Forum & Copyright (Guidelines)

Pete Thomas · Jun 16, 2020

Pete Thomas said:
it's possible that it is legal to hotlink to an image (ie just embed it via the URL).

Apparently this is about to change so ignore it.

Pete Thomas · Jul 29, 2020

So just to recap (just my opinion) on soundclips here:

Youtube is best
Soundcloud is (hopefully temporarily) OK but can be slightly annoying on mobiles if you don't realise you need to click listen in browser in order to play in the embed and not be taken to the SC app.
Linking to files is not so good because (a) there is no copyright check (not a problem if you personally have the rights or permission) and (b) they do not embed so not as good for manypeople.

6441 · Jul 29, 2020

Request for clarification:

If it's your song, it doesn't matter (T/F)
If you have permission, it doesn't matter (T/F)

What about SOTM/BOTM? Or anything with purchased backing tracks?

The real "enemy" is a link to music you don't own that is displayed somewhere that does not scan for copyright abuses, which includes Soundclick, Dropbox, Box and probably Bandcamp? (T/F)

Pete Thomas · Jul 29, 2020

6441 said:
Or anything with purchased backing tracks?

Just check the T & Cs when you buy the track.

Nikki · Jul 29, 2020

I’m using some purchased backtracks but I don’t have to. I wondered how that would work. I was under the assumption that they could be used, just not used to sell. I’ve got dozen of old karaoke cassette tapes. Lol

Nikki · Jul 29, 2020

Pete Thomas said:
Just check the T & Cs when you buy the track.

What’s T & C?

Pete Thomas · Jul 29, 2020

Nikki said:
What’s T & C?

Terms & Conditions

Pete Thomas · Jul 29, 2020

Nikki said:
I’m using some purchased backtracks but I don’t have to. I wondered how that would work. I was under the assumption that they could be used, just not used to sell. I’ve got dozen of old karaoke cassette tapes. Lol

A backing track has a copyright only in the recording, not in the composition.

Normally when you buy backing tracks there are terms and conditions. If in doubt, then as normal on the cafe, the safest thing is to use Youtube which runs a copyright check. So does Soundcloud, but there are slight issues re: embedding private tracks and the annoying mobile overlay)

6441 · Jul 29, 2020

Nikki, in fact although SOTM/BOTM always has suggested backing tracks that are often originals made with Band in a Box or other software, therefore rights and royalty-free, several participants like to use paid tracks. I think you're correct in assuming most of these are fine as long as they do not involve money or sales.

Pete Thomas · Jul 29, 2020

6441 said:
The real "enemy" is a link to music you don't own that is displayed somewhere that does not scan for copyright abuses, which includes Soundclick, Dropbox, Box and probably Bandcamp? (T/F)

Bandcamp specifically state you must not upload anything you do not own all rights to:

Can I upload covers, remixes, or mashups?

Our Terms of Use require you to own or otherwise control all rights to the content you upload. Click here for more info.

6441 · Jul 29, 2020

Pete Thomas said:
Our Terms of Use

You do realise that NO ONE READS those, right? Yes, I know, you have to check a box, but no one cares, no one pays attention. And even if they accidentally see it, they ignore it if they feel like uploading anything. Fact is, the only thing that will happen is that the content will be removed. Worst case, the uploader will be banned from the site. That statement is there to protect them, they do not necessarily scan uploads.

What we know for sure is that YouTube scans very carefully, Soundcloud a little less. The cloud storage, not at all, because they don't need to do so.

We also know that YouTube has a lot of false positives, often caused by bogus companies in unusual countries wanting to be able to place ads. This latter is very much akin to trademark and patent trolls. We have to live with it. Probably, the golden rule, (do unto others) is valid here.

Nikki · Jul 29, 2020

As someone new to recording I’m finding the rules and regulations very temperamental. When I first started inquiring about recording and where to upload my music to, Dropbox seemed to be the most used that I had seen so I purchased a subscription.

Not long later I discover that Pete isn’t fond of Dropbox and states he’d prefer if members use either Soundcloud or YouTube ( said 11 days ago). Due to this I’d downloaded Soundcloud and been working with it only to now discover that Pete isn’t fond of Soundcloud.

I mean, can you not see how confusing this all looks and sounds to others? I’ve never been on a site that’s so wIshy washy about their rules and regulations and it’s especially confusing since they are changing all the time.

It’s like management wants to purposely make it difficult for anyone wanting to record and upload anything and I can’t quite understand why. :confused2:

Frustrating or what and I’m sure my post will be relocated for some , unknown to me, reason >:)

Nikki · Jul 30, 2020

carburetor said:
Hello, I have a question about this part of the forum rules:

By uploading or submitting any materials to us, you automatically
grant (or warrant that the owner of such rights has expressly granted) us a perpetual, royalty-free, irrevocable, non-exclusive right and license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, disclose, post, remove and/or distribute such materials or incorporate such materials into any form, medium, or technology now known or later developed throughout the universe.

I must be misunderstanding this, because to me it implies that Cafe Saxophone disregards copyright laws. For example, let's say I post a recording of one of my own copyrighted compositions. The above text seems to say that I have signed away all of my rights to it. Could you please explain what is really meant by this text?

Thank you.

With all the rules and regulations to safeguard copyright laws, it’s shocking to read the above post. So being members here we are expected to respect your rules and regulations because you are protecting artists and their work however anything we write or post here can be used and / or modified however you choose.

For instance when members post material in the proper threads that’s on topic but you don’t like the way it reads, you can just move the post someplace else so that the conversation is then butchered. As members here we have no choice because it’s your site and your rules however it is still butchering content that others have written but you are ok with doing that.

Now I understand the above terms & conditions has been modified some but in hindsight isn’t this somewhat hypocritical on your part Pete?

Jeanette · Jul 30, 2020

Nikki said:
With all the rules and regulations to safeguard copyright laws, it’s shocking to read the above post. So being members here we are expected to respect your rules and regulations because you are protecting artists and their work however anything we write or post here can be used and / or modified however you choose.

For instance when members post material in the proper threads that’s on topic but you don’t like the way it reads, you can just move the post someplace else so that the conversation is then butchered. As members here we have no choice because it’s your site and your rules however it is still butchering content that others have written but you are ok with doing that.

Now I understand the above terms & conditions has been modified some but in hindsight isn’t this somewhat hypocritical on your part Pete?

Pete's response to the post Nikki quoted can be seen here

https://cafesaxophone.com/threads/the-forum-copyright-queries-moved.29418/page-3#post-287138

Jx

6441 · Jul 30, 2020

Pete Thomas said:
A backing track has a copyright only in the recording, not in the composition.

Here's an element regarding SoundCloud. They definitely scan for these. I uploaded a version of "Get Here" using the backing track provided to us at ArtistWorks. It's the same one Eric uses to perform on video or TV. In fact it's called "TV mix". (I haven't found a terms of use statement on AW site, but the support guy said it was ok to use it.)Here's what happened next:

Nikki · Jul 30, 2020

Pete Thomas said:
I understand your concerns, but the words "non-exclusive right" means that the only rights signed away are your right to disallow Cafesaxophone to use the content in a broad context.

You still retain all your copyright.

I admit it appears to imply more than would actually be fair or realistic (such is the problem of trying to word something as one paragraph that would normally be a 20 page contract)

The reasoning behind this is that (for example) we do not want people to post a video, initiate a lot of discussion in a thread about that track, and then make a nonsense of the whole thread by demanding its removal, as it is the main or only source of that discussion.

The wording about "reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, disclose, post, remove and/or distribute such materials or incorporate such materials into any form, medium," is there to cover automatic use outside of the actual forum, for example i.e. pushing the content through a social feed, that feed may not use the original authors name, and may in fact use the forum's name.

Because we have no control over whether the social medium in this case may adapt, or lack an attribution, means this clause would stop the scenario of someone saying " hey I posted that video on the forum, I didn't grant you the right to then put it on Facebook"

Of course I understand the wording "distribute such materials" may be worrying if it implies we have the right to sell them on, and that is something I should probably look into. Again, it's down to trying to make it concise rather than over lengthy. I could include the word "non-commercially" to preclude that, however again it could be argued that everything is commercial if on a medium that is monetised, ie with advertising revenue on the same page.

This sounds more like lawyer talk and doesn’t actually answer my question.

Pete Thomas · Jul 30, 2020

Nikki said:
This sounds more like lawyer talk and doesn’t actually answer my question.

It was an answer to the question asked by carburettor 4 years ago.

The answer to your question in hindsight isn’t this somewhat hypocritical on your part Pete? in post 114 is no

nigeld · Jul 30, 2020

Nikki said:
As someone new to recording I’m finding the rules and regulations very temperamental. When I first started inquiring about recording and where to upload my music to, Dropbox seemed to be the most used that I had seen so I purchased a subscription.

Not long later I discover that Pete isn’t fond of Dropbox and states he’d prefer if members use either Soundcloud or YouTube ( said 11 days ago). Due to this I’d downloaded Soundcloud and been working with it only to now discover that Pete isn’t fond of Soundcloud.

I mean, can you not see how confusing this all looks and sounds to others? I’ve never been on a site that’s so wIshy washy about their rules and regulations and it’s especially confusing since they are changing all the time.

It’s like management wants to purposely make it difficult for anyone wanting to record and upload anything and I can’t quite understand why.
Frustrating or what and I’m sure my post will be relocated for some , unknown to me, reason

The situation is that by making and publishing a recording of a song, written by person A, using a score written by B, and a backing track written by C, we are inevitably entering confusing copyright territory. Most of the time we don't get into problems, but occasionally somebody objects to a recording and then we have to decide whether to spend time fighting or just move on. I have had a post censored by SoundCloud for some reason not clear to me, and my response was to shrug my shoulders and make a different recording. Life is too short . . . What we are mostly talking about here is amateur musicians sharing our renditions of well-known tunes. If it turns out that there is a problem with my recording of "My Funny Valentine", then I can just record something else instead. It's irritating, but it's not a big deal.

If you are really, really bothered about copyright rules, and you seem to be, then the safe solution is only to post recordings of music written by yourself, with a backing track created by yourself. And similarly, only to post text and visual material that you have created yourself.

Pete has to protect the Café Saxophone site against lawsuits, and so he has to be conservative about what is allowed. Maybe he is sometimes over-conservative. Personally, I think he does a great job. As long as this excellent site keeps running I am grateful, and happy for him to make decisions as well as he can. It might indeed be nicer if he was perfect (or perhaps it might not - a site managed by an angel might be a bit dull!) but in any case, perfection ain't going to happen.

Nikki · Jul 30, 2020

nigeld said:
If you are really, really bothered about copyright rules, and you seem to be, then the safe solution is only to post recordings of music written by yourself, with a backing track created by yourself. And similarly, only to post text and visual material that you have created yourself.

I’m not bothered by copyright laws but clearly this site is to the max. I’m not looking for perfection. I’m looking for some type of consistency and there doesn’t seem to be any.

It wouldn’t be so bad if the rules were consistent but one day using one type of service is ok, dropBox or soundcloud for instead and the next day it’s not.

Ok it is but he’d prefer members to use another media resource. Of course members should respect and understand all this inconsistency.

Then I come across the rules and regulations for this site which shows that we have no rights whatsoever when posting articles here since it’s up to the owners discretion. If the rules are constantly changing then one day it could be ok, the next not so much.

Veggie Dave · Jul 30, 2020

I think you're mixing different areas of copyright into one subject.

Regarding the question from Carburettor, the text he quoted is simply saying you allow the forum to publish your post. It's long winded but that's all it is. No different to a magazine or paper publishing your article or photography. You have to give them explicit permission to publish your copyrighted material.

Regarding Soundcloud etc., they have copyright agreements in place with the music industry. That means a site such as CafeSaxophone doesn't have to worry about copyright infringement if it publishes something from these sites. Soundcloud, YouTube etc. have already done the legal work.

If you use a different host for something you've created then you have to make certain you have the legal right to publish that content. If it's 100% original then you have no problems. If, however, part of your creation uses something someone else has created, then you have to make certain you have the legal right to publish that person/band/company's work.

Why does Pete care? Because, as the publisher of your post, he is legally responsible for the contents of your post. If you post something you don't have the legal right to share then it's Pete who is legally responsible for that breach of copyright.

As for the recommendation for which host to use, this changes purely because of technical issues. If a host such as Soundcloud changes the way it works so that it's no-longer compatible with the software a forum uses, then it makes complete sense for that forum to tell its users of the issues and that it would be better to use another host at this time. Nothing to do with copyright.