|
|
Posted by PTravel on 01/11/06 02:17
"Seth Jackson" <a@mindspring.invalid> wrote in message
news:6l88s1tu9r1mnftgcnof510u8riqvv1tq5@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 10:29:51 -0800, "Richard Crowley"
> <richard.7.crowley@intel.com> wrote:
>
> >NOTE: I am not a lawyer and I am not even playing one here on
> >this Usenet newsgroup. However this is what I have learned from
> >similar situations...
> >
> >1) Arrangements...
> >If you arrange a song which is protected by copyright, the copyright
> >owner automatically owns your arrangement. You cannot publish
> >or perform it or distribute recordings of it without their permission.
>
> This doesn't sound correct to me. You can perform your arrangement of
> the song wherever you want, and you don't need permission to do it.
Sorry, but that's completely wrong. There is a compulsory license provided
for recording covers. However, arrangements are derivative works, and the
right to prepare derivative works is one of the rights reserved to copyright
owners. If you prepare a derivative work without permission, you cannot
publicly perform it (another reservered right).
> The copyright owner is entitled to royalties from public performances,
> and these royalties are paid by venues, not performers. I'm also
> skeptical of the assertion that the copyright holder automatically
> owns your arrangement.
>
> As for distributing recordings, you need a license to record and
> distribute a song, which, at least in the US, is different from
> "permission". Once a song has been released to the public for the
> first time, the copyright owner is required to grant a compulsory
> license to anyone who requests one provided that the requestor agrees
> to pay royalties at the statutory rate.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|