Copyright of Midi/Karaoke files?
Bastian
Hi,
a friend of mine has a considerable collection of
Midi and Karoke files from all over the Internet.
As we all now, around 80% or more of the files of
this type are *crap*, and only a mere 20% percent
is worth listening to. Well, my friend has examined
these thousands of files and picked out the best,
making up around 800 files. Now he considers opening
a Website offering these Midi files to anyone who
has Internet access - for free, of course.
But there is on problem: What about the copyright
of these files? How owns it, or isn't there anyone
who can claim rights at all? I suppose, there is.
Maybe you can tell me what you know about this.
I wonder how other Midi-sites handle this case ...
Thanx,
Bastian
<10154...@compuserve.com>
John Hines
vanb...@vanbasco.m.eunet.de (Bastian) wrote:
>Hi,
>
>a friend of mine has a considerable collection of
>Midi and Karoke files from all over the Internet.
>As we all now, around 80% or more of the files of
>this type are *crap*, and only a mere 20% percent
>is worth listening to. Well, my friend has examined
>these thousands of files and picked out the best,
>making up around 800 files. Now he considers opening
>a Website offering these Midi files to anyone who
>has Internet access - for free, of course.
>But there is on problem: What about the copyright
>of these files? How owns it, or isn't there anyone
>who can claim rights at all? I suppose, there is.
There are three copyrights involved here.
The author(s) have rights to the song and music itself.
The musicians have rights to their performance of the music, which would
include midi recording.
Then there is the rights of duplication.
There are many combinations of these. See www.bmi.com and www.ascap.com
for more info on music licensing. The Harry Fox Agency also does a lot
of licensing.
---
Webmaster of http://www.prosing.com
David Samuel Barr
This is patently incorrect.
The primary copyright at issue is that of the publisher (who also
represents the authors' rights) relating to the use of the underlying
song.
The musicians who recorded the song previously have NO rights in MIDI
files since they did not create the MIDI file, even if the file
arrangement happens to imitate a performance by those musicians (since
most MIDIs are simply adaptations of exisiting pop/rock recordings).
The creator of the MIDI sequence is the one who has the copyright in the
actual MIDI file in the same manner as someone who writes a software
program has copyright in that software.
The right of duplication is not a separate copyright, but is in fact
the key component of the basic copyright.
So in brief, MIDI files are bound by copyrights held by (a) the
publisher of the song and (b) the MIDI file sequencer. Either or both
of these can readily object to and enjoin the unauthorised distribution
of the file by any other parties. Anyone posting MIDIs of anything
other than music originally composed and sequenced by themselves is at
substantial risk of being sued for copyright infringement.
MR.E
Actually doesn't a commercial midi maker buy a license of the copyrights to
a song from
the copyright holder ( be it a publishing company or writer, if the writer
holds the original
copyright) don't they sometimes just get permission to use it? (usually in
writing)
And doesn't the midi maker have to supply the Publishing data (song title,
publisher(s),
song writer(s), performing rights society)
and Recording data (artist, label, record ID, programmer name etc...) and
keep track
of these items, and doesn't part of this license pay for royalties to these
groups for
the number of midis sold by the maufacturer?
I believe its a violation to change or record any copyrighted material
whether you
change an existing midi, or make your own (unless you seek permission or
buy
the rights of a license to make, sell, distibute etc...) And i've always
believed that
Artist/Record Company rights were seperate from the Publishers. (don't
Publishers usually
handle sheet music etc...)
Same as I would think that buying a CD, is that you own a license of the
copy
for your own personal uses but not to re-record and distribute. Someone
gets
payed when you buy it, but not when you make copies and sell them.
just my 2 cents
David Samuel Barr
Alan Kerr wrote:
>
> In article <33E99A...@mindspring.com>,
> David Samuel Barr <dsb...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >This is patently incorrect.
>
> no, unfortunately, you are incorrect on many of these points.
> Athought, John Hines simplified the situation, his points are correct.
> Note, that John *had* to simplify.... there is no such thing as
> "non-simplified" when it comes to the huge body of law known as
> "Copyright Law" :-(
>
No, as usual, people who do not work in the business and have no direct
knowledge of the subject (apparently including yourself), are incorrect.
John's "simplification" [snipped here; look at original post if you need
to] misstated the salient points and showed at best a layman's minimal
understanding of the relevant issues. You also contradict yourself in
the same sentence with that comment about not being "non-simplified".
While in fact there are issues in copyright which can be complex, many
of those in effect here are quite simple and straightforward.
> >The primary copyright at issue is that of the publisher (who also
> >represents the authors' rights) relating to the use of the underlying
> >song.
>
> WRONG! The primary copyright is of the COPYRIGHT HOLDER. This is
> most often *NOT* the publisher.
Again, YOU are completely wrong. When talking about music, especially
pop music which constitutes the content of vast majority of MIDI files,
particularly those addressed in the original poster's inquiry, the
copyright holder IS the publisher. The songwriter invariably signs
a contract which transfers the copyright to the publisher . Take a look
at any sheet music and you will see the copyright is held by the
PUBLISHER, not the writer (even if the songwriter is effectively
self-published under his/her own name or by a company he/she owns).
> >The musicians who recorded the song previously have NO rights in MIDI
> >files since they did not create the MIDI file, even if the file
> >arrangement happens to imitate a performance by those musicians
>
> Wrong. You really need to read about copyright law before parroting
> this misinformation across the Net. Nothing personal, but this sort
> of misinformation gets parroted WAY too often on the Net.
For your information, I have been in the music business for nearly 30
years, including as a senior executive of several of the major record
companies & music publishers and a representative of many composers &
performers (not to mention being a composer and performer myself), and I
continue to deal with these issues every day. I spend way too much time
correcting the misinformation to which you refer, as in this case.
> If an "arrangement happens to imitate a performance by those
> musicians", then it is a "derived work" and it *is* part of "those
> musicians" rights.
Again, you completely misinterpret the copyright law. A "derived work"
has nothing to do with imitating a particular performer's
interpretation. Performance is completely irrelevant to copyright
(something which I have often had to explain to both inexperienced and
veteran singers and musicians).
> >most MIDIs are simply adaptations of exisiting pop/rock recordings).
> >The creator of the MIDI sequence is the one who has the copyright in
> >the actual MIDI file in the same manner as someone who writes a
> >software program has copyright in that software.
>
> This part is correct. The MIDI file *is* copyrighted to the person
> that made the MIDI file.... but as stated before, this doesn't *NOT*
> "nullify" *any* of the "previous" parties copyright.
I never said it nullified any copyrights, only that certain of the ones
to which John referred are not applicable to a MIDI file.
> >The right of duplication is not a separate copyright, but is in fact
> >the key component of the basic copyright.
>
> Quasi-correct and quasi-wrong.... this depends on what each person
> means when using the words "separate" and "basic". ...but in short,
> it *is* part of the "basic" copyright, however, it is also "separate"
> since this is the part that you contractually grant to a publisher.
> If that publisher has an "exclusive right to publish" with the
> Copyright Holder, then a MIDI file is an infraction against *that*
> copyright also.
Again, you are confusing copyright with assigned rights. The right of
duplication is, as I stated, a part of the basic copyright. It CAN be
assigned, but it does not constitute a separate copyright, nor is it
enforceable on that basis.
> >So in brief, MIDI files are bound by copyrights held by (a) the
> >publisher of the song and (b) the MIDI file sequencer. Either or
> >both of these can readily object to and enjoin the unauthorised
> >distribution
>
> As above, this is only partly true. There are lots of people that can
> have certain copyrights to something in a string of derived works.
>
> For example:
>
> Composer writes a song.
> Band A records it.
> Publisher A1 puts it out.
> Publisher A2 puts out the sheet music
> Band B does a "cover" of Band A's version
> Publisher B1 puts out the cover
> Publisher B2 puts out the cover's sheet music
> Person X makes a MIDI file of Band B's version
>
> Person X's MIDI file *may* have violated the copyrights of *any* of
> the other copyright holder listed above (depending on various
> contract) and *definately* violates some of the rights of the
> Composer, Band A, and Band B (direct derived works).
This is SO SO SO wrong it's hard to tell where to start to fix it.
This is how it actually works in the real world:
Composer writes a song
Composer sells the song (including the copyright) to Publisher A, who
may or may not print sheet music (usually not, unless it's a hit)
Band A records it
Record company A issues Band A's performance
Band B records it in a different arrangement
Record company B issues Band B's performance
Person X sequences a MIDI file of the song, imitating Band B's
performance
The only party who has a copyright interest in the SONG is Publisher A.
(The composer has sold the copyright to the publisher, and so has none.)
There can be no Publisher B as you posit, since Band B is recording a
song copyright by Publisher A, and has no right whatsoever to assign it
to another publisher. Publisher A owns all rights to any and all
arrangements made of its song.
(There could be a Publisher B if there were a true derivative work, but
that would come into play ONLY if Band B didn't record a cover version
of the song, but wrote an entirely new song based in part on the
original. A good example of this is M.C. Hammer's "U Can't Touch This",
in which Hammer grafted original lyrics to the music of Rick James's
song, "Super Freak", already copyright and published by Jobete Music.
After much legal hassle, the derivative Hammer song ended up half-owned
by Hammer's Bust-It Publishing and half-owned by Jobete, but with only
Jobete having the right to print and administer it. This, however,
is not applicable to a MIDI file, since a MIDI sequence is not a
derivative composition but only a performance.)
Invariably, the respective record companies own the copyright to the
Sound Recordings of each Band's performance, but this applies only to
that specific recording and uses thereof. If another Band (C) makes a
recording imitating Band A's performance, neither Band A nor Record
Company A has anything to say about it, since Band C has not made use
of the actual sound recording. We face this all the time in dealing
with issues of "sampling". If a record company won't give clearance
for another artist to sample one of their recordings, the artist will
usually just re-record the music contained in the sample in question,
and the record company has no say about the use of that new "imitation"
recording, which is NOT a derivative work.
So, a MIDI sequence is nothing more than another separate performance,
in which the record company and the band have no copyright or other
claim, even if it imitates their Sound Recording. Just as in the case
of a Sound Recording there are two copyrights in play (that of the
record company for the performance and of the publisher for the
underlying composition), for a MIDI file the copyrights in play are ONLY
those of the sequencer (or the distributor [equivalent to the "record
company"] to whom he has sold the file) and of the publisher of the
underlying song.
> >of the file by any other parties. Anyone posting MIDIs of anything
> >other than music originally composed and sequenced by themselves is
> >at substantial risk of being sued for copyright infringement.
>
> Good advice! as I stated above, ...there is no such thing as
> "non-simplified" when it comes to the huge body of law known as
> "Copyright Law". So if it is not 100% yours, you need a lawyer to
> track all of this for you. ...and even then, you need a GOOD lawyer.
>
> --
> Alan W. Kerr awk...@aoc.nrao.edu
> National Radio Astronomy Observatory VLBA Correlator Operations
> Socorro, NM, USA Whee!(tm)
At least you got that last part correct, although as I stated
originally, the issues here are straightforward and do not require a
lot of legal assistance, only due diligence in obtaining the
requisite licences from the song publishers and, if you are a third-
party distributor or poster, the MIDI file owners.