Copyright for jazz standards

[brendanmarkhall]

Hey everyone,

Just wondering if anyone knows what the applicable laws are re recording and videoing jazz standards. I know after a certain time a song becomes public domain. Is there a site you can search of check that has the correct database of songs?

[m78w]

yep, you can check here for recording

The Harry Fox Agency

For video, you can record songs and upload to YouTube without getting permission, what happens is that youtube scans your tune, recognizes that it's a cover version and then usually they have a deal with the record companies to just stick an ad next to the video, and the company gets the revenue in exchange for you posting the cover version of a song they own.

If you violate anything and they don't have a deal with youtube you might get asked to take the video down, but I've never heard of that happening.

[paynow]

Take a look at this:

Recording, Releasing, and Performing Cover Songs

and this link within that post:

http://brandsplusmusic.blogspot.com/...d-youtube.html

[lindydanny]

Ten years ago, this may have been an issue. But with so many people doing covers on whatever instrument they think they know how to play the record companies would be much worse off if they tried to pursue every person who does this. Worst case, you get asked to remove a video. Go for it, and try not to worry.

~DB

[sc06yl]

Just don't put anything on YouTube with references to current Major League Baseball, they will shut that down mighty quick.

If you plan to put an album out of standards you may owe some money to a publishing company, I don't know. But the key of copyright law, here in Canada anyways, its only breached if you try to make money off of someone else's copyright, not if it is intended for personal enjoyment. It is why music downloading, and movie downloading is a grey area here, if its just for yourself. I think thats right anyways.

[brendanmarkhall]

ok so whats the deal with the 70 years being the cut off for public domain. does any one know if that is the deal?

[randalljazz]

Originally Posted by brendanmarkhall

ok so whats the deal with the 70 years being the cut off for public domain. does any one know if that is the deal?

it's a bit complicated, but basically works published before 1978 are under copyright for 95 years from publication date. works created after 1978 are protected for the life of the author + 70 years.

works published before 1916 are now public domain.

Copyright law of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[exarctly]

I read a real interesting article about the youtube thing. Pretty complicated. I know that what was said above may be true about the ads. But technically your putting a video up there is like you saying you have the permission of the author. It is right in the agreement that you are supposed to read that everything you are posting is something that you have the right to do. So I personally am not sure I feel good about putting stuff up there that I do not own the copy right to.
That way they (youtube) can blame you and are not responsible for checking. So, I am not sure you are supposed to do it. But it works sometimes because they can share money through ads and sometimes the original artists do not care or can not possibly track it all down.

I am not someone to defend the music industry. But I like to do things legit when possible. I think record companies have been involved in a lot of bad deals, but I do think that they are losing out because they have not found ways to make the technology work for them. I like that now people have more access to music and it is easier to record and obtain.

But all that said, I also think the decision regarding youtube really did not work out so well for artists. The decision was something like, people can upload what they want claiming that they are free to do it, but the artist can freely get it taken down if they complain. This to me was unfair to the artists and owners of material. Because there is no way someone has all day to find all these videos and get them all taken down if they do not want them up there. I think it would have been more fair if they had to be consulted for each upload.

Now I am less concerned with people playing the cover versions of the songs (which some artists like because it is free publicity and it doesn't replace having to get the original copy if you want it) I am more saying that the system doesn't seem to work in regards to people putting entire movies or album cuts and t.v. shows etc. This is not what the site was intended for, but they are making a ton of money of the fact that they do not have to police it and the artists and publishing companies do.

I also am not a fan of illegal file sharing that goes on these days. I think it is not much different than just walking into a store and taking merchandise off the shelf and walking away with it. Even if the record companies are corrupt or rich, there are still normal people who work for them or royalties getting paid to less rich people and artists etc. And even if they are rich, it still doesn't justify it in my opinion. I think it is easier to see it this way the more you see people you know putting out original music.

As to the original question, yes most standards are still under copyright. There are websites you can find to help you see what songs are public domain, and there are sites where you can pay royalties and get the rights to stream or sell music.

Usually most classical music is public domain (though copies of scores may not be if their are unique edits and what not) though a progressive band I know of were unable to release their version of a Mendelssohn tune they covered because someone in his family still owned the right to it.

[sc06yl]

The whole idea of extended life of copyright, I believe is to allow the estate, or family, to inherit fairly from the work for approximately one generation.

I suppose it is quite a conundrum that I would download music for free, but never steal a CD from a store. Not to justify it or anything, I think its part of my generation, the Napster started it all for me. Here I was, probably about 13, had little extra money, CD's cost $20 a piece and I only like maybe 3 tracks on the disc. It made sense, both fiscally and logically, to download the music.

Today, I suppose, where iTunes and most online retailers allow you to download just one song for a buck something (which is still too expensive in my book, and interestingly enough Apple agreed at the creation of iTunes, but the recording lobby said that a dollar is the lowest they would go for most music) there really is no excuse for that anymore.

I hate to bring up the 'ol days since it really wasn't all that long ago, but it was almost half a lifetime ago for myself...and I know the downloading thing has been done to bits. But if business school taught me one thing, its that when companies or industries can't get creative enough to sell their product (besides lobbying government into passing laws), they go out of business (four years and I learned that?). Consider the whole margarine vs. butter fiasco. Research that if you have no time on your hands. Although that kind of doesn't work, because both products are still around. But you don't have to dye your margarine anymore - that was the butter lobby.

[exarctly]

I have found emusic to be a great service. I pay an average of like 60 cents a track maybe...and in most cases 49 cents. There selection keeps getting better too. Thoguh a year ago it was even better and I got a ton of great classical music because it did not cost as much for longer songs and such because if an album just had like 4 songs and they were all like 20 mins I was able to get the album for cheap. They changed it a bit so that I can not get quite as much for my money...but it is still a very good service. I pay like 7 bucks dollars a month and get to download maybe 14 songs almost. You can pay more to get more. But I find it a gret way to try out a lot of new artists and load up on stuff I should have gotten a long time ago.

[SmoothOperator]

Originally Posted by exarctly

I like to do things legit when possible

I agree

Originally Posted by exarctly

Because there is no way someone has all day to find all these videos and get them all taken down if they do not want them up there. I think it would have been more fair if they had to be consulted for each upload.

They do have search algorithms that detect these things now especially exact copies, so youtube is trying.

The problem I have with the corporations policies as they are is the lobbying for the Mickey Mouse Rule which essentially making the Copyrights exist forever minus a day(the change came about when Mickey Mouse's Copyright was to expire). In my opinion the original purpose of giving copyrights was to encourage the creation of new content, however these corporations are not investing in new content, and simply trying to ride the gravy train as long as possible, therefore the laws as they are discourage new content creation. Anyway, if you don't want to create content you might have to make sure that no one else is either which is why they have to run around stopping people from covering their songs.