Forum & Copyright (Guidelines)

Also see our article Explaining Copyright

NB: There are main two types of copyright involved with music.

1. Copyright in the composition (usually this means melody and lyrics). This belongs to the composer and exists in a recording or sheet music.
2. Copyright in a record work. This belongs to the producer of the track and exists in any audio format, physical or digital including videos with embedded audio.

This post is in place to explain what we allow or disallow, and the reasons. These are not strict rules of the cafe, but guidelines on how to interpret the rules which you can read here.

These guidelines may change from time to time as we learn more about the legal implications or new precedents are set.

Please feel free to comment.

I hasten to add that any rules we have in regard to Intellectual property do not mean we necessarily agree with those laws and our job is not to be copyright police. The rules and the action we take are for the legal protection of Cafesaxophone. In some cases there are grey areas, and in those cases although we may initially allow the content, if instructed by a rights holder or their legal representative we would remove the content.

[EDIT 2020] Our main concern is not with being awkward and stopping the fun but with protecting the forum, especially in the light of new EU laws around illegal content (don't get me started on Brexit please)

Times have changed and instead of just take down notices, sites, or rather site owners can just get hit with huge fines.
This mean we may need to be a little stricter.

General

Copyright has a life, and once that is over the work is in the public domain. However this is not completely straightforward as a recording has two copyrights (see above - composition and recording).

e.g. Oh When the Saints (melody & words) may be in the public domain but a recording of it may not be.

Images

The same rules apply to image copyright infringement, but as the internet has so many precedents of uploading or linking to images that may have copyrights, we will be more discretionary when dealing with this, and context will be taken into account.

The context could be based on quantity, relevance, dimensions or anything else at our discretion.

Sheet Music

You can buy digital sheet music from a repuotable only music store, but it is nearly always not legal to sell or give copies away. If people embed or link to published sheet music with the melody line then this is not allowed. If it is their own arrangement of a public domain work, that is OK. .

Generally people who participate in playing to backing tracks should really own their own copies of the real Book or fake books. It kind of goes with the territory of learning to improvise. Then its purely their lookout that what they have is legal or not.

Youtube

Youtube is an exception to some of the guidelines below. You may embed or link to Youtube videos of copyright works, as Youtube seems to have agreements in place that either pay royalties or overlay advertising on behalf of any rights holder.

Links

A link to a file implies a download, so linking directly to a file implies distribution (file sharing)

Do not link directly to files that infringe a copyright. This includes audio, video, printed words & sheet music.

Linking to a page that may contain some copyright infringements is a grey area. If in doubt, don't do it.

Audio & Video

Apart from the Youtube exception above, you are not allowed to link to or upload any audio or video which infringes a copyright, either in the composition or the recording.

Backing Tracks

Raw backings (no recorded lead instrument)

You may link to and distribute your own backing tracks (e.g. generated by BIAB or iRealbook) There is no copyright in a chord sequence but in some cases a backing may contain a significant and recognisable riff which may be copyright.

However you may not link to and distribute backing tracks that are copyright published recordings (such as Aebersold, Hal Leonard, Alfred Mastertracks)

Your recordings on top of backing tracks

Usually the rightsholders of a backing track recording allow non-commercial distribution once you have recorded over it.

Fair Use & Educational

These are very specific legal terms and are often incorrectly used to justify the distribution of copyright material. They do not apply to this forum.

Educational use is restricted to classrooms in an educational establishment such as a school or university. Fair Use applies to a very small extract used to illustrate a point in a news article etc. , although we will usually allow very short extracts of sheet music (1 or 2 bars) to illustrate a point.

See Exceptions to copyright

Part 2 - more guidelines and update re: memes​

I have been doing some research and the law is not clear, seems to change and is different in different territories.

From what I can tell your typical meme (ie some photo with a caption plastered all over) is generally OK because it is classed as parody. There was a lot of concern when the new law came out last year, but actually seems like it has been clarified a bit.

BUT what is confusing for people is that this does not cover cartoons that have a copyright, and it doesn't cover protected photographic images that have not been turned into memes. Companies such as Getty images can find, identify and take legal action very easily.

We have noticed instances where people post a cartoon, and assume it's OK because it's all over facebook. This is often not the case, we investigated one such cartoon and found the artists copyright terms which actually granted use on facebook but nowhere else.

Another thing that muddies the waters is that it's possible that it is legal to hotlink to an image (ie just embed it via the URL).]

[EDIT: that is about to change it seems so please do not hot link copyright images.

However this is more complicated. In order to not have mixed content (e.g. from unsecure sites) we have a system called Image and Link proxy which I believe effectively uploads the embed image here. legally, I would not like to say whether this means we are OK or not and so to be on the safe side we must assume it doesn't just count as a link.

So what this means in practice is that probably I should think a bit more, rewrite the rules and guidelines. In the past we have had some threads that were dedicated to cartoons, jokes, memes etc.

My gut feeling is we should avoid such threads because sooner or later something with a copyright will get uploaded, but if you find a meme particularly appropriate in a one-off post then that should be OK. Images and cartoons are often OK if you are sure they don't infringe a copyright. It's not always easy to know but Google images does have a filter you can use to show only those images.

Meanwhile, if we are in doubt we may remove things that we consider could be a problem - please don't feel offended or upset if we do that, it just means we are being cautious because it is us who will be in trouble and are responsible. OTOH please don't post anything with obvious copyright notice or watermark as that is an obvious and direct infringement that you should have been aware of and it would be viewed as intentional breaking of our rules (and the law!)

Meanwhile I will try to find out about the hotlinking/proxy issue - many sites don't mind the hotlinking as it can be helpful. The main issue is going to be stuff like Getty images etc.

And before anyone says "fair use" that is not an automatic right, it is often only useable as a defence, that may or may not stand up in court.

[ADMIN NOTE: I am reorganising these posts, so have moved from main announcement to a separate thread]


I manage a couple of Facebook and Twitter accounts so I'm aware of the copyright issues for images and videos. Sharing (deep) links to specific webpages is so common that I'd assumed this wouldn't be an issue. So I was surprised to discover that it can be - as in the case of ITV who's terms & conditions include the statement 'You may not "deep-link" to pages beyond the home page without our express permission'. According to Wikipedia, legal protests about deep links (= links to anywhere other than the home page) have been largely ineffective. But no-one wants to get involved in these kind of legal challenges. I suspect that these kind of terms & conditions particularly apply to media outlets (TV, newspapers, news sites, etc.)

So I think Pete and the mods are taking the right stand here: check the copyright and terms & conditions before posting. As someone mentioned, it's the minefield of the 21st century.

Mike

Yeah yeah yeah! Images are more protected by copyright and legislation than mpegs and jpegs. I have already said that I agree with Pete's decisions. My point was wanting to know how to check in accordance with the mods and Pete on this site. I am still no clearer as to what it is you mods check. You must all be "budding" lawyers with experience in these matters.

Assumption is something that I tolerate but let me state again...........I agree with Pete's actions. I applaud his ethics, morals and scruples. It is just so frustrating when assumption has to be the victor

ProfJames said:

My point was wanting to know how to check in accordance with the mods and Pete on this site.

Read more…

I think Pete clarified this 🙂

ProfJames said:

I am still no clearer as to what it is you mods check. You must all be "budding" lawyers with experience in these matters.

Read more…

Not budding lawyers at all, for reference I check for a copyright C or any other watermark. Also now I am looking for a web address on the post. I have gone as far as the website an image has come from to see if there are copyright notices. It is though taking up a lot of my time.

Interestingly I found this article this morning. Which worries me more as it means even pictures without any markings could cause us a big problem.

Until I read the above I would have said the odd image here and there shouldn't cause us a problem but now I'm not so sure. Also we seem to be having more and more posts with these sorts of pictures and I only see this growing as more people join in the fun.



Jx

Jeanette said:

I think Pete clarified this 🙂



Not budding lawyers at all, for reference I check for a copyright C or any other watermark. Also now I am looking for a web address on the post. I have gone as far as the website an image has come from to see if there are copyright notices. It is though taking up a lot of my time.

Interestingly I found this article this morning. Which worries me more as it means even pictures without any markings could cause us a big problem.

Until I read the above I would have said the odd image here and there shouldn't cause us a problem but now I'm not so sure. Also we seem to be having more and more posts with these sorts of pictures and I only see this growing as more people join in the fun.



Jx

Read more…

Thank you for your clarifications Jeanette.

As for concerns...........I understand Pete's motives. But to have concerns over legal issues as a small internet based forum targeted at saxophonists/musicians is taking the concern completely out of proportion. Especially as any profits go towards charitable projects. Let's keep things in proportion. How often do you see Facebook, Twitter, etc being sued for breach of copyright? Those sites may be bigger than us............

ProfJames said:

Thank you for your clarifications Jeanette.

As for concerns...........I understand Pete's motives. But to have concerns over legal issues as a small internet based forum targeted at saxophonists/musicians is taking the concern completely out of proportion. Especially as any profits go towards charitable projects. Let's keep things in proportion. How often do you see Facebook, Twitter, etc being sued for breach of copyright? Those sites may be bigger than us............

Read more…

Did you read the article I linked to?

Small sites are being targeted and they are being asked not to talk about it so how can we know how wide this is?

Jx

ProfJames said:

How often do you see Facebook, Twitter, etc being sued for breach of copyright? Those sites may be bigger than us............

Read more…

Read the article Jeanette linked to, just because you don't hear about such actions doesn't mean they aren't happening.

However in many cases fear of legal action is not necessarily my main motive in wanting, as far as possible, to avoid copyright infringements.

Before I read that article from Jeanette I had already stated that it is "images" that are being followed more than clips such a mpeg and jpeg (does the forum check every music clip posted?). I still get involved in licensing issues with software and other media. In that way I feel that I am writing with a little knowledge.

I have responded to further questions and statements that have been written today and feel that the forum is in fear of anything that is written or reported. I understand those fears but still believe they are getting blown out of proportion. That is my opinion however and I fully comply/agree/concur/empathise with all of your actions to ensure the longevity and reputation of the forum.

Hmm.

Copyright is not a problem of the 21st century, under English law it goes back to the 17th. So it has essentially always been there, it's just that modern technology makes it easier to breach someone's rights.

Copyright, as the name implies, is a right - it doesn't have to be registered, and an item doesn't have to bear the c symbol to be subject to copyright. It belongs to the individual who created it (although there is some arcane legal bobbins about it having to have been produced with modicum of skill and care).

There are instances of people seeking damages for use of copyright items on sites such as this, particularly from image libraries. Some well used images are made available for re-use, but many aren't.

I was on an intellectual property course at work recently. One of the points they made is that copyright belongs to the author of any work, unless explicitly assigned to someone else. And.... There is no legal requirement for the copyright symbol, or an declaration that a work is copyright. It's automatic.

kevgermany said:

I was on an intellectual property course at work recently. One of the points they made is that copyright belongs to the author of any work, unless explicitly assigned to someone else. And.... There is no legal requirement for the copyright symbol, or an declaration that a work is copyright. It's automatic.

Read more…

Correct.

Prof. Beware of little knowledge. Effectively everything you post from another site is copyright. And that means some poor fool has to check for infringements, or risk getting sued as well as the original poster. Given the heavy handed way the music and film industry are pursuing infringements, is it fair for forum posters to expose us to these risks?

Given the work it creates for us, I'm very tempted to simply delete everything that isn't clearly legit. And the earlier post about deep linking is another worry.

One other point that was made on the course that's pertinent here. The enforcers often just want money, legal action is too much hassle. So they go in with licencing demands with the threat of legal action. These cases are usually kept confidential between owner and infringer. It's only when these negotiations over licencing break down that things become public.

kevgermany said:

Prof. Beware of little knowledge. Effectively everything you post from another site is copyright. And that means some poor fool has to check for infringements, or risk getting sued as well as the original poster. Given the heavy handed way the music and film industry are pursuing infringements, is it fair for forum posters to expose us to these risks?

Given the work it creates for us, I'm very tempted to simply delete everything that isn't clearly legit. And the earlier post about deep linking is another worry.

One other point that was made on the course that's pertinent here. The enforcers often just want money, legal action is too much hassle. So they go in with licencing demands with the threat of legal action. These cases are usually kept confidential between owner and infringer. It's only when these negotiations over licencing break down that things become public.

Read more…

Thank you for the warning. Where have you been all my life? This is now becoming condescending. I specifically wrote "a little knowledge". Why are you aiming all comments at me? I simply question procedures and motives. I don't have to agree but I can certainly understand.

If the postings are a risk to both yourself and the forum then simply ban them. Interesting course that you attended which covers a number of issues with sweeping statements. It would appear that deep linking is a constant worry so I would propose banning all links.

Comments expected.............

ProfJames said:

(does the forum check every music clip posted?)

Read more…

No, nor do we check every image or video.

What happened to spark this discussion was the removal of some very obvious infringements. Those are the ones we bother about.

We don't do this due to being self appointed copyright vigilantes, or because we believe the copyright laws are beneficial in all cases, or because we live in constant fear of being sued.

I regret that we can't give any better guidelines than we have, ie don't post anything with a watermark or copyright notice or something is obviously protected.

What we (currently) don't do (much as we'd love to) is remove every picture taken by Mrs Trellis on her iPhone of a cat doing something stupid.

We would also ask people to do a quick check on the source of any material (if possible and feasible) to look for any copyright notices, but obviously neither we as mods or you as members can dedicate an enormous amount of time and research over a picture of a cat.

We also suggest that you don't get offended if something you post gets removed for copyright reasons, it is often an arbitrary decision that we cannot waste hours over doing the research and subsequently arguing about. Notwithstanding (no I'm not really a lawyer) if an image is removed wrongly due to you owning the rights to it or having evidence that it is in the public domain, that is a good case for objecting to its removal.

However our policy on blatant posting of copyright infringing material (where there is a watermark or other sign of ownership) then we have a moderator warning points system that is a bit like a yellow/red card. You get points that expire after a certain time, if points build up within that time to a certain level then you may find posting permissions change temporarily.

Our current policy in regard to video is that we do allow Youtube embeds, based on Youtube's policy of immediately identifying a lot of copyright material, and giving the rights holders the chance to have it removed or to monetise it with ads.Both Youtube (and now Soundcloud) do have some kind of agreement in place to pay royalties. For this reason we currently allow those.

Well done Pete. An explanation for all to read. Thank you.

kevgermany said:

I was on an intellectual property course at work recently. One of the points they made is that copyright belongs to the author of any work, unless explicitly assigned to someone else.

Read more…

There's a very important little caveat to this - you can't legally give away your copyright, explicitly or otherwise, for free. I'm not sure it's relevant to this discussion, but as musicians/artists it's an important thing to know.

Copyright, such a simple subject. 😉

I take the easy route.....if I am in the right frame of mind I post my own waffle

Ok, someone's going to have to help me here, sorry.

Soundcloud have removed the clip as.... the copyright to "Summertime" by Christelle Berthon owned by Ruf Records GmbH.

Now, obviously I didn't write Summertime, I purchased a backing tack from the website Jazzbacks, perhaps naively, I assumed this meant that I could record over it and post to places like soundcloud/youtube etc (sorry, obviously I know nothing about the music industry and how it works).

So, my question is how do I find out what songs I can do? Is there a list somewhere?

Tiberius said:

Ok, someone's going to have to help me here, sorry.

Soundcloud have removed the clip as.... the copyright to "Summertime" by Christelle Berthon owned by Ruf Records GmbH.

Now, obviously I didn't write Summertime, I purchased a backing tack from the website Jazzbacks...

Read more…

Doesn't seem right to me. @Pete Thomas is in the know

Try reposting with a different title?

Alternatively store your track in the cloud and post a link

Ivan said:

Doesn't seem right to me. @Pete Thomas is in the know

Read more…

Not really. I think Summertime is maybe in public domain (and wasn't written by Christelle Berthon) so I imagine what's happened is Christelle Berthon has done a version using the same backing track. So the perceived copyright infringement would be of that recording (or part of it)

Whether Christelle got the rights to use the backing we don't know.