What's new
By:
Filters

Directly from SBI President on Karaoke Downloads

c. staley said:
However Joe,

Since the manufacturers sell to the 'general public' I believe it's pretty impossible for them to think that they can control the end use of their product.

Example:

#1. Customer buys a track online - with or withOUT graphics -

#2. Customer puts that track on a flashdrive or burns to a disc

#3. Customer takes that to a club and hands it to you to play.

Is this a violation?
Click to expand...

The problem rests with the karaoke manufacturers themselves. Many (if not most) charged ahead with making their product and deliberately ignored the need for a synch license. (A synch license can only be granted with permission of the copyright holder.)

For those of you who don't know - a compulsary license (audio recordings only) is automatic; provided for in the Copyright Act. Once a work has been made public (published) you need only notify the copyright holder of your intentions and pay the nominal fees.

Let's tell the real story of the particular "ABKCO" case Chartbusterette likes to paint as some kind of Governemental mistake or gray area. It is no such folly.

There was never any gray area regarding karaoke works or the requirement to obtain a synch license. There was simply a failure on the part of CD+G maufacturers to respect the law or believe that it applied to them.

Pioneer (one of the original manufacturers of Laser Discs) knew enough to get synch licenses for their audio-visual product. Yet, many in the new CD+G camp ignored the Copyrigt Acts very clear distinctions between the audio recordings and the lyrical content rights. They simply proclaimed that CD+Gs were only "audio recordings" and pretended the digital visual content of the disc was somehow magically different (mere engineering technicalities) than the video content of a laser disc or other video generating source.

Many publishers represented artists who were not interested in seeing their songs released for karaoke (remember the infamous "missing" hits and artists?) and would not grant the separate license required to publish the lyrics either on screen or in print. So, a number of CD+G makers simply pretended they didn't need one.


The lyrics to a song have always been and always will be a separate Copyright which requires a separate license prior to publication. Publication includes not only print - but any visual display of the lyrics, including synchronized sing-a-long cues.

The decision Chartbusterette coveniently ignores in favor of her lament over "ABKCO vs Stellar et. al." is a much older case involving Disney and the use of lyrics on both printed inserts and as an on screen sing-along (follow the bouncing ball). This pre-karaoke era case reinforced the already obvious wording of the law and Congressional intentions about the separation of rights between audio and lyrics.

Now, the marketplace is full of product the manufacturers created at an artificially lower cost by ignoring the required synch licenses. Having been caught - they now face retroactively higher costs and previous liabilities which they are attempting to pluck from whatever ripe target they can find. Is it any wonder so many manus disappeared or that SC no longer creates new product?

Yes, indeed piracy has hurt the karaoke market and higher prices force pirates to leave the playing field. It's just really hard to tell who's who.
 
I wish there was a "triple thanks" button for that post, Pro. A very clear explaination of the difference between the different types of licensing.

Also, because of all that it entails, one could be fairly sure we will NOT be seeing UK style licensing here in the U.S. any time soon.
 
In my opinion Karaoke CD+Gs are no different than a movie that has subtitles. Subtitles do not require the sync license talked about and some of the courts in the US have agreed with this assesment, until it goes to the supreme court *which I don't think it ever will not enuff of the right people care* nothing is written in stone.


I think the UK system is much fairer because the lyric writer gets compensated thru the requirement of a PRODUB liscense. If this kind of licensing was granted here in North America, everyone would be happier and a lot richer, not to mention there would be a lot less grey areas.

Pioneer got sync liscenses because they are TRUE audio visual works, just like a music video, it had nothing to do with the lyric swipe.

The reason CD+G manufacturers got in trouble was because of DKK and other manufacturers who put PICTURES in with their karaoke discs and that`s when Disney saw an oppotunity for a money grab and forced a win because they had more money.

In my opinion if manufactuers like DKK hadn`t done this, this whole discusion would have been entirely unnecessary


-James
 
jclaydon said:
In my opinion Karaoke CD+Gs are no different than a movie that has subtitles. Subtitles do not require the sync license talked about and some of the courts in the US have agreed with this assesment, until it goes to the supreme court *which I don't think it ever will not enuff of the right people care* nothing is written in stone.


I think the UK system is much fairer because the lyric writer gets compensated thru the requirement of a PRODUB liscense. If this kind of licensing was granted here in North America, everyone would be happier and a lot richer, not to mention there would be a lot less grey areas.

Pioneer got sync liscenses because they are TRUE audio visual works, just like a music video, it had nothing to do with the lyric swipe.

The reason CD+G manufacturers got in trouble was because of DKK and other manufacturers who put PICTURES in with their karaoke discs and that`s when Disney saw an oppotunity for a money grab and forced a win because they had more money.

In my opinion if manufactuers like DKK hadn`t done this, this whole discusion would have been entirely unnecessary


-James
Click to expand...

There's a couple of things you're forgetting:

(1) Subtitles on movies are not done without the knowledge of the rights holder's in question and they ARE different than a karaoke disc.

(2) Subtitles are not "synchronized" to sounds/music like the sweeps in a karaoke disc or a the sweeps in a pioneer laser disc - it is the sweeps that are synchronized and some of the dancing in those "karaoke music videos."

(3) DKK tracks were completely licensed and they "added pictures" simply for aesthetic reasons.

The "problem" (if you want to call it that) is that when pictures are added it can be argued that it is now an "audiovisual work" and no longer simply a "phonorecord." DKK knew this and didn't care, their tracks were licensed anyway. Other manufacturers attempted to hold out by saying that in the absence of recording the lyrics (verbally), the display of the lyrics is nothing more than the same thing, is not an audiovisual work but simply an alternative method of transmitting the same lyrics in lieu of recording a singer in the same track which would not require a synch or lyric reprint license.

It didn't work. Years ago some manufacturers (eh-hem) were adamant that cd+g discs were "phonorecords" and not "audiovisual works" because they didn't contain "pictures" per se - however the tracks are littered with a "picture" of their trademark aren't they? You can't have it both ways, but apparently they think you can.

Synchronization and lyric reprint licenses have ALWAYS been seperate and "negotiated licenses" and are not "invisible" no matter the technical delivery method, nor are they or have they ever been able to be allowed in a compulsory manner.
 
jclaydon said:
In my opinion Karaoke CD+Gs are no different than a movie that has subtitles. Subtitles do not require the sync license talked about and some of the courts in the US have agreed with this assesment, until it goes to the supreme court *which I don't think it ever will not enuff of the right people care* nothing is written in stone.


I think the UK system is much fairer because the lyric writer gets compensated thru the requirement of a PRODUB liscense. If this kind of licensing was granted here in North America, everyone would be happier and a lot richer, not to mention there would be a lot less grey areas.

Pioneer got sync liscenses because they are TRUE audio visual works, just like a music video, it had nothing to do with the lyric swipe.

The reason CD+G manufacturers got in trouble was because of DKK and other manufacturers who put PICTURES in with their karaoke discs and that`s when Disney saw an oppotunity for a money grab and forced a win because they had more money.

In my opinion if manufactuers like DKK hadn`t done this, this whole discusion would have been entirely unnecessary


-James
Click to expand...

That is not at all correct. You are, like the manufacturers fixated on "images" and not paying attention to the actual law. Images are not lyrics and lyrics are diferent than images even if it is the "image" of a lyric you are using. It may help you to think of lyrics as "poetry" distinct and separate from the music and/or images to which they are sung. They are by themselves their own creative work.

The musical recording (phonorecord) and the lyrics are two separate properties. "Phonorecord" has it's own unique definition (including digital and all future variations of musical recordings) and treatment separate from other forms of intellectual property like lyrics. You must negotiate and license rights to them independently. In some cases, these rights are not even owned by the same person/agancy.

The framework that defines much of the U.S. Copyright Act comes not from Title 17 - but from another body of law - Title 15 U.S. Code which embodies most of the Federal Anti-trust regulations. What you and the manufacturers are calling "gray area" is no such thing at all. It is a Federally mandated prohibition on anti-competitive and monopolistic practices (Title 15) that prescribes copyright licensing procedures that preserve the rights of IP creators and owners.

This is not a mistake or some willy-nilly Government ignorance. We have already lived through a period of gross racketeering and monopolistic activities in the early days of the Motion Picture Industry. Our Copyright and Trade law is the way it is because of true life experience with producers, manufacturers, distributors, retailers, and performers of intellectual property.

SC and CB may find a particular body of law "inconvenient" or have a history of ignoring it - but, that does not make the law "gray."

The reason CD+G manufacturers got in trouble was because of DKK and other manufacturers who put PICTURES in with their karaoke discs and that`s when Disney saw an oppotunity for a money grab and forced a win because they had more money.
Click to expand...

You're making this up, right?
Disney LOST a case where they had attached lyrics to a musical video score and included them on a printed sheet in the box. Disney owned the rights to the images, and they had purchased the rights to the music. They had obtained no rights to the lyrics, but attahced them in sing-a-long form to the video. The court ruled (correctly) that the lyrics require separate licenses.

That is the basis for a synch license in karaoke. The lyrics require a separate license even if you simply print them on paper and stick them in the box. If you attach them as a griaphic (synchronize) in time with the music then you also require a sync license. Are you keeping count? That's up to 3 unique licenses for use. The basis for this requirement is in Title 15 (Trade Law) not Title 17 (Copyright.)

The issue is not video or graohics - it is publishing of the lyrics without a license. Synchronizing them is legally defined as publishing - and the karaoke manufacturers want you to believe that this definition does not exist - hence their "gray area."
 
am i the only one who feels it a bit much that first, gotta pay to use the music, then gotta pay to use the lyrics, ok, i get that, everyone deserves to be compensated for their part in the song. and oh, you want to use them TOGETHER? well now you gotta pay more. if use of the music and the lyrics were paid for, the sync license just seems greedy unless i am missing something. there does have to be a more streamlined way.
 
Paradigm Karaoke said:
am i the only one who feels it a bit much that first, gotta pay to use the music, then gotta pay to use the lyrics, ok, i get that, everyone deserves to be compensated for their part in the song. and oh, you want to use them TOGETHER? well now you gotta pay more. if use of the music and the lyrics were paid for, the sync license just seems greedy unless i am missing something. there does have to be a more streamlined way.
Click to expand...

The synch license is not another license on the same song or lyric. It is a separate license for the image you want to attach in time with either one. We know from experience that merging of the images with IP can forever alter the value of the intellectual property.

"Times of Your LIfe" - by Paul Anka This song will forever be known as "the Kodak moment."

"I'd Like To Teach the World to Sing" - by The New Seekers Known to most people as the Coca-Cola song.

The marketability of these songs were forever changed by their synchronization with the given commercial images. As a result, neither lyric has been or will likley be covered or released again even if the rights to the song and lyric remain with the original authors.

Consider what happens when a song or lyric is attached to something vulgar or pornographic? Should it be enough that the film maker paid a "compulsary license" for the song? Don't the author's have the right to decide what can or can not be synchronized with their compositions?

This is the purpose of a synch license. You can not be prevented from playing or singing songs by The Eagles. There is no compulsary obligation however, that The Eagles allow their lyrics to be published on a screen or synchronized with a pan flute to facilitate your performance.

What image enters your mind when you hear the voice of James Earl Jones? It took John Travolta almost 2 decades as an actor to overcome the type casting that resulted from his roles in Grease and Saturday Night Fever. The synchronization of the sound, lyric and images is very powerful and can stick to both the IP and the people involved.

If you have a copper mine you can decide whether to sell your copper to makers of consumer goods or military weapons manufacturers. The synch license gives that same discretionary power to authors and composers.
 
i do see that, but in this case the lyrics are being attached to the song that they were recorded with. aren't they just as much a part of the song as the notes the guitar player uses? in the Coke example, the lyrics are not the only thing there, they need a sync license to use the entire composition for something else. here, all they are doing is putting the words, which they paid a licence to use, to the music, which they paid a license to use. if they put it on a piece of paper, it would be ok, but not if it is put in a tv screen? i know that is how it works, but does it not seem kinda......bizarre?
 
Paradigm Karaoke said:
i do see that, but in this case the lyrics are being attached to the song that they were recorded with. aren't they just as much a part of the song as the notes the guitar player uses?
Click to expand...

No they are not, they are only an audible part of that recording.

You may have composed the music and I may be the lyricist. The artist may not own any rights to the lyrics beyond using it for that release. Therefore, publishing the lyrics in a derivative new recording requires my permission for the lyrics and your permission for the musical composition.

Otherwise, anyone who wanted to use my the lyrics to enhance their product could do so. Take the lyric display out of karaoke and what do you have? Answer: a less desirable product. Is this not the same as my printing the lyrics in my poetry collection to make my book more desirable?

Why should the authors not be compensated for derivative use of their rhymes the same way that the composers are compensated for the derivative use of their compositions?

..here, all they are doing is putting the words, which they paid a licence to use, to the music, which they paid a license to use. if they put it on a piece of paper, it would be ok, but not if it is put in a tv screen? i know that is how it works, but does it not seem kinda......bizarre?
Click to expand...

Not at all.

They did not pay a license to use the words, they paid a license to use one particular musical recording (audio only). The person who recorded the song might not even own the rights to the words or the music.

My way - written and composed by Paul Anka not Frank Sinatra.
Sugar Walls - written and composed by Prince not Sheena Easton.
Swept Away - written by Daryll Hall and Arthur Baker not Diana Ross

Even those artists who do - are listed as: words and music by: ____________ recognizing the seaparate rights of authors/publishers and composers.

You may get a compulsary license to use Frank Sinatra's recording - but you must get Paul Anka's (agency) permission to re-record the composition or use his lyrics. Those are 3 distinctly different things.

It is also not okay to put the lyrcis on a piece of paper - that is also publishing and requires permission (license). If you have permission to put them on paper - you do not necessarily have permission to synch them on screen. They are not at all the same thing.

The fact that it is not convenient for karaoke makers to profit from other people's creative works is hardly an excuse to start re-writing the U.S. Code. The artists and authors may not even want their work marketed as karaoke - which is precisely why there is no such compulsray license. The process is there, it is fair and it works. I don't want to see it changed simply because certain manufacturers want to crank out cheaper derivative products from other people's creative talent.

Karaoke is not at all like making a "mix tape." If you want to release a CD of your best DJ work you need only get compulsary licenses for each of the tracks you use. But, you are only using the original audio recordings and not publishing the lyrics or a new musical compoistion.
 
"Why should the authors not be compensated for derivative use of their rhymes the same way that the composers are compensated for the derivative use of their compositions?"

absolutely 100% agree.

"That is the basis for a synch license in karaoke. The lyrics require a separate license even if you simply print them on paper and stick them in the box. If you attach them as a griaphic (synchronize) in time with the music then you also require a sync license. Are you keeping count? That's up to 3 unique licenses for use."

this is the part i was questioning.
one license for using the MUSICAL composition
one license for using the LYRICAL composition
one license for using the LYRICS with the MUSIC

isn't that how it works, or am i still missing something?
 
Paradigm Karaoke said:
this is the part i was questioning.
one license for the MUSICAL composition
one license for publishing the LYRICS (may or may not apply to a particular karaoke product)
one license for synchronizing IMAGES with the MUSIC

isn't that how it works, or am i still missing something?
Click to expand...

Yes, kind of (see corrections in red.)

The synch license is for the images. In karaoke the image just happens to be a dynamic picture of the lyrics but, there's no special pass for that - it's just the image you've chosen to synch.

For karaoke you would end up with 2 licenses; one for the music recording, and a sycnh license to add images of the lyrics. If you also publish the lyrics in print (song book or liner card) than you need a 3rd for that.
 
Hi everyone just poped in to read a bit and just had to post this here.
 
Proformance said:
You're making this up, right?
Disney LOST a case where they had attached lyrics to a musical video score and included them on a printed sheet in the box. Disney owned the rights to the images, and they had purchased the rights to the music. They had obtained no rights to the lyrics, but attahced them in sing-a-long form to the video. The court ruled (correctly) that the lyrics require separate licenses.

That is the basis for a synch license in karaoke. The lyrics require a separate license even if you simply print them on paper and stick them in the box. If you attach them as a griaphic (synchronize) in time with the music then you also require a sync license. Are you keeping count? That's up to 3 unique licenses for use. The basis for this requirement is in Title 15 (Trade Law) not Title 17 (Copyright.)

The issue is not video or graohics - it is publishing of the lyrics without a license. Synchronizing them is legally defined as publishing - and the karaoke manufacturers want you to believe that this definition does not exist - hence their "gray area."
Click to expand...

Thank you for correcting me about Disney i have a very bad memory but I do believe the manufacturers whom first told me this story and when I consequently did a little reasearch. I just have an extremely bad memory, i'd have to search my records to find out whom I was talking about.

As for the rest of it, I will simply have to agree to disagree.

Cheers

-James
 
DAM! Pro, the most informative posts yet, and not only that, but MELLOW as well! REALLY glad you decided to come on over with the rest of us.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top