4 ms·

I originally made this comment on a child post that was deleted while I was writing it, so I've decided to post on the parent. Copyright law is so complicated.

I originally made this comment on a child post that was deleted while I was writing it, so I've decided to post on the parent. Copyright law is so complicated. I'm not a lawyer, but here is what I understand, I welcome corrections and input. In general, copyright rights are additive. For example, * Alice can write a piece of sheet music, on which she owns the copyright * Bob can then perform that sheet music. He owns the copyright on the performance. However, he can't publicly perform the piece without getting permission from Alice. * Charlie can then make a recording of Bob's performance. He owns the copyright on that recording. However, he can't sell that copy without permission from both Alice (for the sheet music) and Bob (for the performance). (I should add here that for music, this process has been greatly simplified in most cases by ASCAP, which dictates compulsory license fees for public performance and musical scores for pop music.) In this case, it's further complicated, because I don't believe that the simple act of pressing "REC" on a VCR counts as creative input, and therefore probably doesn't generate a distinct copyright for this tape. Usually, when people talk about copyright for recordings, they are referring to the case where a sound engineer has captured the live sound, mixed it, and mastered it, to create a distinct new work of art.

6stringmerc 11y ago
I think you did a great job to demarcate those three facets of copyright law as I understand them too (not a lawyer, big time IP hobbyist though). There are two other aspects that might be relevant, and are only presented as complimentary, not contradictory. The first is that in that the recording the Engineer is doing is a "Work for Hire" as I see it. While they may negotiate 'points' of residual income from the sales of the recordings for their labor/efforts/contributions, the ownership issue is a lot more simple. The other angle is that 'derivative' works, especially for Fair Use, have a really high bar to clear in modern times - but it's possible. So, if Charlie is a Professor and he recorded Bob's performance of Alice's work, expressly so he can play one full song as an example in his University class "The Art of Shredding on a Violin while Playing Harmonica and Jumping Up and Down Simultaneously," then Charlie's use of the work should fall under Fair Use, and it doesn't matter the students are paying for the class or Charlie is paid an income by the institution. He's promoting progress of the arts and is protected in theory.
chrismcb 11y ago
What creative at did the NFL provide? The broadcast itself can be copyrighted by the broadcasters, as they have creative input on the angle and camera to use plus the commentation. So how did the NFL get ownership? Did they force the broadcasters to give up their rights in return to broadcast it?

6stringmerc 11y ago

I think you did a great job to demarcate those three facets of copyright law as I understand them too (not a lawyer, big time IP hobbyist though). There are two other aspects that might be relevant, and are only presented as complimentary, not contradictory. The first is that in that the recording the Engineer is doing is a "Work for Hire" as I see it. While they may negotiate 'points' of residual income from the sales of the recordings for their labor/efforts/contributions, the ownership issue is a lot more simple. The other angle is that 'derivative' works, especially for Fair Use, have a really high bar to clear in modern times - but it's possible. So, if Charlie is a Professor and he recorded Bob's performance of Alice's work, expressly so he can play one full song as an example in his University class "The Art of Shredding on a Violin while Playing Harmonica and Jumping Up and Down Simultaneously," then Charlie's use of the work should fall under Fair Use, and it doesn't matter the students are paying for the class or Charlie is paid an income by the institution. He's promoting progress of the arts and is protected in theory.

chrismcb 11y ago

What creative at did the NFL provide? The broadcast itself can be copyrighted by the broadcasters, as they have creative input on the angle and camera to use plus the commentation. So how did the NFL get ownership? Did they force the broadcasters to give up their rights in return to broadcast it?