Murph Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 U.S. or other Copyright laws? (I mean, a video, not Youtube or Google itself, you know....) Seems like it would be hard to argue with a dated video. I mean, I have many copyrights and remember the law, but still............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mountainpicker Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 The only flaw I can see with your reasoning is in the statement, "Seems like it would be hard to argue with a dated video". If I've noticed anything in this brave new world we call the computer era it's that it's actually easy to argue with everything. I was just reading about the Paris climate conference and they were arguing over what the word "shall" really means. But I get where you're coming from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j45nick Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 I was just reading about the Paris climate conference and they were arguing over what the word "shall" really means. But I get where you're coming from. Well, that's actually a fairly standard argument in treaties, contracts, and written rules. I deal with the last item, but sometimes feel it's more like the first item, or the second. We actually spell it out: "Shall", "must", and "will" are mandatory. "May" and "can" are permissive. "Should" is advisory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L5Larry Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 I'm not sure I understand the original question. What exactly do you think should be enforced according to U.S. Copyright laws? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mountainpicker Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 Richard the Butcher figured it out a long time ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murph Posted December 15, 2015 Author Share Posted December 15, 2015 I'm not sure I understand the original question. I mean, if someone posted a video of an original song on Youtube on, say Jan.1st, but neglected to get a copyright. Someone else "steals the song" and gets a copyright in March, could the writer "successfully" challenge the legal owner of the copyright, who is the thief. Historically the copyright date would trump all other evidence, but I just wonder if the advent of Youtube, etc., will challenge these legal dates of conception. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stein Posted December 15, 2015 Share Posted December 15, 2015 I mean, if someone posted a video of an original song on Youtube on, say Jan.1st, but neglected to get a copyright. Someone else "steals the song" and gets a copyright in March, could the writer "successfully" challenge the legal owner of the copyright, who is the thief. Historically the copyright date would trump all other evidence, but I just wonder if the advent of Youtube, etc., will challenge these legal dates of conception. Well, the guy who got the copywrite in march could argue he played it earlier. But either way, the internet, computers, will change a LOT of things, and I wonder about copywrite laws being changed as well. Who pays for music or books anymore? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L5Larry Posted December 15, 2015 Share Posted December 15, 2015 I mean, if someone posted a video of an original song on Youtube on, say Jan.1st, but neglected to get a copyright. Here's a very good write-up on one lawyers "interpretation" of US Copyright law as it pertains to written and recorded music. http://www.rbs2.com/copyrm.pdf So, hopefully following proper Copyright protocol, the following quotation has been paraphrased from a protected original work, Copyright 2008-2009 by Ronald B. Standler. Since the Copyright Act of 1976,... copyright on music in the USA initially belongs to the composer. Copyright is automatically created the moment that the composition is “fixed in any tangible medium of expression” This is about as simply stated as can be. For more details and specifics, see the link above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rct Posted December 15, 2015 Share Posted December 15, 2015 Good stuff there from Larry. If you intend to profit from your work there is no substitute for the process of copyrighting your work. If you rely on the old "mail it to yerself and don't open it" of the 70s or you post it on facebook or youtube and you expect to protect your right to profit and prevent others from profiting from your work you are doing it wrong. The pain and work of proving your copyright without the paperwork in your hand is very difficult, very expensive, and rarely gets to be heard by an actual judge. Remember, nobody protects you but you. ASCAP and BMI don't go out looking on youtube or listening to records to help you, neither does the copyright office. You do it. You would have to bring the action to stop someone else profiting from your work, and I don't think a youtube video would even make it to court, the lawyers would settle it, possibly not in your favor. If you took the time and effort to protect what you wrote, you could bring the action and be sure to have your costs covered. From Larry's post: Since the Copyright Act of 1976,... copyright on music in the USA initially belongs to the composer. Copyright is automatically created the moment that the composition is “fixed in any tangible medium of expression” Ostensibly true, but most of the time not action-ably true. Word. rct Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blindboygrunt Posted December 15, 2015 Share Posted December 15, 2015 Are you speaking from a legal background knowledge there rct ? I heard agea ago that posting a song on youtube was as good as copywriting in thia day and age. No more 'widmark demos' etc needed. Id be interested ,as would others im sure , to hear the legalities of what murph is hinting at here! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rct Posted December 15, 2015 Share Posted December 15, 2015 I am not a lawyer but have been in music for a long time and I've had my share of disputes over who wrote what, and more importantly, who is entitled to profit. I heard long ago that writing it down and mailing it to yourself is as good as copyrighting. It is, until you action it, then alla sudden it isn't. The legalities of what is being hinted at are just that, hints of legalities. All hints go out the window when you assemble the lawyers for action. At that point, without recognizable copyright, still today, you have a tough road in front of you, you would at least have to plunk down a bunch of money up front, because the action isn't really guaranteed by youtube. If the other team had a handwritten song with a three year pre-date hidden in a drawer somewhere and you had legal copyright, you would win your action and your costs. Why do musicians seem to want to do anything they can to protect their work except for the one thing they can do that will protect their work beyond a doubt? If you are seriously writing music for money I don't understand why you wouldn't be incorporated to protect your home from just such an action, and that all of your work isn't copyrighted legally to prevent just such an action. rct Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blindboygrunt Posted December 15, 2015 Share Posted December 15, 2015 Cheers rct. All makes sense. To answer your final question , i think it basicaly boils down to musicians arw bottom line - dreamers , and we all have a little bug in the brain that says 'what if' I have no worries about someone stealing a song that i havent written. I merely asked because its good to learn something and forums are full of 'experts' and not enough sense is talked . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rct Posted December 15, 2015 Share Posted December 15, 2015 I merely asked because its good to learn something and forums are full of 'experts' and not enough sense is talked . Oh yeah, since this internet started. "I heard" and "I think" and "I read it on the internet" have become facts! It would take a very large amount of money to take some copyright action to court to challenge someone on my copyright which is my youtube video. The only people that can do that DON'T copyright things by making a youtube video, they do it the way you should. So I wouldn't count on anyone taking the courts up with this idea. rct Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.