Barry Durex
What a load of cock
Thread
Posts in chronological order
john bodega
Well no one ever said that copyright law was Fun, as such, and I'd be all for some changes in how it gets implemented. Still, that's the playground we all mess in when we download free shit - we might as well know the rules a little better.
kosimodo
So.. When i heard Him singing on his way home on the street and i accidently recorded that... That could not be put on youtube due to copyrights in His voice?
Dont think so.
You have to make something first. the demo dont legaly exist imo. And even if. they could be legaly obtained. Let them provide a list of stuff they think they have copyright on. Then we know.
Dont think so.
You have to make something first. the demo dont legaly exist imo. And even if. they could be legaly obtained. Let them provide a list of stuff they think they have copyright on. Then we know.
Doga
Queen and Queen Productions made and record those demos, tapes, records... so they own it, end of story. If someone wants to own a song, he/she must write and record it.
1sharppencil
property of Queen Productions...
"are they finally planning to go ahead and start work on some anthology-type project?" asked the fan in me
"No way" answered the realist in me...and repeat after me...
Property of Queen Productions
[p.s. at least we got some stuff as part of the Island deal - now wait for 10 more years]
"are they finally planning to go ahead and start work on some anthology-type project?" asked the fan in me
"No way" answered the realist in me...and repeat after me...
Property of Queen Productions
[p.s. at least we got some stuff as part of the Island deal - now wait for 10 more years]
john bodega
"So.. When i heard Him singing on his way home on the street and i accidently recorded that... That could not be put on youtube due to copyrights in His voice?"
'He' would be more likely to get you on invasion of privacy, for which there are relevant Flagging options on Youtube. Even so, on grounds of intellectual property or song ownership, 'He' could probably get the video taken down. As far as takedowns go, it comes down to who has the biggest legal team.
Have you heard of Prince? He got a bee in his bonnet some years ago and the Youtube takedown was so extensive that he nearly took his parents down for giving birth to Prince in the first place.
"Dont think so"
Irrelevant.
"You have to make something first."
Yeah - they made the demo. How it works is basically that the song is split up into different kinds of copyrights and ownerships. You've got the copyright that's inherent in the recording itself. This belongs to whoever paid for the recording. If Queen funded the session, then it belongs to Queen. If a label paid for the session, then the recording would belong to the label (although there might be some terms in the contract concerning how long it remains in the ownership of said label - recordings can pass into the ownership of an artist in certain conditions. It gets fuzzy here because all contracts are not made equal).
Aside from the copyright in the physical recording itself, there are performance copyrights to consider (these go to the musicians who play on the recording) and songwriting copyrights - for the songwriter.
'You have to make something first' is exactly what I tried to point out to you. Copyright is automatic in this regard. There is no registrar of copyrighted songs - you don't have to mail your song to someone to get it copyrighted. It is copyrighted under law as soon as you make it. This is why people keep lyrics sheets and doodles and little cassettes - not just to write the song in the first place, but to establish ownership if anyone ever comes up to you and says 'hey, that's MY song'. That's when you get out your evidence and say, "actually it's mine, I made it first". It never hurts to have evidence.
To reiterate - the demos are, in fact (ie. not open for debate) just as copyright'd as any official product. Now, if you think those copyright laws should be changed, this isn't the place to be doing it. And pretending that those laws don't exist just because you don't like them (or understand them) doesn't exactly achieve much, either.
"the demo dont legaly exist imo"
Yes, they do. I would love to see how your 'imo' stands up in a court of law.
Look, I'm only joshing. I hope I've been able to explain even a simple, tiny aspect of the laws to you. It's not my exact area of qualification (plainly) but I have had to sit through many copyright lectures before, as both a songwriter and an engineer. As effing boring as it is, copyright law is a very real thing. Pretending that it isn't is just ... silly. If you'll forgive me for saying so.
'He' would be more likely to get you on invasion of privacy, for which there are relevant Flagging options on Youtube. Even so, on grounds of intellectual property or song ownership, 'He' could probably get the video taken down. As far as takedowns go, it comes down to who has the biggest legal team.
Have you heard of Prince? He got a bee in his bonnet some years ago and the Youtube takedown was so extensive that he nearly took his parents down for giving birth to Prince in the first place.
"Dont think so"
Irrelevant.
"You have to make something first."
Yeah - they made the demo. How it works is basically that the song is split up into different kinds of copyrights and ownerships. You've got the copyright that's inherent in the recording itself. This belongs to whoever paid for the recording. If Queen funded the session, then it belongs to Queen. If a label paid for the session, then the recording would belong to the label (although there might be some terms in the contract concerning how long it remains in the ownership of said label - recordings can pass into the ownership of an artist in certain conditions. It gets fuzzy here because all contracts are not made equal).
Aside from the copyright in the physical recording itself, there are performance copyrights to consider (these go to the musicians who play on the recording) and songwriting copyrights - for the songwriter.
'You have to make something first' is exactly what I tried to point out to you. Copyright is automatic in this regard. There is no registrar of copyrighted songs - you don't have to mail your song to someone to get it copyrighted. It is copyrighted under law as soon as you make it. This is why people keep lyrics sheets and doodles and little cassettes - not just to write the song in the first place, but to establish ownership if anyone ever comes up to you and says 'hey, that's MY song'. That's when you get out your evidence and say, "actually it's mine, I made it first". It never hurts to have evidence.
To reiterate - the demos are, in fact (ie. not open for debate) just as copyright'd as any official product. Now, if you think those copyright laws should be changed, this isn't the place to be doing it. And pretending that those laws don't exist just because you don't like them (or understand them) doesn't exactly achieve much, either.
"the demo dont legaly exist imo"
Yes, they do. I would love to see how your 'imo' stands up in a court of law.
Look, I'm only joshing. I hope I've been able to explain even a simple, tiny aspect of the laws to you. It's not my exact area of qualification (plainly) but I have had to sit through many copyright lectures before, as both a songwriter and an engineer. As effing boring as it is, copyright law is a very real thing. Pretending that it isn't is just ... silly. If you'll forgive me for saying so.
.
Still a load of cock
.
Still a load of cock
john bodega
Pick a login.
Any login.
Any login.
Unknown
cmsdrums
Slightly off fopic, but interesting article on a recently found 'The Beatles' demo which is being sold at auction. There have been lots of previous posts here from the 'magic circle' of Queen collectors claiming that because they own an acetate/demo etc that they may have bought by legit means (EG auction) that they actually own the music on the physical disc too to do with as they want - I and others have tried to point out that all they own however is a very expensive reel to reel tape/acetate etc... but still couldn't do anything with the actual music on it, and this is backed up by the following statement from the The Beatles' story:
""Apple, the company set up by The Beatles, holds the copyright to their voices and if anyone tried to release the material without their permission they would certainly be sued," said Fame Bureau managing director Ted Owen, The Times reports.
So to those who hold discs, tapes etc with unreleased demos or other tracks on, if you release them you ARE breaking copyright law if you release any if those tracks, even though you own the physical media that the music is held on.
""Apple, the company set up by The Beatles, holds the copyright to their voices and if anyone tried to release the material without their permission they would certainly be sued," said Fame Bureau managing director Ted Owen, The Times reports.
So to those who hold discs, tapes etc with unreleased demos or other tracks on, if you release them you ARE breaking copyright law if you release any if those tracks, even though you own the physical media that the music is held on.
john bodega
Yeah, I remember this coming up in the last argument about acetates and such. "I bought this, I own it, I can do whatever I want with it!". Admirably pigheaded, but legally not accurate.
matt z
[QUOTE] [b]Zebonka12 wrote:[/b]
Pick a login.
Any login.[/QUOTE]
Alright. I pick Kenny Loggins.
What next?
Pick a login.
Any login.[/QUOTE]
Alright. I pick Kenny Loggins.
What next?
shamar
[QUOTE]
[b]"Jedi Knight wrote: [/b] ... continue to enjoy Queen footage on YouTube -- but the officially uploaded videos, with the best sound and picture quality material --[b] not the poor quality unfinished uploads that were never intended for the public domain. [/b] "
[/QUOTE]
Pathetic loosers.
[b]"Jedi Knight wrote: [/b] ... continue to enjoy Queen footage on YouTube -- but the officially uploaded videos, with the best sound and picture quality material --[b] not the poor quality unfinished uploads that were never intended for the public domain. [/b] "
[/QUOTE]
Pathetic loosers.
waunakonor
[QUOTE] [b]matt z wrote:[/b]
Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions.
Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions.
Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions.
Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions.
Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions.
Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions.
Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions.
Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions.
Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions.
Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions.
Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions.
Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions.
Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. [/QUOTE]
Sorry Matt, but it seems that QPL is blocking what you're saying. Were you trying to say anything that was copyrighted? Maybe you could try rewriting that a different way.
(;
Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions.
Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions.
Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions.
Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions.
Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions.
Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions.
Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions.
Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions.
Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions.
Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions.
Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions.
Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions.
Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. Property of Queen Productions. [/QUOTE]
Sorry Matt, but it seems that QPL is blocking what you're saying. Were you trying to say anything that was copyrighted? Maybe you could try rewriting that a different way.
(;