Atlantic Records vs a guy who pays riffs online for fun?

Legionreturns

FatPete said:

Ravenous said:

Bear in mind even if he doesn't profit from his online distribution of his playing, someone does (facebook and their advertisers I suppose.)

This is the crux surely. Atlantic's issue in this case isn't with some dude posting videos, it's with Facebook not paying them a share of their ad revenue. Facebook, whether human or AI, don't give a shit, so just shut the guy down.

When I posted a video on Youtube that contained some music, their system quickly recognized the copyrighted material and they sent me an email telling me that any ad revenue would be paid to BMG (or whoever it was). I'm sure they're delighted with the cheque for the 30 views it got, but this seems a much more reasonable approach.

Indeed, of the big social media companies, it's only Facebook who don't pay this. YouTube fund it by having adverts on videos with copyright content. Facebook have adverts either way. The greed is twofold here. 

mburekenge

peglegpete said:

Ravenous said:

Bear in mind even if he doesn't profit from his online distribution of his playing, someone does (facebook and their advertisers I suppose.)

So someone's got to pay.

One of those first world problems in my opinion...

It’s not about anyone profiting from his publishing... its more about someone “not profiting”.

In this instance Atlantic could argue that because he has made “whateversong” public they (or the rights holder) will lose revenue as a result.

I very much doubt that if he uploaded the guitar part to “the pretender” it would effect sales of the original in anyway what so ever and they would have to prove damages in a court of law.
But they have to draw a line somewhere!. If only to protect their own interests...

and the fact “it’s law”!

Are you a lawyer by any chance?

Ravenous

mburekenge said:

Are you a lawyer by any chance?

This is the internet - we're all lawyers

peglegpete

mburekenge said:

Are you a lawyer by any chance?

Ha, no... just know about copyright!.


Legionreturns said:

Indeed, of the big social media companies, it's only Facebook who don't pay this. YouTube fund it by having adverts on videos with copyright content. Facebook have adverts either way. The greed is twofold here. 

Tbh, Facebook for all of their billions of worth could really not afford to start paying anyone a publishing fee... think about the total amount of “copyrighted” content actually shared on that platform!  Everything from extracts of books, music videos, peoples personal photos, news stories etc etc.

If Facebook paid a fee to everyone it actually need to pay would be out of business within a day!. Probably sooner!

Much easier (cheaper) just to shut an account down when someone breaks the law and gets caught doing so!...

Johnnyseven

impmann said:

Johnnyseven said:

This is much like The Fretboard opening themselves up to legal action if they are seen to allow fake guitars to be sold on the forum. Facebook are only minimising the risk of them being sued for allowing copywrited material to be published by removing the offending material.

There's an echo in here. ;-)

Sorry @impmann I missed your post.

Barney

So what about these Facebook groups that you post your own rendition of songs by other artists...and will using same chords as another song not be allowed either ...

Panama_Jack666

I've not seen any of his covers so I'm not sure - however, I think he would be protected under the "fair use" policy of copyright law? That's how I have argued my way around copyright stuff on You Tube before...

That still wouldn't protect his Facebook account because I'm sure they have there own terms/conditions around this stuff.

peglegpete

Barney said:

So what about these Facebook groups that you post your own rendition of songs by other artists...and will using same chords as another song not be allowed either ...

Simple.
Q) do you own the rights to the song?

If the answer is yes... fill ya boots!
if the answer is no...
do you have permission of the rights holder?
If the answer is yes... fill ya boots
if the answer is no... you are breaching copyright.

as for using the same chords? I guess it depends on how you use them... Tom petty got a fair chunk of cash from Sam Smith... still waiting for Marvin Gaye’s lot to have a pop at Ed Sheerhan

***edit*** they did indeed go for Ed:
https://amp.theguardian.com/music/2016/aug/10/ed-sheeran-sued-allegedly-copying-marvin-gaye-lets-get-it-on-thinking-out-loud

Arktik83

Facebook don't have any kind of monetization system in place so that people who own the copyright get a percentage of the ad revenue for any covers that people who use Facebook publish on Facebook.

YouTube have an agreement in place, Mary Spender highlighted to this in her Tuesday Talks video, said that if you cover an artist song and choose to monetize it, a portion goes to the copyright holder.  She specifically said Facebook do not. 

Facebook are the worst anyway so I don't know why people put so much effort in to using such a flawed social media platform.  Won't remove a video of a woman being decapitated despite numerous requests from users but sure as shit remove some randoms cover of songs because a record company has rattled their sabre.  

He should just upload his videos to YouTube if he was making money out of it and is upset that his revenue has been forfeit.

Also - With regards to the "people get really upset if someone tries to sell a fake Gibson/Fender" I think most people get upset because people try to pass them off as genuine.  If you want to sell a replica I have no problem with it at all as long as you're honest about it, if you're trying to sell it as a genuine then yes it is a problem and we all know that about 95% of replicas people try to sell as genuine.  That's the issue for me, receiving a replica when I thought I was getting the genuine article, not whether Fender, who increase their prices on a bi-weekly basis it seems are getting paid.

Panama_Jack666

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/exceptions-to-copyright

Some interesting things on gov website on exceptions to copyright and fair use within the UK. 

bluechargeboy

So when you learn a new riff and want to know how well you can play it, just upload it to Facebook, and if it gets taken down then you nailed it.

olafgarten

I'm not sure about the US, but in the UK he could get away with it under Fair Use if he critiques the riff in the video.

Whitecat

There's no such thing as "Fair Use" under UK law. There is "Fair Dealing" which is more restrictive (eg, "parody" is not a valid defence here, whereas it is protected in the US - edit - nope, I’m wrong, parody has been protected since 2015)

I'm also not sure if it would count if it were a reproduction... if he were to critique the riff it would probably be expected that he just use the original recording. That he could get away with - but I guarantee he'd have a major fight on his hands to do so, as most of the process for copyright strikes is automated.

He's in the US I think, so that's just a moot point...

Panama_Jack666

Whitecat said:

There's no such thing as "Fair Use" under UK law. There is "Fair Dealing" which is more restrictive (eg, "parody" is not a valid defence here, whereas it is protected in the US).

I'm also not sure if it would count if it were a reproduction... if he were to critique the riff it would probably be expected that he just use the original recording. That he could get away with - but I guarantee he'd have a major fight on his hands to do so, as most of the process for copyright strikes is automated.

He's in the US I think, so that's just a moot point...

I believe parody is covered under fair dealing...

Copy from the link...

Parody, caricature and pastiche

There is an exception to copyright that permits people to use limited amounts of copyright material without the owner’s permission for the purpose of parody, caricature or pastiche.

For example a comedian may use a few lines from a film or song for a parody sketch; a cartoonist may reference a well known artwork or illustration for a caricature; an artist may use small fragments from a range of films to compose a larger pastiche artwork.

It is important to understand, however, that this exception only permits use for the purposes of caricature, parody, or pastiche to the extent that it is fair dealing.

darthed1981

impmann said:

Johnnyseven said:

This is much like The Fretboard opening themselves up to legal action if they are seen to allow fake guitars to be sold on the forum. Facebook are only minimising the risk of them being sued for allowing copywrited material to be published by removing the offending material.

There's an echo in here. ;-)

Exactly... you may not agree with the decision but much like the rules on here, the T&C are pretty clear on Facebook. Youtube did a clamp down a while back but have gone back to being lax. This is all about protecting IP and you may think it "silly" but it protects the recording artists/owners of the song rights.

Simple way around it - play original stuff to demo stuff that hints at famous songs but doesn't reference it outright. If you do play covers and publish them, ensure you have proof you are paying the correct PRS.

Yeah this.  

The other thing Youtube have that Facebook don't is their content payment system, that identifies and monetises things like covers of songs, and compensates singed-up content owners accordingly. 

It's one of the reasons so many albums are uploaded and can be played through Youtube while not getting taken down, they actually are slightly monetised in many cases for the copyright owners.  I'd presume the PRS are amongst the beneficiaries.

Mary Spender commented in a video about something similar, she had content taken off Facebook but instead Youtube shared  a proportion of any ad revenue with the copyright holder.

Moominpapa

Panama_Jack666 said:

Parody, caricature and pastiche

There is an exception to copyright that permits people to use limited amounts of copyright material without the owner’s permission for the purpose of parody, caricature or pastiche.

Excellent - that covers me perfectly, because every time I play a song by someone else it sounds like a deliberate parody of it. 

olafgarten

Whitecat said:

There's no such thing as "Fair Use" under UK law. There is "Fair Dealing" which is more restrictive (eg, "parody" is not a valid defence here, whereas it is protected in the US).

I'm also not sure if it would count if it were a reproduction... if he were to critique the riff it would probably be expected that he just use the original recording. That he could get away with - but I guarantee he'd have a major fight on his hands to do so, as most of the process for copyright strikes is automated.

He's in the US I think, so that's just a moot point...

Yes, sorry Fair Dealing is the correct term. But I have been told by a Law Professor at my university that a reproduction can be used for the purposes of criticism and review (I'm doing a Computer Science degree but there is sections on copyright law). 

Whitecat

Panama_Jack666 said:

Whitecat said:

There's no such thing as "Fair Use" under UK law. There is "Fair Dealing" which is more restrictive (eg, "parody" is not a valid defence here, whereas it is protected in the US).

I'm also not sure if it would count if it were a reproduction... if he were to critique the riff it would probably be expected that he just use the original recording. That he could get away with - but I guarantee he'd have a major fight on his hands to do so, as most of the process for copyright strikes is automated.

He's in the US I think, so that's just a moot point...

I believe parody is covered under fair dealing...

Copy from the link...

Parody, caricature and pastiche

There is an exception to copyright that permits people to use limited amounts of copyright material without the owner’s permission for the purpose of parody, caricature or pastiche.

For example a comedian may use a few lines from a film or song for a parody sketch; a cartoonist may reference a well known artwork or illustration for a caricature; an artist may use small fragments from a range of films to compose a larger pastiche artwork.

It is important to understand, however, that this exception only permits use for the purposes of caricature, parody, or pastiche to the extent that it is fair dealing.

Ah, cool, this is newish - apparently only been in place for a couple years. But quite welcome. 

Sassafras

This is why I never play anything that can remotely be identified as music.

digitalscream

Whitecat said:

There's no such thing as "Fair Use" under UK law. There is "Fair Dealing" which is more restrictive (eg, "parody" is not a valid defence here, whereas it is protected in the US - edit - nope, I’m wrong, parodist has been protected since 2015)

I'm also not sure if it would count if it were a reproduction... if he were to critique the riff it would probably be expected that he just use the original recording. That he could get away with - but I guarantee he'd have a major fight on his hands to do so, as most of the process for copyright strikes is automated.

He's in the US I think, so that's just a moot point...

Actually, it's not - in the US, they have far broader definitions for "Fair Use" than we do which, as far as I recall, actually cover exactly this.

Strikes me as overreach.