Legal status of backing tracks?
Lu R
to practice over, noodle to etc..stand in terms of copyright? I've got some
stuff I dl'd that I have no idea who the band was and have come up with some
nice lead work over it.If I recall, some of it may have been guitar player
magazine stuff? Can I legally publish works with the BT? Is the BT in public
domain to do as you wish?
Cheers,
Luke
Fred
> Just wondering if anyone knows how backing tracks that are made to be used
> to practice over, noodle to etc..stand in terms of copyright?
>
Use some common sense ... they are not yours are they ?
They belong to someone ... at least at one time ;-/ .
Lu R
"Fred" <Fr...@ppp.com> wrote in message
news:4af0eb4d$0$5339$bbae...@news.suddenlink.net...
Common sense can go like this..you buy the magazine, it has a cd with
backing tracks for you to use as you wish, as a sweetener to buy the mag.
Patrick Keenan
news:4af0e5df$0$6092$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
The answer is likely to be no, they aren't, just as Karaoke tracks aren't
public domain.
But don't ask here, ask a copyright lawyer before you put yourself in a
position where you *need one*.
HTH
-pk
Patrick Keenan
Your interpretation of common sense may not be shared by the copyright
holder.
HTH
-pk
Lu R
I checked out some BT sites and their legals and it seems some BT's are only
for personal non-commercial use! That means you can't even use them to play
a live gig let alone record over them for commercial purposes.What can you
do if you have no idea who the BT was made by? Wait until the owners appear
out of thin air with damages claims?
Les Cargill
For live use, they should really be licensed through ASCAP. But
it'd still be a good idea to contact the copyright holder.
--
Les Cargill
Rick Paul
news:hcqumo$ov2$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Lu R wrote:
>> "Lu R" <wh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:4af0e5df$0$6092$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>> Just wondering if anyone knows how backing tracks that are made to be
>>> used to practice over, noodle to etc..stand in terms of copyright? I've
>>> got some stuff I dl'd that I have no idea who the band was and have come
>>> up with some nice lead work over it.If I recall, some of it may have
>>> been guitar player magazine stuff? Can I legally publish works with the
>>> BT? Is the BT in public domain to do as you wish?
>>
>> only for personal non-commercial use! That means you can't even use them
>> to play a live gig let alone record over them for commercial
>> purposes.What can you do if you have no idea who the BT was made by? Wait
>> until the owners appear out of thin air with damages claims?
>
> For live use, they should really be licensed through ASCAP. But
> it'd still be a good idea to contact the copyright holder.
ASCAP (or BMI or SESAC or foreign PROs in other countries) would be
licensing the underlying song, not the recording of those tracks. If you're
using the tracks live, they'd be subject to any licensing on the recording,
as well. I really don't have a clue if there are any standards in that
area. On the one hand, I think of DJs who spin at discos and such, where
they're playing recordings of all sorts in public. On the other hand, I
think of stuff like movies on DVDs that often explicitly carry warnings
against showing them in public places.
As for the original question, though, there are two separate implied
questions. One is the copyright in the composition that comes from noodling
over the tracks, and the other is the copyright in the recording produced by
combining the noodling with the recorded tracks.
On the composition side, chord changes can't be copyrighted. Thus, I'd
think your noodling could be considered your original composition, for
example were you to notate that along with the underlying chord changes or
rerecord the backing tracks with your own original tracks. In that sense,
it's not all that different than if you took a 12 bar blues progression and
wrote an original melody and original lyrics over those changes. The melody
and lyrics that emerged would be your original copyright once you put them
down in some tangible medium (e.g. as musical notation or in an audio
recording), though you'd have no claim to the underlying tracks if you were
doing this from a recording or chord changes (which aren't copyrightable
anyway).
On the recording side, you'd be creating a derivative copyright -- I.e.
augmenting the copyright in the underlying tracks with your newly added
noodling material. However, only the owner of the original copyright can
grant you permission to create a derivative copyright, so you'd have to
locate the owner and seek permission to do that.
My suggestion on this sort of thing would be to simply replace the backing
tracks with your own original tracks, or tracks you commission as work for
hire. Personally, I would not try to duplicate the original tracks as in a
soundalike recording, as I'd think that might raise some questions on
copyright in the arrangement of the original tracks, not to mention it's
just not very original. However, actual soundalike recordings do that sort
of thing all the time, with the only permission they get on that being for
use of the underlying composition, so perhaps even copying the tracks with
new players might be legally okay.
Two other caveats:
First, I am saying this without knowledge of what is actually in those
tracks. If they have a melodic hook that you would be copying in a
soundalike recording, that could well be (probably would be) infringing on
the composition embodied in the tracks. My comments on lack of copyright on
chord changes are really just that -- I.e. they do not include any melodies
that may be embodied in the tracks. For example, if the tracks were the
accompanying tracks from the Rolling Stones' version of "Satisfaction", and
you made a soundalike recording that included the signature guitar riff, or
even a non-soundalike recording that included that same riff, you can bet
you'd be infringing on the copyright in the underlying song. That melodic
riff is an integral part of the composition, not just a random lick in the
accompaniment to the song.
Second, I am by no means a lawyer of any sort. The comments above are just
my personal interpretations of the laws in these areas based on my
understanding of your questions, not legal advice. As someone elsewhere in
this thread suggested, if you are going to do something with these tracks
that might subject you to infringement actions, you'd be best off consulting
a copyright attorney for a more informed view on the particulars of your
situation.
Rick
--
=======================================
Rick Paul
Closet Cowboy Music (ASCAP)
Web: www.RickPaul.info
MySpace: www.myspace.com/rickpaulmusic
=======================================
Adrian Clark
You'd probably need to check with each individual provider. With the
ones I'm involved in making (http://www.bluesjamtracks.com) it all
depends on the eventual usage of the track. If there's no commercial
gain (a track on someone's Myspace, for instance) we're happy for
people to use our stuff as much as they want. But if they're intending
to earn money from their tune, we have a range of licenses, depending
on whether it's a small independent release, a major release, film,
etc.
adrian
Adrian Clark
> I checked out some BT sites and their legals and it seems some BT's are only
> for personal non-commercial use! That means you can't even use them to play
> a live gig let alone record over them for commercial purposes.What can you
> do if you have no idea who the BT was made by? Wait until the owners appear
> out of thin air with damages claims?
But in that case, you do know who the BT was made by... or at least,
you know that the first port of call is the site where you bought it
from.
Unless you got it from one of those free BT sites, in which case...
it's up to you to calculate the risk.
adrian
Jose de las Heras
"my" common sense says something like "I did not play on these tracks, I did
not make these tracks, therefore I would need permission to use them
publicly".
Besides, usually you get something like "No part of this CD may be
reproduced in any form without the written consent of the copyright owners",
or words to that effect in small print on teh cover of teh CD, or in teh
magazine itself...
I don't know where you get that the tracks are for you to use as you wish.
Yes, they're for you to use, but not "as you wish", if you wish to include
it into something you'll pass as being yours. You need permission if it's
not your own stuff. Does that surprise you???
Jose
--
www.mcnach.com
Richt Hoat Chillis:
http://www.myspace.com/rhcpscot - Bass: OLP MM2
http://www.freakmusic.co.uk/scotland/bands/the_richt_hoat_chillis
www.myspace.com/purplenoise68
-
Current favourite guitar: Fender 'Sambora' Stratocaster
Current favourite bass: Warwick Corvette $$
Tim C.
>>> Common sense can go like this..you buy the magazine, it has a cd with
>>> backing tracks for you to use as you wish, as a sweetener to buy the mag.
Yebut, you can't do what you like with the contents of the mag. Even that
is under copyright.
>> Your interpretation of common sense may not be shared by the copyright
>> holder.
>
> Or their legal team.
--
Tim C.
W;o.0;o.f:
Spender <Spe...@Mars.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 14:33:39 +1100, "Lu R" <wh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >I checked out some BT sites and their legals and it seems some BT's are only
> >for personal non-commercial use! That means you can't even use them to play
> >a live gig let alone record over them for commercial purposes.What can you
> >do if you have no idea who the BT was made by? Wait until the owners appear
> >out of thin air with damages claims?
>
> Yes, or risk a lawsuit. Doesn't seem like there is much of a chance of
> that with a backing track that people are unlikely to recognize. But if
> you don't know the copyright status it is best to avoid the risk.
>
> Just look for royalty free backing tracks. But read the fine print.
> Royalty free doesn't necessarily mean they are free for any use. You may
> be able to use them live, but you can't record with them, etc.
NOT what PEDOSHINE says...u need to remove u'r head from that fat ass
and update the fat stupid retard
--
"Scott Lifshine is the biggest joke on the Internet" -Desk Rabbit
(R)o|o(R)
William Black
> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 20:31:15 +1000, Andy <no@invalid> wrote:
>
>> Lu R wrote:
>>
>>> I checked out some BT sites and their legals and it seems some BT's are only
>>> for personal non-commercial use! That means you can't even use them to play
>>> a live gig let alone record over them for commercial purposes.
>>
>> Why the hell would you *want* to do either of those things?
>
> Backing tracks drink nowhere near as much beer as real band members.
Neither do they hump gear or help you set up.
--
William Black
"Any number under six"
The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
single handed with a quarterstaff.
Lu R
"Rick Paul" <rick...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:usWdnSxIUvj7g2zX...@earthlink.com...
Thanks Rick and all for your answers. Nice music btw Rick...Cheers, Luke
Lord Valve
> Spender wrote:
> > On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 20:31:15 +1000, Andy <no@invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> Lu R wrote:
> >>
> >>> I checked out some BT sites and their legals and it seems some BT's are only
> >>> for personal non-commercial use! That means you can't even use them to play
> >>> a live gig let alone record over them for commercial purposes.
> >> What the...
> >>
> >> Why the hell would you *want* to do either of those things?
> >
> > Backing tracks drink nowhere near as much beer as real band members.
>
> Neither do they hump gear or help you set up.
Yeah, but they don't hit on someone's old lady and get the shit beat out of 'em in
the parking lot, nor do they get busted for smoking weed in the alley and hauled off
to the Greyrock Hotel just prior to the third set...
Lord Valve
BTDT
William Black
> William Black wrote:
>
>> Spender wrote:
>>> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 20:31:15 +1000, Andy <no@invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Lu R wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I checked out some BT sites and their legals and it seems some BT's are only
>>>>> for personal non-commercial use! That means you can't even use them to play
>>>>> a live gig let alone record over them for commercial purposes.
>>>> What the...
>>>>
>>>> Why the hell would you *want* to do either of those things?
>>> Backing tracks drink nowhere near as much beer as real band members.
>> Neither do they hump gear or help you set up.
>
> Yeah, but they don't hit on someone's old lady and get the shit beat out of 'em in
> the parking lot,
There's nothing you can do about lead guitarists and chicks.
nor do they get busted for smoking weed in the alley and hauled off
> to the Greyrock Hotel just prior to the third set...
Or bass players...
And don't get me started on bloody drummers...
Lu R
"William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:hcsegc$6os$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Lord Valve wrote:
>> William Black wrote:
>>
>>> Spender wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 20:31:15 +1000, Andy <no@invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Lu R wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I checked out some BT sites and their legals and it seems some BT's
>>>>>> are only
>>>>>> for personal non-commercial use! That means you can't even use them
>>>>>> to play
>>>>>> a live gig let alone record over them for commercial purposes.
>>>>> What the...
>>>>>
>>>>> Why the hell would you *want* to do either of those things?
>>>> Backing tracks drink nowhere near as much beer as real band members.
>>> Neither do they hump gear or help you set up.
>>
>> Yeah, but they don't hit on someone's old lady and get the shit beat out
>> of 'em in
>> the parking lot,
>
> There's nothing you can do about lead guitarists and chicks.
>
> nor do they get busted for smoking weed in the alley and hauled off
>> to the Greyrock Hotel just prior to the third set...
>
> Or bass players...
>
> And don't get me started on bloody drummers...
>
> --
> William Black
Hey , wait a minute here..let's keep the discussion to just
"musicians"...lol
Luke
Your (Vastly) Superior
Correct Answer. A+.
Your (Vastly) Superior
... ;-) ...
Lord Valve
Yeah, he needs confirmation from a plagiarist.
LV
Merely my opinion
Good luck with all that [-], toxic, energy fella.
There's no % in it, no dog in the fight. RS has
your sandwich and as time winds on, you'll
wind down, witness to the irrelevence of anyone
bothering to defend themselves from your baseless
allegations, taunts, harangues, whose a "blower,
who's a no blower", etc. Your concern _should_ be
with you and your surroundings. If you're *truly*
a GOP Conservative at heart, you should understand
that pretty well, as well as the widely held
knowledge that in the final analysis, all politics
are local:
Denver's 5 Points neighborhood...
http://neighborhoods.realtor.com/CO/Denver/Five-Points/477486/Summary
That's pretty small turf to support all the "colorful
characters" surrounding your home-
All anyone has to do is search the Colorado Bureau
of Investigation (CBI) Offender listing for zip
code 80202.
NOTE: Under NO circumstances am I intimating that you
personally are a felon, have done these things, etc. What
I suspect however, is that you have probably been routinely
sickened, angered and repulsed by your own local news, etc.
and as a result have become phenomenally sensitive about it
all, to the point of becoming a hammer who sees virtually
everything as a nail. Once you got on line, perhaps you
began to make your problem -everyone's.
No wonder you're always bellowing about all "creeps"- there
are so many in your own _neighborhood_ (45+), *this* is there:
The Center for Sex Offender Management (CSOM) and the
International ... Training Site: Denver Convention Center,
Room 303, 700 14th Street, Denver, CO 80202 ...
www.csom.org/calendar/calendar.html
So you go right ahead and call names, hurl antagonism, H88,
get your Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly etc. on- What
you really ought do is relocate at some point, because the world
isn't going to change to suit someone incessantly screeching
about it, and the overwhelmingly high % of us typing at AG or
AGA who don't live in creep infested "'hoods", aren't nearly
as sensitive to the whole disgusting scene. That makes it
a YP not an MP.
Carl
> "Fred" <Fr...@ppp.com> wrote in message
> news:4af0eb4d$0$5339$bbae...@news.suddenlink.net...
>>> Just wondering if anyone knows how backing tracks that are made to
>>> be used to practice over, noodle to etc..stand in terms of
>>> copyright?
>>
>> They belong to someone ... at least at one time ;-/ .
>
> backing tracks for you to use as you wish, as a sweetener to buy the
> mag.
and, by the way, belies "common sense". Where did you infer the idea that
you may "use them as you wish"?
Can you give it to other people or does the licensing agreement say you must
use it only for yourself? Can you add a vocal track to it with your own
lyrics and sell the record you made using their backing track? Can you make
a CD with other people's backing tracks called "My Favorite Backing Tracks"
and sell it for a profit?
Malcolm Dew-Jones
I assume the fine print of a magazine with a backing track CD would
specify the details.
I don't see this is as obvious as it seems, though. Consider a digital
piano that uses recorded sounds for each note. Did you ever read or sign
any copyright or licensing notices about when you were allowed to
re-record the pre-recorded sounds in the piano? Do you think it "obvious"
you get to record those sounds for your own use? How about if you
recorded each note and used them as the sounds for your own brand of
digital piano (not so unlikely if you write software and wanted to create
a digital piano plugin), you could certainly do that if it was a
mechanical iano, why not the electronic equivalent. One note at a time
might sound pretty extreme, but what of pre-recorded sound effects in the
keyboard, e.g. the sweep of a wind chime, that's a whole series of notes,
is that recording copyright protected?
Also consider, in a song the notes are not copyright protected except the
melody and a few other elements (like a distinctive guitar solo). Things
like the bass line or drum pattern would not normally be protected by
copyright, only the specific recording of them would be protected. But if
you record a series of notes that are not themselves copyright protected,
in a format designed to be used as backing for a musician, is that
fundamentally different than any other pre-recorded sounds (like in the
piano) that are intended to be used by musicians as part of their own
music?
Like I said, I would find and read the fine print of the recording.
$0.10
RichL
If it's pre-recorded sounds that came with the instrument, I'd assume
that the manufacturer took care of the royalty issue, if there were one.
iarwain
say your are allowed to use it in your own commercial endeavors, I
wouldn't use it.
I know the people who put out drum loops for people to use usually
have it set up for you to use as you please, but they'd be pretty
worthless otherwise. I'm not even sure it's possible to copyright a
drum loop, or a drum part?
And what about all those sampled sounds you hear in pop music.
Recycled bits of Led Zeppelin or whatever someone sampled and used for
their own songs. Has anyone ever been successfully sued for something
like that?
RichL
> I have no idea about the backing tracks. If it doesn't specifically
> say your are allowed to use it in your own commercial endeavors, I
> wouldn't use it.
>
> I know the people who put out drum loops for people to use usually
> have it set up for you to use as you please, but they'd be pretty
> worthless otherwise. I'm not even sure it's possible to copyright a
> drum loop, or a drum part?
The better drum-loop packages credit the drummers who laid down the
tracks, who I'm sure are also paid handsomely.
> And what about all those sampled sounds you hear in pop music.
> Recycled bits of Led Zeppelin or whatever someone sampled and used for
> their own songs. Has anyone ever been successfully sued for something
> like that?
"Ice Ice Baby" (Vanilla Ice) sampled the bass part from Queen and David
Bowie's "Under Pressure". There was a *threat* of a suit, and Vanilla
Ice caved, giving Freddie Mercury and David Bowie partial songwriting
credit (and presumably the royalties that go with that). Oddly enough,
John Deacon, who created the bassline, got nothing out of it.
wellsd...@gmail.com
Nil
flagellant until bloody whenever he is confronted with his past
bitchiness. He has also taken a vow of silence, but if he could, he
would thank you for allowing him to further purify himself amen.