On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 1:45 AM, Ray Saintonge <sainto...@telus.net> wrote:
> Andre Engels wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 12:17 PM, <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote: > > > > A video of an amateur singer trying to sing a song is also a copyright > > violation - they are publishing the song, and do not own the copyright > > on either text or melody. > > It *is* a violation, and that is a part of the problem. The bloody > awful YouTube singer does, however, receive performance copyrights for > what he does. Copyright by default means that anything, however bad or > trivial, has copyrights; this includes the weekly flyer from your local > supermarket. For all of the faults of US copyright law there was much > positive to be said about the former registration and renewal system. > see this article on the work someone did to license some songs for a cover cd : http://www.cleverjoe.com/articles/music_copyright_law.html For public performance of a song on youtube , it would fall under copyright: http://www.ascap.com/licensing/licensingfaq.html hope that helps : James Michael DuPont _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
