Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: learning CD copyright question

Expand Messages
  • Martin Grandahl
    ... Well....I didn t mean to go that deeply with it, but let s use your extended analogy. ... OK - this is a terrific example. But you ve twisted the situation
    Message 1 of 28 , Oct 1, 2008
      > The analogy with graphic design is fatally flawed.

      Well....I didn't mean to go that deeply with it, but let's use your
      extended analogy.


      > Here's what happens if you apply the learning CD facts to graphic
      > design: If you were to use an existing trademark (like an existing
      > song) in a design that you sold for profit to someone other than the
      > trademark holder (like the chorus or quartet purchasing the learning
      > CDs), you would need to pay a fee to the trademark holder (like the
      > copyright holder of the underlying song). For example, if you created
      > and sold a design with a Jayhawk on it, you'd have to pay a fee to
      > Kansas University.

      OK - this is a terrific example. But you've twisted the situation -
      again. To fix YOUR analogy, it would be that I am a graphic designer
      _hired by a company that wants to use a sports logo_ (let's say utting
      it in a unique design on a beer koozie).

      I create the graphics for this company.....but I am not the one
      required to acquire the rights from the sports team....it is the
      company that hired me that is responsible.


      > Once again, I appreciate everyone trying to answer this question, but
      > we really need to hear from a lawyer who is an expert in mechanical
      > licensing.

      I believe Kenny's answer was correct - the owners of the copyright
      simply need to be paid...it doesn't really matter to them from whom.
      This kind of thing is generally not specified in law, is it? It is
      tested in actual court cases - precedents - isn't it? (I am not a
      lawyer.) Unless a copyright owner has sued in the case of a learning
      track situation and determined who is responsible for the fees, isn't
      this all academic?

      I'm pretty sure that my graphic design analogy is correct.

      You seem really determined to place the burden on the learning CD
      creator....almost as if you had a personal stake in the outcome.
      Well...that sounds accusatory, and I don't mean it in that way. But I
      do wonder why you are trying so hard to push this burden in that
      direction....


      --
      Martin Grandahl
      afterglowlounge.net
    • Martin Grandahl
      ... I think my extended graphic design analogy works here as well, actually. I create a design for a company using that team logo. The company pays the fee to
      Message 2 of 28 , Oct 1, 2008
        > Here's one more thing to add to the confusion that I haven't seen,
        > yet. Most (all?) learning track manufacturers/providers sell an
        > already completed track off a list of previously-done works. That
        > seems to eliminate the "chorus is the producer" element.

        I think my extended graphic design analogy works here as well,
        actually. I create a design for a company using that team logo. The
        company pays the fee to the team for use of the logo and makes their
        beer koozies.

        However, the company does not require that I keep that design
        exclusive. I find another company that wants to use it for
        t-shirts....again, they are the ones required to pay the fee to the
        copyright owner, not me.


        I realize I'm looking at that design as if it were a derivative
        work...which it would be. But I think that's a fair analogy, as the
        group that creates a recording of a song has certain rights to that
        particular recording - almost as if it were a derivative work. In
        essence, that's what a learning track creator is doing.

        But again...isn't this all academic unless and until this is tested in
        court? Kind of like tags as being educational fair-use. :)


        --
        Martin Grandahl
        afterglowlounge.net
      • Ben McDaniel
        Martin, et al., Your analogy still appears incongruous, but since I m not an expert in this specific area, I m just hypothesizing, and that s not going to
        Message 3 of 28 , Oct 2, 2008
          Martin, et al.,

          Your analogy still appears incongruous, but since I'm not an expert in
          this specific area, I'm just hypothesizing, and that's not going to
          convince you on the issue.

          Kenny is right that it doesn't matter who pays if someone pays at the
          proper time. But what about the situation where nobody pays? If you
          are the chorus and the learning CD maker doesn't pay, you'd better
          pay. And if you're the learning CD maker and the chorus doesn't pay,
          you'd better pay. As I said before, if the copyright holder sues in a
          case where nobody pays, it doesn't matter whether you'd win in the end
          -- just having the fight makes you lose, due to the cost of litigation
          or even mediation.

          There are four reasons I seem to be determined to place the burden on
          the learning CD creator:

          First and foremost, that's what I think the law is. No one has yet
          given me a sound legal argument for why I'm wrong, and it still looks
          to me like I'm going along with what the law says.

          Second, I've been looking at this from the perspective of the learning
          CD maker. As I stated above, if I were the user of a learning CD and
          the creator of the recording didn't pay, I would need to pay to avoid
          any liability -- I don't think the user could be held liable, but he'd
          probably be sued along with the creator.

          Third, I don't want these guys to get in trouble. It would be a
          tragedy if one of these guys, like Tim Waurick, got sued and lost all
          the money he had made from his business (and perhaps even more).

          Fourth, I'm preparing to launch my own learning CD business, and this
          is one aspect that really concerns me. I'm trying to pattern myself
          after other successful learning CD makers, and they don't pay these
          fees. Also, I'm thinking of using this issue to set my business apart
          -- no matter what the law says, I'm sure there are quartets and
          choruses that would appreciate having the learning CD singer pay those
          fees, so it is a service I could provide that the other guys aren't
          providing.

          One member of the list pointed me toward a copyright attorney who may
          be able to give me a free bit of advice by e-mail. If he does give me
          his opinion, I'll report back.

          Thanks again to everyone for helping me to understand this. I may
          disagree with a lot of what has been argued, but the discussion itself
          has helped me to better understand the issues involved.

          Ben McDaniel
          Kansas Men in Harmony Director
          Air Capital Chorus Lead
          Wu Lead
        • Martin Grandahl
          ... It s an interesting idea, but it sounds kind of risky. It seems that by approaching it in this way, you would in essence be claiming responsibility for
          Message 4 of 28 , Oct 8, 2008
            > There are four reasons I seem to be determined to
            > place the burden on the learning CD creator:

            > I'm preparing to launch my own learning CD business, and this
            > is one aspect that really concerns me. I'm trying to pattern myself
            > after other successful learning CD makers, and they don't pay these
            > fees. Also, I'm thinking of using this issue to set my business
            > apart -- no matter what the law says, I'm sure there are quartets
            > and choruses that would appreciate having the learning CD singer
            > pay those fees, so it is a service I could provide that the other
            > guys aren't providing.

            It's an interesting idea, but it sounds kind of risky. It seems that
            by approaching it in this way, you would in essence be claiming
            responsibility for legal issues in regards to the tracks in the
            chorus's possession. Rather than leaving it open to speculation, you
            would deliberately be saying that you are assuming that legal
            responsibility.

            Another thing....it kind of seems like a convenient fiction. You
            might be taking care of the paperwork and paying the legal fees, but
            you'll still be using your customer's money to do it - one way or the
            other, the funds will be coming from them.

            In that case, it seems like it might be less risky all around if you
            do what you can to let the responsibility rest on your customers
            rather than taking it upon yourself - they are the ones making and
            using the copies after all, not you. You are simply producing a single
            master....you could pay for fees on that if you feel that is your
            responsibility.

            And if you want to add a unique service, it seems like it might be
            best to actually call it that....a service. You could take care of the
            paperwork for your customers, billing them only for the number of
            copies they require. By labeling what you do as a service, you are not
            assuming additional responsibility. It just seems dangerous to
            deliberately claim more legal responsibility when it's not necessary.

            Anyway....as you said, this is all just opinion. I kind of sound like
            I'm telling you what to do, but I don't mean it in that way. Just kind
            of speculating. Doing what's right is important....but assuming
            responsibility for the potential actions of others just seems like a
            dangerous idea....




            --
            Martin Grandahl
            theafterglowlounge.org/forum
          • Alan Gordon
            ... It may be a relevant parallel to look at what our arrangers do. With the exception of Public Domain songs, almost all arrangers will sell you 4 copies that
            Message 5 of 28 , Oct 9, 2008
              --- In bbshop@yahoogroups.com, "Martin Grandahl" <martingrandahl@...>
              wrote:
              >> Another thing....it kind of seems like a convenient fiction. You
              > might be taking care of the paperwork and paying the legal fees, but
              > you'll still be using your customer's money to do it - one way or the
              > other, the funds will be coming from them.
              >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

              It may be a relevant parallel to look at what our arrangers do.

              With the exception of Public Domain songs, almost all arrangers will
              sell you 4 copies that include the per copy fee and then it is up to
              the chorus to pay for the remaining copies. So they are still using
              the group's money, but paying the per copy fee per the agreement
              established in most permissions to arrange.

              If nothing else, I would think that showing the good faith effort to
              enforce the per copy fees as much as you reasonably can would alleviate
              your liability rather than strengthen it. In one case, you can at
              least claim "They wanted 4 and I made sure you were paid for the 4. I
              can't control what they do beyond that." In a case where you did
              nothing, it is less convincing to say, "Hey! I didn't know they were
              using my copy or making any more!"

              I would find the relationship between arranger/chorus and
              arrager/publisher to be very similar to that of track-maker/chorus and
              track-maker/publisher.

              Alan
              gotchabari@...
            • Martin Grandahl
              ... That sounded like a very good idea. Good parallel, and smart approach.
              Message 6 of 28 , Oct 11, 2008
                > It may be a relevant parallel to look at what our arrangers do.

                That sounded like a very good idea. Good parallel, and smart approach.
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.