On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 2:34 AM, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com < jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 1:45 AM, Ray Saintonge <sainto...@telus.net> > wrote: > > > Andre Engels wrote: > > > On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 12:17 PM, <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote: > > > > > > A video of an amateur singer trying to sing a song is also a copyright > > > violation - they are publishing the song, and do not own the copyright > > > on either text or melody. > > > > It *is* a violation, and that is a part of the problem. The bloody > > awful YouTube singer does, however, receive performance copyrights for > > what he does. Copyright by default means that anything, however bad or > > trivial, has copyrights; this includes the weekly flyer from your local > > supermarket. For all of the faults of US copyright law there was much > > positive to be said about the former registration and renewal system. > > > > see this article on the work someone did to license some songs for a cover > cd : > http://www.cleverjoe.com/articles/music_copyright_law.html Mechanical licenses don't cover video sync. Maybe if the video is really just someone singing, no choreography or anything, you could argue that point - I don't know. > For public performance of a song on youtube , it would fall under > copyright: > http://www.ascap.com/licensing/licensingfaq.html Does distribution via YouTube qualify as a public performance, or is it copying/distribution? I assume the copyright holder would argue the latter. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l