/05, Wouter Steenbeek musiqolog@hotmail.com wrote:
We need to have a discussion of how to handle music copyright issues.
[Snip]
I think it is only the composer and the musicians who have to give permission (and the text writer in case of a song). Can someone acknowledge or correct me?
This is not entirely correct, AIUI: the act of type-setting the score is not considered a "mechanical" reproduction of the music, but, instead, an artistic work worthy of copyright - the manner of scoring can chanage the tone of the piece, and so the setter has to try to work out what the composer meant.
This way in which the score is set out is then, in effect, an arrangement of the original music, and so, when the score is played, the copyright of the composer, the score-setter, the musicians, and the conductor (if appropriate) are all taking an artistic part in the creation of copyright, and so we would need the permission of each of them. Note that most score-setting is done on a work-for-hire basis for large companies like Boosey & Hawkes, who are extremely unlikely to give permission for free
However, this is only my understanding, and could be wrong; I will ask a couple of friends of mine who professionally score-set for their insight.
Yours,
http://www.maverickrc.com/releases/26/
As is shown here, the album "Jagged Little Pill" is still for sale, thus we are correct in assuming that "Ironic" cannot be uploaded legally on Wikipedia.
David 'DJ' Hedley wrote:
http://www.maverickrc.com/releases/26/
As is shown here, the album "Jagged Little Pill" is still for sale, thus we are correct in assuming that "Ironic" cannot be uploaded legally on Wikipedia.
Isn't it ironic ......
Waerth
David 'DJ' Hedley wrote:
http://www.maverickrc.com/releases/26/
As is shown here, the album "Jagged Little Pill" is still for sale, thus we are correct in assuming that "Ironic" cannot be uploaded legally on Wikipedia.
That point is not relevant. Ceasing to be available has no effect on the copyright of the material unless it is more than 75 years old.
Ec.
David 'DJ' Hedley wrote:
http://www.maverickrc.com/releases/26/
As is shown here, the album "Jagged Little Pill" is still for sale, thus we are correct in assuming that "Ironic" cannot be uploaded legally on Wikipedia.
That point is not relevant. Ceasing to be available has no effect on the copyright of the material unless it is more than 75 years old.
Ec.
As for the US, to be sure.
W.
_________________________________________________________________ Altijd in contact met de kleinkinderen: MSN Messenger http://messenger.msn.nl/
On 5/15/05, James D. Forrester james@jdforrester.org wrote: [snip]
This way in which the score is set out is then, in effect, an arrangement of the original music, and so, when the score is played, the copyright of the composer, the score-setter, the musicians, and the conductor (if appropriate) are all taking an artistic part in the creation of copyright, and so we would need the permission of each of them. Note that most score-setting is done on a work-for-hire basis for large companies like Boosey & Hawkes, who are extremely unlikely to give permission for free
[snip]
This is correct, and it is preventing hundreds of hours of music performed by University orchestras around the world from being contributed for our use.
Many (most?) professional musicians have some understanding of these issues and know enough to tell you that they don't necessarily have reproduction rights on their recordings, even for the works of long decomposed composers.
But I suspect that many are not aware of this... As a result I think we should amend the copyright release question which is used from music so that it asks "Is this an original composition? If it is not, has the original work passed into the public domain? If it has, was this performed from score which was also in the public domain? If so, may we please have a copy of this public domain score so that we can preserve and make it available as well?"
I'm not sure about habits at this point, but I think that this only holds if we use the cd recording. If the piece is recorded on a separate occasion, I think it is only the composer and the musicians who have to give permission (and the text writer in case of a song). Can someone acknowledge or correct me?
I am not sure to exactly understand what you asked for, but I would say : yes it would be ok.
There are so many people who can hold copyright on a music recordings that of today it is nearly impossible for us to clear their rights.
The only viable solution would be to clearly idenfify what recordings can be said PD or can be used under fair use or droit d'auteur limitations.
This is a sensitive topic since the music industry is much eager to sue than anything else...
Jean-Baptiste Soufron
Le 15 mai 05 à 05:47, Gregory Maxwell a écrit :
In the past I've had disagreements with Raul about the copyright status of some of the music he has been uploading. In these cases he has received permission from the recording artist, but the recording artist may not have had the right to grant permission due to the music itself being new and copyrighted, or due to the performer working off copyrighted score.
Clearing rights for music is a complex and difficult area to deal with, and I gave up arguing it with Raul at the time as it's clear that his intentions were good and that we could deal with it when someone finally complained.
However, Raul recently uploaded http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Morissette_-_Ironic.ogg
I brought this issue up to him, and his reply was that yes, it looks somewhat fishy but the boilerplate copyright waver on a government website should be sufficient.
I am pretty much without words on this. I think Raul's behavior on the matter of music copyright is negligent. I know this is a harsh thing to say, ... I gave him the benefit of the doubt on the classical music, but there is no other way I can describe the uploading of the Ironic song.
Overall, wikipedia's handling of material taken from government websites has been playing it fast and loose (it's only PD if the government created it, if they bought it from someone they might have the right to distribute it, but *we* may not) but we've really stepped over the line with this one.
We need to have a discussion of how to handle music copyright issues. _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
In the past I've had disagreements with Raul about the copyright status of some of the music he has been uploading. In these cases he has received permission from the recording artist, but the recording artist may not have had the right to grant permission due to the music itself being new and copyrighted, or due to the performer working off copyrighted score.
Clearing rights for music is a complex and difficult area to deal with, and I gave up arguing it with Raul at the time as it's clear that his intentions were good and that we could deal with it when someone finally complained.
However, Raul recently uploaded http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Morissette_-_Ironic.ogg
I brought this issue up to him, and his reply was that yes, it looks somewhat fishy but the boilerplate copyright waver on a government website should be sufficient.
I am pretty much without words on this. I think Raul's behavior on the matter of music copyright is negligent. I know this is a harsh thing to say, ... I gave him the benefit of the doubt on the classical music, but there is no other way I can describe the uploading of the Ironic song.
Overall, wikipedia's handling of material taken from government websites has been playing it fast and loose (it's only PD if the government created it, if they bought it from someone they might have the right to distribute it, but *we* may not) but we've really stepped over the line with this one.
We need to have a discussion of how to handle music copyright issues.
This is less about music copyright issues than about material from government websites. We shouldn't be too quick to fault Raul for this. If there is any copyright violation USAF is the one that should be held responsible. Raul is apparently being misled by the US government
It is a fact that the site's "Privacy and Security" page says, "Information presented on the Air Force Band of the Golden West website is considered public information and may be distributed or copied. Use of appropriate byline/photo/image credits is requested." The page which lists the available music also says, "To save an MP3 to your hard drive, right click on a song title and select 'save target as'.***"" Under usual circumstances that would be illegal in the US.
Perhaps one might raise it with their webmaster. The music industry would have a field day with this if it were raised with them. ;-)
Ec
Pioneer-12 disputes the application of the GFDL to his signed contributions on talk namespace, a fact that only became apparent to me a few minutes ago, but he has continued to contribute disputed material to talk space. To avoid further disputed material being contributed I have blocked him--I know this is going to be controversial because he hasn't really done anything "wrong", it's just a legal dispute between him and Wikipedia, so I'm not going to engage in arguments over this, but it seems to me like the best way to limit the potential damage.
Tony Sidaway said:
Misposted. Was for wikien-l. Apologies.
Isn't it Ironic it is actually this song we are discussing. I am actually comparing this "US Army" version with the version on my "Dutch bought" "Jagged little pill" cd. And I must say the musical composition is different. I know as we are busy withit with the comedy group here in Thailand that if one in every four bars is different it doesn't constitute a copy vio in the US. That is how rappers get away with sampling.
Waerth/Walter
Walter van Kalken wrote:
Isn't it Ironic it is actually this song we are discussing. I am actually comparing this "US Army" version with the version on my "Dutch bought" "Jagged little pill" cd. And I must say the musical composition is different. I know as we are busy withit with the comedy group here in Thailand that if one in every four bars is different it doesn't constitute a copy vio in the US. That is how rappers get away with sampling.
Rappers "get away with sampling" by paying money to license the samples.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Rappers "get away with sampling" by paying money to license the samples.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Well I am not a lawyer, but a Brittish songwriter/producer pensioned in Thailand is very bittered every time I talk to them. Because people are using samples from his songs change every 4th bar or so and then he gets no more rights paid, because it is a "different" work. These are his words not mine. He still does well though.
Walter/Waerth
On 5/15/05, Walter van Kalken walter@vankalken.net wrote:
Well I am not a lawyer, but a Brittish songwriter/producer pensioned in Thailand is very bittered every time I talk to them. Because people are using samples from his songs change every 4th bar or so and then he gets no more rights paid, because it is a "different" work. These are his words not mine. He still does well though.
Limited sampling can be snuck through via fair use, just as one book can quote a little from a copyrighted work. The issue is not clear cut and doesn't work well across international lines (berne convention copyright protections are pretty stiff), and in the US the court often finds infringement when presented with such cases. Because of this, it is considered wise for samplers to ask for permission, and it is often the case that they pay for the privilege... or they pay dearly when they transgress, for example it is reported that because the Fugee's sampled about three bars of Enya's "Boadicea" for use in their blockbuster hit album "The Score" they were forced to give all the income from the song to Enya.
On 5/15/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
This is less about music copyright issues than about material from government websites. We shouldn't be too quick to fault Raul for this. If there is any copyright violation USAF is the one that should be held responsible. Raul is apparently being misled by the US government
Well this is why I specifically mentioned our handling of government sourced material, I think it's an issue as well. I only jumped to placing blame on Raul because this isn't the first time he's uploaded music with a questionable copyright status, because this example so blatantly fails a common sense test, and because he didn't pull it right away when it was pointed out. ::shrugs::
It is a fact that the site's "Privacy and Security" page says, "Information presented on the Air Force Band of the Golden West website is considered public information and may be distributed or copied. Use of appropriate byline/photo/image credits is requested." The page which lists the available music also says, "To save an MP3 to your hard drive, right click on a song title and select 'save target as'.***"" Under usual circumstances that would be illegal in the US.
Government websites are routinely inaccurate with such things: They put the boilerplate notice up because it's part of policy... but then they go on to include material they've licensed from others.
Perhaps one might raise it with their webmaster. The music industry would have a field day with this if it were raised with them. ;-)
Well it goes beyond the government website issue as well.. The copyright status of music is complex, for example.. If you performed a piece of music written by a 17th century composer, you still may not be able to upload it to wikipedia because the arrangement you played from was copyrighted by the publisher of the sheet music. It is often the case that the only copy of a score that is reasonably available is one that is covered under copyright, even for a piece of music that was written hundreds of years ago.
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
In the past I've had disagreements with Raul about the copyright status of some of the music he has been uploading. In these cases he has received permission from the recording artist, but the recording artist may not have had the right to grant permission due to the music itself being new and copyrighted, or due to the performer working off copyrighted score.
Clearing rights for music is a complex and difficult area to deal with, and I gave up arguing it with Raul at the time as it's clear that his intentions were good and that we could deal with it when someone finally complained.
However, Raul recently uploaded http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Morissette_-_Ironic.ogg
I brought this issue up to him, and his reply was that yes, it looks somewhat fishy but the boilerplate copyright waver on a government website should be sufficient.
The "boilerplate copyright waver" referenced was: http://public.travis.amc.af.mil/pages/band/text%20site/textpolicy.html
2. Information presented on the Air Force Band of the Golden West website is considered public information and may be distributed or copied. Use of appropriate byline/photo/image credits is requested.
If anyone thinks this general statement about 'information presented' somehow waives the copyrights of third parties, sorry but I call bullshit.
I've gone ahead and deleted that particular file.
As mentioned elsewhere is this thread, music copyrights are a tricky business, with multiple stakeholders. The short answer though is simple: the rights of the composer and lyricist (or the record company which bought those rights) are not nullified when somebody else plays their song.
"Ironic" by Alanis Morissette doesn't become public domain when the Air Force plays it, any more than "Jurassic Park" by Michael Crichton or the source code to Windows XP would become public domain if an Air Force public-reading team read them aloud and put an MP3 audio book on their website as a demo.
Either that Air Force band has the necessary permissions *for themselves* to post those songs on their website or they haven't thought about it and will eventually get a nasty letter from the RIAA about royalty payments. Either way, *we do* think about it and it's completely unreasonable to pretend we don't know that's a problem.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
On 5/15/05, Brion Vibber brion@pobox.com wrote: [snip]
- Information presented on the Air Force Band of the Golden
West website is considered public information and may be distributed or copied. Use of appropriate byline/photo/image credits is requested.
If anyone thinks this general statement about 'information presented' somehow waives the copyrights of third parties, sorry but I call bullshit.
[snip]
Thanks, that was pretty much my position...
Now, what about the other contributions? For example... :) http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Wall_-_Little_Linda.ogg (by Jermy Wall of [[Spyro Gyra]] fame, afaik) http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Wilson_-_It_Mostly_Bees_that_Way_Sig... (at least we could ask the author: http://www.berklee.edu/faculty/detail.php?id=484&type=last_name&valu...) http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Wyche_-_Alright%2C_Okay%2C_You_Win.o... (copyright 1955, no doubt that it's not PD) http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Zawinul_-_Mercy%2C_Mercy%2C_Mercy.og... (first recorded in 1966, written by [[Joe Zawinul]])
These are just the top couple of music contributions on the commons by Raulbot. I believe these (and many more) are clearly infringing. There are quite a few cases where the composers are alive, and we might be able to get permission, but it is likely they do not own the rights to these works themselves.
Then we must consider the works which are old enough to potentially be in the public domain but were almost certainly performed from modern score. If we were to remove everything that was probably infringing under this criteria, we would likely be left with very little music. Would it be appropriate to add an additional tag for material which we are sure is completely unencumbered ?(i.e. it's an original work, or we can confirm it was performed from a public domain score. It would be ideal if we could also link to the public domain score, as a defense against a claim, and as an additional valuable resource for our users?). My concern here is that although at the wikimedia we might be willing to accept the risk of violation, it would be unfair to pass this risk to others without warning... It would be nice if Linux distributions could source multimedia content from the commons without taking on a substantial rights-checking burden.
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
However, Raul recently uploaded http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Morissette_-_Ironic.ogg
I brought this issue up to him, and his reply was that yes, it looks somewhat fishy but the boilerplate copyright waver on a government website should be sufficient.
It seems strange to me that the discussion has gone on so long without someone quoting the relevant law. 17 USC S105 says:
"Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise."
It's not sufficient for material to be on a .gov website, I thought our policy pages had always made that clear.
-- Tim Starling
On 5/15/05, Tim Starling t.starling@physics.unimelb.edu.au wrote:
It seems strange to me that the discussion has gone on so long without someone quoting the relevant law. 17 USC S105 says:
"Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise."
It's not sufficient for material to be on a .gov website, I thought our policy pages had always made that clear.
I'm not so sure that people thought otherwise, but rather they were under the assumption that the boilerplate notices on the pages were sufficient.. ::shrugs:: never made any sense to me..
But you see over and over again 'came from a .gov website' cited as the reasoning for a PD label... I've even seen this logic applied to images stolen off the home pages at public universities.
It's wishful thinking and it needs to stop.
Tim Starling wrote:
"Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise."
For those who may be unconvinced: the ADA Reference Manual shows a Copyright (c) Department of Defense.
Reason: the manual was written by a contractor, which assigned copyright to DoD.
(Note, however, that the US seems to let people use its copyrighted works royalty-free, effectively under a "free license".)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
David Monniaux wrote:
Tim Starling wrote:
"Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise."
For those who may be unconvinced: the ADA Reference Manual shows a Copyright (c) Department of Defense.
Reason: the manual was written by a contractor, which assigned copyright to DoD.
(Note, however, that the US seems to let people use its copyrighted works royalty-free, effectively under a "free license".)
Does that imply {{CopyrightedFreeUse}}?
- -- Alphax GnuPG key: 0xF874C613 - http://tinyurl.com/8mpg9 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.' - C. S. Lewis
On 5/16/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
(Note, however, that the US seems to let people use its copyrighted works royalty-free, effectively under a "free license".)
Does that imply {{CopyrightedFreeUse}}?
Only if they explicitly *say* they allow any use; if they just say "yes" to any request, but don't have that as explicit policy, then not.
Andre Engels
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org