Forum & Copyright (Guidelines)

Pete Thomas · May 5, 2016

I'll copy this from Personal Conversation to the forum, as this is probably a useful info for everyone.

Pete Thomas · May 5, 2016

carburetor said:
Another question -- in what situations does the forum put its content elsewhere on the Internet, like social media?

If anyone publishes an RSS feed or adds stuff to social media such as Pinterest, Facebook. We can't really contol that, hence the clause that appears rather draconian to cover all eventualities.

people who know more about social media than I do can probably cite more examples.

carburetor · May 5, 2016

Okay cool. Thanks for the clarification, Pete.

Tiberius · May 5, 2016

Well, I got this from Soundcloud:

Summertime

Unfortunately, your dispute was rejected.
Resolved on 3 May 2016

So, as I guessed, they don't really care that the originator claims copyright, they have given it to someone else.

Obviously it doesn't really bother me, it was a song I played last week, this week something else. I feel a little sorry for Larry at Jazzbacks as he seems to have lost the rights to his work.

Pete Thomas · May 5, 2016

Tiberius said:
He claims that this is a mistake and has given me some detail to put into a dispute with SoundCloud. I'll let you know what happens.

Are you able to share the details he gave - I'm intrigued by this. It doesn't seem right.

MikeMorrell · May 5, 2016

Just to be clear: if a backing track isn't (obviouslycopyrighted

Pete Thomas said:
.. this is why we don't allow Soundcloud embedding here (yet). We did that once but then got a whole raft of embedded copyright stuff.

I think currently linking to copyright stuff on Soundcloud will be OK.

Pete, just to be clear on Soundcloud: many of the posts in the 'Your Soundclips' forum (including mine) link to recordings (with a backing track) that have been uploaded to Soundcloud. These have obviously been accepted by SoundCloud. Assuming the members who provided the backing tracks didn't knowingly infringe any copyright, can we continue to use Soundcloud in this way?

Mike

Pete Thomas · May 5, 2016

MikeMorrell said:
Assuming the members who provided the backing tracks didn't knowingly infringe any copyright, can we continue to use Soundcloud in this way?

I can't see why not. The post you are quoting is very old, before we (and Soundcloud) changed the policy.

Edit:
I can't speak on behalf of any rightsholders, e.g. if you upload something that infringes a backing track or composition copyright, then I can't really give you that permission. In other words, if your track is rejected, it's no use saying "but Pete Thomas said it would be OK"

jimmylh · May 5, 2016

MikeMorrell said:
Just to be clear: if a backing track isn't (obviouslycopyrighted

Pete, just to be clear on Soundcloud: many of the posts in the 'Your Soundclips' forum (including mine) link to recordings (with a backing track) that have been uploaded to Soundcloud. These have obviously been accepted by SoundCloud. Assuming the members who provided the backing tracks didn't knowingly infringe any copyright, can we continue to use Soundcloud in this way?

Mike

What really kills me about Soundcloud is how inconsistent they are in rejecting something. I just saw a full on original Purple Rain post that has been up for awhile, since before he passed. The person who uploaded it sure didn't resemble Prince in anyway. Seems hard to believe it could be legit but who knows...

Tiberius · May 5, 2016

Ok, all details.

I purchased/downloaded a backing track from jazzbacks.com of 'summertime' and played over it. When I uploaded it to soundcloud, it was removed with the following message:

SoundCloud

Hi Dean Bisseker,

Our automatic content protection system has detected that your track:

"Summertime"

may contain the following copyrighted content:

"Summertime" by Christelle Berthon owned by Ruf Records GmbH

As a result, your track has been removed from your profile for the time being.

– Wait SoundCloud, I think I have the rights to this!

If you think we've made a mistake, you can tell us about it by following the link below and filing a dispute. You can file a dispute if:

• we've wrongly identified the track
• we've correctly identified the track, but you have the rights to post this to SoundCloud - for example, because you are the copyright owner or have permission from the copyright owner(s).

If either of these things apply to you, tell us about it here:
copyright.soundcloud.com/dispute/soun…tes:18797436

To learn more about copyright, please visit our copyright information page: soundcloud.com/pages/copyright.

Thank you,
The SoundCloud Copyright Team

I did as they asked following the link above, explaining the circumstances. I also emailed Jazzbacks and received the following from Larry at jazzbacks:

Dean

Its a mistake.

Please file a dispute from your account.

http://copyright.help.soundcloud.com/customer/portal/articles/2105127-my-own-original-track-was-taken-down-for-copyright-infringement

In the dispute explain that the there is a backing track in use and it is being used by multiple artists.

Here is a link to my backing track of Summertime:

http://www.jazzbacks.com/cgi-bin/online-store?pg=cat&ref=st-summertime

Paste that in to the dispute for them.

Please let me know how it goes.

***

Unfortunately before I had chance to add this extra detail into my claim (I had given this info, just not a copy from Larry), I received the following from Soundcloud:

Summertime

Unfortunately, your dispute was rejected.
Resolved on 3 May 2016
***

The incident is now closed by Soundcloud, there is no option for me to add any other information or respond to their rejection. So there doesn't seem to be anything I could do...ok, I guess I could write to them or something, but this incident isn't really important to me to be honest. I will get back to Larry at jazzbacks as I feel sorry for him that someone appears to be claiming copyright of his work. But I'm not a lawyer, nor have any real connection with the music industry, so I don't really know enough about this to add useful information.

Jeanette · May 5, 2016

Tiberius said:
The incident is now closed by Soundcloud, there is no option for me to add any other information or respond to their rejection. So there doesn't seem to be anything I could do...

Upload it again 🙂

If it is removed give them the extra detail

Jx

Pete Thomas · May 5, 2016

carburetor said:
Thanks for the explanation; perhaps there is a better way to word it, but I don't know much about legal language. I didn't actually think anyone here would try to steal my stuff, especially considering that I am merely an amateur, but that passage did put up a flag in my head when I signed up for the forum.

T & C now reworded:

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, disclose, post, remove and/or distribute (non-commercially) such materials or incorporate such materials into any form, medium, or technology now known or later developed throughout the universe. You will still retain any rights you hold in relation to the material outside of this forum

Jazzaferri · May 6, 2016

That about covers it.

Pete Thomas · Sep 15, 2016

European court says linking to illegal content is copyright infringement

kevgermany · Sep 15, 2016

Ouch.

Veggie Dave · Sep 15, 2016

And from the other side:
Photographer sues Getty Images for $1 billion after she's billed for her own photo

I really, really hope she wipes the floor with them.

Targa · Sep 15, 2016

It refers to a 'for profit' publisher, are you considered the publisher Pete?
In which case does it apply as I didn't think you were doing it for profit?

Veggie Dave · Sep 15, 2016

The person who owns the website is the publisher and is responsible for everything they print whether they or their staff wrote it or not.

Obviously, 'print' is not used in its literal form.

Jazzaferri · Sep 16, 2016

Does that mean that in order to post my version of a copyrighted song on the net in the EU, for people just to listen to, not to sell, that I now have to have the digital rights to that tune.

Pete Thomas · Sep 16, 2016

Targa said:
It refers to a 'for profit' publisher, are you considered the publisher Pete?
In which case does it apply as I didn't think you were doing it for profit?

Yes I am the publisher, and the site does make a profit. The fact that I choose to give that profit away would not probably be relevant to a court case

Pete Thomas · Sep 16, 2016

Jazzaferri said:
Does that mean that in order to post my version of a copyrighted song on the net in the EU, for people just to listen to, not to sell, that I now have to have the digital rights to that tune.

I don't think the law itself has changed, just that there has been a test case and a ruling that sets a precedent on the interpretation of that law.

EDIT: so theoretically the answer is yes, you should not publish anything for which you don't own the rights to publish.

NB: Youtube is a grey area as discussed elsewhere. They have some kind of agreement with rightsholders and either take down or place ads. In the former case there is an implication you should not have pu it there, in the latter there is an implication that it's OK but since you did the rightsholder is going to benefit.

Confusing eh?

NB: I get a licence from MCPS to host a certain amount of music files on my sites.