legal remix 12" from famous artists ? or illegal ?

Stuff not covered by the other...Forii? whatever. General goofiness. (You should not post here unless you've been contributing elsewhere on this site.)

Moderators: piaptk, tragwag, Steve E., Aussie0zborn

Post Reply
User avatar
lathefan
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:00 am

legal remix 12" from famous artists ? or illegal ?

Post: # 9933Unread post lathefan
Fri Jul 23, 2010 4:03 pm

Have been trying to find out this for a long time now. You always sees whitelabel, or some times labeled 12" remix vinyls with hit songs on them.

Are these legal to make, does anyone know how it works becouse they sure as hell cant pay so much royality for them becouse they always retail for like 7-8 euros...

I am wondering becouse I am interested in doing a couple of them but I want to know how it works.

Here is a couple of them in case someone wonder wtf I am talking about, there all have in common that there is no contact info what so ever on them.

http://cgi.ebay.de/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=380218465615&ssPageName=ADME:X:RTQ:DE:1123

http://cgi.ebay.de/Real-Booty-Babes-vs-Lady-Gaga-spammer-Face-Vol-10-NEW-/120409700426?cmd=ViewItem&pt=B%C3%BCcher_Unterhaltung_Music_CDs&hash=item1c08fa384a

http://cgi.ebay.de/Lady-Gaga-Lovegame-Ltd-Picture-Disc-NEW-/380245655997?cmd=ViewItem&pt=B%C3%BCcher_Unterhaltung_Music_CDs&hash=item58886841bd

picturediscs are the most interesting remixes becouse they actually use I guess in most cases copyrhighted pictures, have seen several of this kind with madonna and other hot artists.

User avatar
Aussie0zborn
Posts: 1822
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 8:23 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post: # 9937Unread post Aussie0zborn
Fri Jul 23, 2010 8:01 pm

The records in those links are not legal. If they were they would carry copyright information to indicate who the publisher of the sound recording is. They look like "mashed" mixes by some bedroom DJ who then releases them on vinyl. That EBay seller even has section called "bootlegs". I think that say it all.

Record companies and artists aren't always in favour of a "mash" mix of their work. It has worked well for some, for example Neil Diamond's version of "You Dont Bring Me Flowers" was mashed by a radio DJ with Barbra Steisand's version of the same song, Sounded good so CBS/Sony did the same thing and released it as a duet - result : No. 1 hit.

Then there was the European DJ who mashed "Sucker DJ" with the theme music from the TV show "I Dream of Jeanie" and again that was a big hit for an obscure pop group. But generally, they dont like it.

If you would like to release an existing track on vinyl, approach the local licensee of that recording in your region and ask them for a license to issue it on vinyl. They will generally welcome the idea as you will be creating revenue for them from a product that is not in their catalogue - and they dont have to do any work as you will be doing it all for them. This system works on trust so be sure to pay them all the royalties (ie : the percentage agreed upon) if you want to license more product from them and create a good name for yourself so that other companies start contacting you and offering you their product.

These bootleg, pirate and counterfeit records will all disappear soon if you look at the topic "Major Illegal Plant Raided In England". A second major illegal plant was raided in England last week so that puts the two big underground plants out of business.

So again, its illegal to sell a product that you have no right to. Get the rights and you can sleep easy at night.

User avatar
mossboss
Posts: 2050
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 8:18 am
Location: Australia.

Post: # 9942Unread post mossboss
Sat Jul 24, 2010 3:17 am

Hey all
Quote "These bootleg, pirate and counterfeit records will all disappear soon if you look at the topic "Major Illegal Plant Raided In England". A second major illegal plant was raided in England last week so that puts the two big underground plants out of business."

Mike I am afraid you are a little hopefull if you think that is the case
I am afraid that this is not going to end soon It seems that it is endemic in the industry Globally
It is OK to remix as far as I am told up to just under a bar around 20 Seconds of soundtrack at least the pressing plant has no responsibility on this as it is hard to know where the music come from unlike bootleging say a Stones record which is very obvious
On another point who owns the bit of music that has been generated by some electronic gadget The manufacturer of the gadget the artist who used first the guy that remixe's it in some other compilation etc etc
It is rather confusing
Any one out there cares to put some views forward????
However having said the above what Mike is saying is quite correct and proper
Cheers
Chris

User avatar
lathefan
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:00 am

Post: # 9949Unread post lathefan
Sat Jul 24, 2010 9:13 am

thanks for the replies. The reason why I asked in the first place is becouse the sale of these remix 12" seems to be pretty open, many stores seems to carry them and they can sell them on ebay without anyone stopping them.

So arent 12" same prio as counterfaits and live lps ?



"It is OK to remix as far as I am told up to just under a bar around 20 Seconds of soundtrack at least the pressing plant has no responsibility "

Do you mean that its ok to use 20 seconds of tracks without license ?

/Johan

User avatar
cymbalism
Posts: 391
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 9:55 am
Location: omaha.nebraska
Contact:

Post: # 9951Unread post cymbalism
Sat Jul 24, 2010 10:32 am

it kind of depends on who you are dealing with and how stiff the publisher/rights owner are and how many units you are doing.

when i first started cymbalism, our first release was 2 remixes - one of a chicago house dj paul johnson "get down" and one of opus III's "it's a fine day", unfortunately it never made it past test press status so only 50 are in existence due to poor mastering. i contacted kirsty hawkshaw (opus III) and she put me in touch with EMI and told me flat out that it depended on how many units we were pressing. originally we had planned to start with 300 and he told me to just do it because it wouldn't be worth the time licensing it and paying royalties on something that small of a run, plus if she knew about it and agreed to it then he'd "look the other way" more or less. of course this was back in 2003 so things may have changed. we never did do another press of it and probably won't be doing it ever but it was nice to know.

i'm sure if that lady gaga pic disc 12" is out there in the open too long, it'll get some unhappy attention brought to it whereas a white label of it would get overlooked for quite some time. if the record companies were really concerned about it, they'd be scouting stores and djs worldwide to crack down on it.

i guess i'm not telling you to do it, but like digital underground says, dowhatchalike. finding someone to press it is gonna be a whole other story unless you have permission though.

good luck w/that! :)
all the best!
- tommie 'plan 9' emmi
poly-cut lathe cuts / cymbalism recordings

User avatar
lathefan
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:00 am

Post: # 9953Unread post lathefan
Sat Jul 24, 2010 11:10 am

thats interesting, thanks for telling me.

One of my thoughs were that it actually could be that they just dont simply care about them since they actually are remixes and just 1 track, and its also serves the artist in free promotion.

Might just need to point uot that I aint looking for making illegal 12" =)

To get accurate information I guess I have to make an phonecall to the major companys, but I know that its hard to get anything from them if they dont smell a big amount of money first.

User avatar
mossboss
Posts: 2050
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 8:18 am
Location: Australia.

Re Mixes

Post: # 9964Unread post mossboss
Sun Jul 25, 2010 1:58 am

Hey All
The law is quite clear on this it just illegal to do so
Having said that keep in mind ones morals as well I am sure you would not be wanting your intellectual property being copied and sold by someone else without your explicit aproval whatever that may entail finacial promotion good will etc etc etc
If a person working for a label is looking the other way that does not make it right or legal and it is you that is exposed not them
At the end of the day it is you that offended the act protecting copyright not them The onus is always on you
That person may even deny that any conversation ever took place, may be this person decides that they do not want to look the other way what than?
If they got a rap over the knuckles or whatever who do you think they are going to stick up for, You? I doubt it
Or another thing
Imagine that person moving on and someone who replaced that person does not want to look the other way What the story in that instance?
Isn't it best to get an email or a letter stipulating under what terms you may do it?
In my view Pay some money, buy them lunch or dinner, send them some flowers, a box of chockies whatever, but get it in writting and be prudent
You just never know how the wheel will turn and if you have done the right thing get it in writing than it does not matter Does it?
Cheers
Chris

User avatar
mossboss
Posts: 2050
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 8:18 am
Location: Australia.

Re Mixes

Post: # 9966Unread post mossboss
Sun Jul 25, 2010 4:27 am

Here is a bit legal jargon for you guys

Copyright infringement and music sampling by DJs

If your music is sampled by a DJ without your consent, you could have a potential claim for breach of copyright. If successful, you could recover damages to compensate loss of licensing fees or an account of the profits to recover loss due to the defendant's actions.

Assuming you have proven that copyright subsists in the work, you can argue that there was a breach of your exclusive right to perform, show or play the song in public (section 19 of the Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988), and possibly breach of section 17 if the sampling involved making a copy of the song without consent.

The main difficulty with both claims is whether a substantial part of the work has been taken. In Hawkes v Paramount, 28 bars from a tune captured on a newsreel film was a substantial part of the music. Although most DJs would sample greater amounts, the test is qualitative and every case is decided on its own facts (Designer Guild v Williams). The court will look at the effect on the ear to determine whether a substantial part of the claimant's song has been taken (Francis Day & Hunter Ltd v Bron). If the copied section is sufficient to identify the work then an infringement will be found (Lawson v Dundas). Music sampling is very common in the 21st century especially in the context of DJs and many amateurs have little awareness of the legal requirements of sampling. It can therefore be questioned whether a case like Hawkes v Paramount, in the context of music sampling and DJs, would be decided the same way today.

To rely on s.19(1), a claimant would need to show that there was a "public performance" of the work. A "performance" includes "any mode of... acoustic presentation". There is no single test to determine whether playing the song at a club constitutes "public". The audience pays for entry and the audience has no other unifying theme other than the desire to hear/see the performance. The performance is motivated by profit and made before substantial numbers of people without family or domestic ties. The notion of "public" is defined expansively so as to favour the copyright owner. On balance it would seem to be a "public performance".


By making a claim under s.17 and s.19(3), the DJ may have also infringed copyright in the sound recording. The s.67 defence of playing of sound recordings for purposes of a club or society could be made, but would fail if the club was setup for non-charitable profit purposes.


Assuming a claim is successful, there will also be a potential claim against the club for allowing the DJ to conduct restricted acts (s.16(2)). The club owner must be shown to have granted or purported to grant expressly or impliedly the right to do the relevant act (CBS Songs v Amstrad). Alternatively a secondary infringement claim could be made for permitting the use of premises for infringing purposes (s.25), but it must be proved that the club knew or had reason to believe that infringement was taking place.

Further Info at

http://www.lawdit.co.uk/reading_room/room/view_article.asp?name=../articles/9202-IXA-Copyright-infringement-and-music-sampling-by-DJs.htm
Cheers
Chris

User avatar
emorritt
Posts: 517
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 2:03 pm
Location: Tennessee

Post: # 9977Unread post emorritt
Sun Jul 25, 2010 12:34 pm

Moss is entirely correct in the many 'angles' of this conversation. Having worked in media for higher education for years and having had to deal with 'fair use' issues and all the copyright changes within the past 10 years (at least in the US; I don't know about other countries) the whole licensing thing can get complicated very quickly. However, some things need to be clarified. In the case of 'sampling', i.e. the outright re-recording of any portion of a published recording for use in a derivative work, the problem comes when you want to either press your work or distribute otherwise in mass quantity for profit (CD, cassette, whatever). Performance in a club would be 'OK' *IF* the club ownership maintains an ASCAP or BMI license (SESAC also works in some cases). Since any one license doesn't cover everything, many clubs maintain all three so they're covered regardless of how or what they're playing (live, recorded, samples, covers, etc.). Since a university where I used to work would have performances of many kinds in different venues, they purchased all three licenses yearly so no performance would be considered 'illegal'. Bottom line is if you're playing music or DJing in a club, you should be OK and if they don't have an ASCAP, BMI or SESAC license it's usually the club owners that get sued, not the DJ since it's their responsibility to be 'legal' operating a public music venue.

Now comes the fun part. For anything someone wants to record and distribute for profit, if it's your own, completely original material - no problem, go ahead and do it. Would be a good idea to copyright your stuff to protect yourself from exactly what we're talking about. Even back in the 1980's when digital sampling was in it's infancy, Frank Zappa added sampling to his copyright statements. Smart move because at least until the government 'closed the gap', works that didn't specifically state that sampling from their work was a no-no, since the technology was new you could probably get away with it. Next, if you're playing a "cover" of someone else's song, you have to purchase what is called a mechanical license. This licenses you to record and distribute another artist's material and mechanicals can generally be purchased by quantity up to 2500 units. The most complicated licensure comes when you sample something and incorporate it into your own recording that you want to sell. You have to first get permission from the owning publishing company to use your sample, then you have to buy what's called a 'master use' license (these can be very expensive depending on what you're using) and you also have to purchase a mechanical license for the distributed units.

This is why many pressing plants (and CD replicators, etc.) are so anal about paperwork being included with orders. They can get involved in a lawsuit as well for providing the mass production services. I also do short-run duplication in addition to dubs and mastering for vinyl and I won't do a run of CD's or DVD's that include copyrighted material until the customer can come up with a mechanical or master use license, whichever is appropriate. Same for masters for pressing. Dubplates are pretty much 'reference lacquers' - a one or two of a kind thing - so unless I'm getting an order for 20 or 30 dubs I don't ask for licensing. Only if it's going to press.

User avatar
MEGAMIKE
Posts: 395
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2008 6:56 am
Location: west coast Australia

Post: # 9991Unread post MEGAMIKE
Mon Jul 26, 2010 7:29 am

there are whole music sence,s /culture,s founded on copying music,hiphop, jungle techno etc etc..
2 turntables would have been the first perfomance sampler,and with it came ideas to boost the music to make it better..
its not that it needs to be copyed and changed to suit the copyer but a way of reminising what the original sounded like..

..so bootlegg away people ..
remixes sound better than the original in most cases(dance music) ,and i think artists like gagar know this and deserv to get bootlegged plus it gives there music a play in a club at a tempo that you would not have been seen or heard otherwise..
and if it wasnt for a drumachine you would not hear any of this shit in a club..
jungle techno is a classic example of sampling and white labels,for years all you hear from reggae artists was they used my shit or i never got payed ,well THEY NEVER GOT PAYED TOOOO.. :twisted:

User avatar
MEGAMIKE
Posts: 395
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2008 6:56 am
Location: west coast Australia

Post: # 9992Unread post MEGAMIKE
Mon Jul 26, 2010 7:32 am

not sayin its ok but its like graffitti .
DISPOSABLE

User avatar
mossboss
Posts: 2050
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 8:18 am
Location: Australia.

Post: # 9996Unread post mossboss
Mon Jul 26, 2010 1:26 pm

Hey Man
Naughty Naughty Naughty
Further I would be hesitant to go on a public forum making such statements
Whatever people think and do is their buisiness that does not give any one the right to promote something that in any sense one looks at it is against the law, or at least such level of complexity that you would not want to put it to the test
Look you me any one may argue whatever in a court of law but we would be kissing our kids education and our mortgage payments good bye in the process
And these boys/gals have some heavy guns looking after their interest I would not even think about it
Cheers
Chris

User avatar
MEGAMIKE
Posts: 395
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2008 6:56 am
Location: west coast Australia

Post: # 10006Unread post MEGAMIKE
Tue Jul 27, 2010 7:27 am

i would never bootlegg ..
i just think that it goes full circle and that the bootlegger may or has contact with the label itself..

User avatar
DJ ALX
Posts: 11
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2008 6:39 pm
Location: Greece
Contact:

Post: # 18701Unread post DJ ALX
Wed Mar 21, 2012 10:23 pm

In the mid 80s James brown was kind of out dated with all that early 80s pop and early electro music.

In the mid 80s, when sampling pioneers like Marley Marl, Hank Shocklee (Bomb Squad), DJ Jazzy Jeff and others started sampling drums and other bits from "Funky Drummer", "Cold Sweat" etc, James Brown kind of got "new" again to the newer generation such as myself.

Yes there is a thin line between copyright theft and creativity and sampled artists should be paid.

Urban music such as hip hop and house (and all other related genres) ar based on sampling, mixing, mashing up, re-singing and interpolating hooks from older hits etc, so we all know that wont ever stop.

On the other hand, white labels and bootlegs are decreasing rapidly and i dont think each batch exceeds 500 or even 250 pressed units.
Nowadays if you want to get your remix out there you post it on soundcloud.com and alot more people are going to listen to it, and if it sound good DJs will download it for free and play it on their Traktor/Serato.

I cant see why people still press bootlegs and whitelabels.

Post Reply