3 ms·

>Using the music verbatim but changing only the video content to make a parody would probably not hold up as "fair use". Weird Al rerecords the music, but the

>Using the music verbatim but changing only the video content to make a parody would probably not hold up as "fair use". Weird Al rerecords the music, but the notes are the same and that is considered fair use. I know that Weird Al ask for permission from artist before releasing any songs, but it's not something he is required to do.

saurik 14y ago
Recording your own performance from the same sheet music and "using the music verbatim" (in which context I meant using the "audio" verbatim, while changing only the "video") are fundamentally different situations.
- Natsu 14y ago
  Both halves are copyrighted, though. Musical works have copyrights that are independent of the copyrights on any particular recording thereof. Ref: http://www.masurlaw.com/3980/songs-and-records-two-types-of-music-copyrights/ http://www.masurlaw.com/3980/songs-and-records-two-types-of-...
  - saurik 14y ago
    Right; however, with a parody of the sheet music that you recorded yourself you have fair use on the sheet music and no concerns about the recording. If you want to do a parody of the recording from the substantively the same sheet music, you may or may not be able to get by with nothing, but you would almost certainly be ok with a mechanical license, which the studio is required to give you for a known (small) fee. In comparison, if you want to do a parody of a music video--a work that is considered to be on top of the music piece, as opposed to included with it, and thereby requiring a special "synchronization license" to make--using the original recording (which obviously implies the original sheet music), you are then going to have to negotiate with the studio, and they may simply not have any internal mechanism by which you can license it at all (even if individuals there think it makes sense).
xsmasher 14y ago
Weird Al "using the same notes" is not fair use. He pays the compulsory license. Using the music verbatim would not likely be fair use, and the videomaker owes a license fee.
- danielweber 14y ago
  2 Live Crew won their case when they did a raunchy cover of Roy Orbison's "(O) Pretty Woman." I don't think they had to pay licensing fees, nor does Yankovic. EDIT: I asked about licensing fees, and Wiki[1] says that Coolio accepted royalty payments for "Amish Paradise." So I still wonder how 2 Live Crew settled their suit, and I need to get back to work. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weird_al#Negative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weird_al#Negative
  - xsmasher 14y ago
    2 live crew sampled the Orbison recording. There is no compulsory license for recorded music. It's a different situation than "using the same notes."

saurik 14y ago

Recording your own performance from the same sheet music and "using the music verbatim" (in which context I meant using the "audio" verbatim, while changing only the "video") are fundamentally different situations.

Natsu 14y ago
Both halves are copyrighted, though. Musical works have copyrights that are independent of the copyrights on any particular recording thereof. Ref: http://www.masurlaw.com/3980/songs-and-records-two-types-of-music-copyrights/ http://www.masurlaw.com/3980/songs-and-records-two-types-of-...
- saurik 14y ago
  Right; however, with a parody of the sheet music that you recorded yourself you have fair use on the sheet music and no concerns about the recording. If you want to do a parody of the recording from the substantively the same sheet music, you may or may not be able to get by with nothing, but you would almost certainly be ok with a mechanical license, which the studio is required to give you for a known (small) fee. In comparison, if you want to do a parody of a music video--a work that is considered to be on top of the music piece, as opposed to included with it, and thereby requiring a special "synchronization license" to make--using the original recording (which obviously implies the original sheet music), you are then going to have to negotiate with the studio, and they may simply not have any internal mechanism by which you can license it at all (even if individuals there think it makes sense).

xsmasher 14y ago

Weird Al "using the same notes" is not fair use. He pays the compulsory license. Using the music verbatim would not likely be fair use, and the videomaker owes a license fee.

danielweber 14y ago
2 Live Crew won their case when they did a raunchy cover of Roy Orbison's "(O) Pretty Woman." I don't think they had to pay licensing fees, nor does Yankovic. EDIT: I asked about licensing fees, and Wiki[1] says that Coolio accepted royalty payments for "Amish Paradise." So I still wonder how 2 Live Crew settled their suit, and I need to get back to work. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weird_al#Negative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weird_al#Negative
- xsmasher 14y ago
  2 live crew sampled the Orbison recording. There is no compulsory license for recorded music. It's a different situation than "using the same notes."