4 ms·

Can you? First, "just" has the connotation of "easy". It's possible that archive.org doesn't have the manpower to manually filter music from speeches, or that t

Can you? First, "just" has the connotation of "easy". It's possible that archive.org doesn't have the manpower to manually filter music from speeches, or that the technology isn't good enough to do it automatically. Second, the audio without the music is a derivative work of the audio with the music, which is itself a derivative work of the music. By transitivity, one could argue that the audio without the music is a derivative work of the music. And whether or not you're right in the abstract, you have to pay a lawyer $500/hour to think about it.

pbhjpbhj 10y ago
>the audio without the music is a derivative work of the audio with the music, which is itself a derivative work of the music // Obviously this is technically correct, which is usually the best kind of correct (internet memes can't be wrong). However, legally whilst the work of 'music+speech' is used to acquire the speech the resulting speech is not artistically related to the preexisting 'music' work. The art is supposed to be the bit that copyright protects. In practice Fair Use / Fair Dealing should apply quite easily to the whole work, or indeed a processed derivative used for (eg) news reporting. (The rights holder licensed use at a rally they should thus have anticipated Fair Use reproduction for news/history.) The derailment on that line though would be when the speech is made over music that the speaker didn't get permission to use. Use of arms-length controlled corporations could probably generate such a situation.