On Tue, 2011-06-07 at 16:16 +0100, Pete Marsh wrote:
> This makes my head hurt, but here's a couple of questions just to make > sure I'm kind of understanding it.... Take 2 ARs and call us in the morning. ;-) > 1) how do we ascertain that a remix has enough new content to make it > a new work? (it's going to be the exception rather than the rule to > have new lyricist/composer credits). it would seem to me that most > contemporary remixes would fall under that category. some are almost > indistinguishable from the original (Aphex Twin has been known to pass > off completely original new works as remixes) I suggest it be when the derivative work has work attributions that are distinct from the original (e.g. additional composer or lyricist). > 2) wouldn't the relationship be to a recording, not a work? so the > remix is a work extrapolated from a recording? Yes, it would be too. It wouldn't be a remix if it did not contain recordings from the original it is a remix of. The issue is that a remix can contain "additional work" of another artist. Paul
_______________________________________________ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
