true, can still get sued even if it is distributed for free..
Offline
qb wrote:
^ haha
All I want to say is this: don't be a dick by selling these covers\remixes you're making. I've seen that many chiptune musicians and even labels do this and I think it is a contemptible thing to do. My first release is going to be a compilation of remixes and covers, but it will be completely free as it should be.
Sorry, but why is this wrong? It's your work right? So what makes it wrong to sell? Musicians are constantly playing of each other. Should Bach be thought less of because he took Vivaldi's Grosso Mogul violin concerto and transcribed it for solo organ? This line of reasoning just makes no sense to me at all.
Offline
IL, US
because copyright laws exist... using parts of another artists' recording without permission and paying the fees or recording a cover without paying the fees to the songwriter(s) is illegal, even if shared for free (though at least they usually don't go after you for additional "damages" if it's free. if it's being sold, they usually seek insane damage amounts).. the 8bit ops compilations solve this by actually just paying the fees, which is why they're sold instead of given away, there's money that needs to be made just to break even after paying licensing fees
Offline
IL, US
not to say it makes inherently bad or creatively invalid, just current copyright laws are pretty broken on understanding fair use sampling vs copyright violations at this point and unlikely to improve any time soon.. think right now the general guideline is something like max of 8 seconds of sample from another recording, anything more you're supposed to pay the original artist or similar
Last edited by e.s.c. (Aug 12, 2014 3:26 pm)
Offline
Arad, Romania
Most probably won't mind it if you share them for free. The same can't be said about selling remixes or covers of their songs, though personally I wouldn't mind it as long as I was credited as the original author.
Last edited by qb (Aug 12, 2014 3:34 pm)
Offline
IL, US
yeah, odds are low for getting sued for a free release, just still can and does happen.. all depends on (a) if the original artist/label finds out and (b) actually cares enough to pursue legal action. more common to get a cease & desist order to remove it from the internet
Offline
Hrm. I thought we were talking about it being some how morally or ethically wrong not legally problematic.
After reading more about US copyright law, I see the problem.
Offline
Arad, Romania
Well, you should expect most artists to mind if you remix or cover their work and make money out of it, and as long as they mind it you could argue that it is morally wrong.
Most of you were angry when Timbaland ripped off Janne Suni's song "Acidjazzed Evening" (which was essentially a remix) and now you're telling me that selling remixes\covers is OK even if you don't ask for permission? I know Janne wasn't credited as the original artist but I am almost certain that he would have still sued Timbaland for remixing and selling his song even if Timbaland had credited him. The only difference here is that chiptune artists don't tend to make thousands of dollars but that doesn't negate the fact that a lot of artists are going to be offended by your complete lack of consideration for their feelings.
Offline
IL, US
true.. odds go down on them getting offended if they've officially released things like stems/a capella/instrumentals, at least if it's not being sold... part of why hip hop 12"s are so fun to buy, they've often got a capellas 
Offline
qb wrote:
Well, you should expect most artists to mind if you remix or cover their work and make money out of it, and as long as they mind it you could argue that it is morally wrong.
Most of you were angry when Timbaland ripped off Janne Suni's song "Acidjazzed Evening" (which was essentially a remix) and now you're telling me that selling remixes\covers is OK even if you don't ask for permission? I know Janne wasn't credited as the original artist but I am almost certain that he would have still sued Timbaland for remixing and selling his song even if Timbaland had credited him. The only difference here is that chiptune artists don't tend to make thousands of dollars but that doesn't negate the fact that a lot of artists are going to be offended by your complete lack of consideration for their feelings.
Honestly, i have no idea what you're talking about here.
Offline
IL, US
though i believe personally that anything sampled in a way that completely re-contextualizes it should count as fair use, but that's more like what Kid Koala does with stuff than anything you'd ever really call a remix (though some things called remixes can be different enough too that they blur the lines between remix/original work made from not entirely original material).. unfortunately my opinion does not match with current copyright laws in practice
Offline
UK, Leicester
herr_prof wrote:
Some artist might not be happy you are giving them away for free either.
true, but they'd be happier than if you were making money off of them
Offline
Alpine wrote:
herr_prof wrote:Some artist might not be happy you are giving them away for free either.
true, but they'd be happier than if you were making money off of them
How is it making money "off of them" if it's your work? The idea that you should some how own the vibrations of the air is crazy to me. Recordings? Yes. Written scores? Yes. If you say that no one can make a cover without my permission, where does it end? What about a chord progression that I write? Do you owe me money for that?
Offline
IL, US
actually, in some cases a chord progression can be enough to constitute plagarism (or bassline, see the Vanilla Ice/Queen situation)
Offline
e.s.c. wrote:
actually, in some cases a chord progression can be enough to constitute plagarism (or bassline, see the Vanilla Ice/Queen situation)
Yes. More evidence in my opinion of the insanity of copyright law. To be clear, I'm in favor of copyright laws. Just not what is currently the US law on the subject.
Offline
Montreal, Canada
I was under the impression that the original question was simply about how he should name his tracks, not get into the finer points of copyright laws and all that 