Well actually in practice you have to get the licence to cover the tune you want. The licence may cover how much you would pay them per copy sold, or it could be a one off. The WIPO Copyright Treaty deals with the right that the copyright owner has to 'communicate to the public' (technology neutral). What that emcompasses is wide. So basically if you're taking someone else's work and doing something with it you need permission.
You can go ahead and do it without the licence, but then if you wanted to make $ from it you'd have to ultimately get the licence. There isn't much point going ahead and making something new from something existing if you can't release it - I advise clients all the time to get the licence first. It is always heartbreaking to tell someone they can't use something they have spent time working on because they might not have the permission to broadcast it! In Australia there is a royalty system for sound recordings (look up PPCA). If I remember correctly, there isn't one in the USA. So here we pay royalties to the composer AND to the owner of the sound recording (usually the record company). For a royalty system for sampling - it's the same as any other way of doing licences - you go to the person who wrote the track and ask for permission to use it. As for john coltrane etc - also in practice performers need to ask the original copyright owners permission to make an adaptation of it. The key to copyright is whether a identifiable part of it has been reproduced. It could be just one sound (I covered this b4 in another email to 313). -----Original Message----- From: David Powers [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, 4 June 2005 09:20 To: Stoddard, Kamal; 313 Subject: Re: (313) virtual sex lp repressed! ACTUALLY IT'S BEEN BOOTLEGGED , BURN THE BOOTLEGGERS Actually, it's funny but it is totally legal to COVER any tune you want. You just have to pay royalties for each copy sold (and I assume nothing if it is just for personal use). So if you are a good producer you could quite possibly recreate a very close approximation of the track you want. So, I wonder how producers feel about other people covering their tracks? I know UR was pissed about the trance Jaguar cover - but covering tracks is totally legal. And we would have never got to experience things like John Coltrane's amazing rendition of "My Favorite Things", for instance, if it wasn't legal. Royalties have to be paid to the composer though. I may be off base here, but I feel that system is a reasonable one, and wish that after a certain amount of time, there were a similar royalty system for sound recordings, or at least samples. So that it is legal to sample but you have to pay a royalty on each copy sold, but you don't have negotiate on a track by track basis... BTW, I should say for the record that I have mixed feelings about bootlegging; I don't approve of the Buzz boots. I wouldn't buy them - but I would not hesitate to illegally record a copy if a friend had an original. But what I want to know is, why is it okay for Theo Parrish to do bootlegs, but not for someone to boot Buzz compilations??? ~David > Personally speaking ... if it's really strong, channel that feeling into a new track as an homage to the futility of being a record freak. More productive and feels better at the end of the day. But to each his own. > > > ###################################################################### Notice: The information contained in this electronic mail is intended solely for the addressee(s) and may be confidential and/or privileged. If you have received this electronic mail in error, please delete it from your system and kindly notify the sender. If you are not the intended recipient you must not reproduce any part of this electronic mail or disclose its contents to any other party. ######################################################################
