Copyright Law on Mash Ups, Mick Submits Letter

[michelej1]

[I would love to read the letter written on Mick's behalf, although I'm sure he had little to do with it]

Sting, Steven Tyler and Britney Spears Among Artists Fighting Copyright Law That Could Allow Mashups

The Wrap, 2-11-2014 by Ira Teinowitz

http://www.thewrap.com/steven-tyler-...-mashups-songs

Don Henley, Ozzy Osbourne, and deadmau5 also weigh in as the U.S. Patent and Trade Office determines how songs are sampled

Steven Tyler, Sting, Don Henley, Ozzy Osbourne, deadmau5, Mick Fleetwood, Joe Walsh and Britney Spears have different music styles. But they are united in telling the U.S. Patent and Trade Office that artists, who write and make music, not copyright law, should determine who has rights to make remixes, sampling and mashups that include their songs.

The Office questioned whether existing copyright law needed to be updated to reflect innovation in the digital economy in a task force report last year and asked for comments on a large number of different copyright issues, including the question of mashups.

Most of the comments had to be filed by Jan. 8, but artists groups got special permission to offer late comments and filed their letters this week.


In separate, but similar letters the artists urge the copyright office to reject any change in copyright law that could allow remixes to be made without an artist’s permission by simply paying a licensing fee. Tyler and music attorney Dina LaPolt have led some of the efforts. Letters were also filed in support of copyright stakeholder groups including the Copyright Alliance, ASCAP, BMI, the National Music Publishers Association, Writers Guild of America West and the Motion Pictures Association of America.

“As a songwriter and recording artist, I can tell you that approval over how my music is used is very important to me,” Henley said. “Every song I write is personal and has meaning to me. A sample or a remix takes a piece of art, cuts it up and then either reassembles it into something different or combines it with another person’s work.”

Henley said while he allows other people to record his songs, “allowing them to materially change my songs or recordings without my permission is going a step too far.”

Fleetwood in his letter warned that changing the copyright law would have “a chilling effect on the creation of new music.”

“Why create something when ultimately, it could be legal for somebody else to destroy it?” he wrote. “Copyright exists to encourage artists to create—not dissuade them from doing so.”

Walsh, going a step beyond some of the others letter, said he is very concerned about any change.

“It denies my rights under the Copyright Act to engage in fair market negotiation with respect to the exploitation of my work,” he wrote. “It strips me of my right to say, ‘No,’ and I fear it is a harbinger to the dissolution of copyright protection in the United States, rendering copyright an economic utility rather than a property right.”


LaPolt and her client Tyler in a separate letter called artist right of approval of derivatives from their works “the most important right that an artist possesses.”

“If an artist does not want his or her music used in a certain way, no amount of money will change his or her mind,” LaPolt wrote.

She noted that artists are already frustrated about remixes that have been used to further political messages or candidates they don’t support and commercial messages they haven’t endorsed.

LaPolt concluded: “If recording artists or songwriters do not want their music associated with a cause, message or ideology, forcing them to allow these uses would be extremely unfair and potentially harmful to their brands and reputations.”

[michelej1]

Politico.com by Alex Byers 2/11/2014

http://www.politico.com/morningtech/...tech12976.html

GRAMMYS GOT THE BALL ROLLING ON MUSICIANS’ COPYRIGHT COMMENTS — If you missed it Monday, Steven Tyler and several other big-name musicians weighed in on the Department of Commerce’s copyright green paper, making it clear they don’t want any changes that make it harder for artists to control who can sample or remix their songs. So how do the Aerosmith frontman, Britney Spears, and Ozzy Osbourne get involved in a wonky D.C. proceeding? Hollywood copyright lawyer Dina LaPolt, who helped draft the remarks, said the work got started as the music industry gathered during Grammy’s weekend last month. There was concern from artists rights groups that creators hadn’t been a big part of the comment process conducted after the paper was published, and it was Tyler’s idea to draft some comments, she said. LaPolt got her clients DeadMau5 and Mick Fleetwood from Fleetwood Mac on board, “and it just kind of snowballed,” she said. “Don Henley was so upset that he redrafted my letter to make it stronger,” she added.

[BlueDenimLamp]

Mick Fleetwood??? What copyrights does he own???

[michelej1]

Originally Posted by BlueDenimLamp

Mick Fleetwood??? What copyrights does he own???

Fleetwood Mac has an interest in Fleetwood Mac performed songs, even though the individual songwriters wrote them and not Mick and John.

This is why Stevie could not use FM's version of Silver Springs against Mick's will. She could have recorded her own new one though, but she just couldn't use FM's without permission.

Michele

[RockawayBlind]

Mick has at least one copyright, probably more.

[michelej1]

Originally Posted by RockawayBlind

Mick has at least one copyright, probably more.

I was just thinking that I would sample These Strange Times and use it in a mash up without permission.

Michele

[SteveMacD]

Originally Posted by RockawayBlind

Mick has at least one copyright, probably more.

I counted seven.

Searching For Madge (Then Play On)
Jewel Eyed Judy (Kiln House, co-writer)
What A Shame (Future Games, co-writer)
The Chain (Rumours, co-writer)
Lizard People (Behind The Mask b-side, co-writer)
These Strange Times (Time, co-writer)
Passion (Something big, co-writer)

[michelej1]

Here's Mick's Letter. As it was prepared by his attorney, it is very similar to the letters submitted by the other artists:

[sodascouts]

I agree with the stance. However, this bit from the above letter made me shake my head:

"I know that I wouldn't have released some of my own recordings had I known that, in the future, anyone could remix or alter them without my permission."

Oh please. Yes, I'm sure he never would have released Rumours and would happily have foregone all of the money it made him if he had known that sometime in the future, someone could do a offensively bad dance remix of "The Chain."

Yes, yes, I realize the letter was prepared for him, but still. If Don Henley could modify his a bit to be more reflective of his beliefs, so could Mick.

[michelej1]

Originally Posted by sodascouts

"I know that I wouldn't have released some of my own recordings had I known that, in the future, anyone could remix or alter them without my permission."

Right. And how is this comment even true for any artist.

Whether it's Weird Al or a bad wedding singer that gets a hold of your song, why would that make you sorry you ever released it. The original still has its own value.

Michele

[sodascouts]

I agree. That "assertion" is a real stretch. Luckily there are several better ones in there, too. I wish lawyers would resist the urge to go for the melodramatic overstatement; it detracts from an otherwise reasonable argument.