Re:Major book publishers sue Amazon’s Audible over new speec...
by gamblor956 on Monday August 26, 2019 @04:15PM
(#20803295)
Another way to look at it: if you own a music video, do you have a license for the song that the music video is a music video of?
You do not. You have a license for the music video, which is the consolidated song+video adaptation of the underlying song.
I would argue you do—you have to have that license, to be able to have a license for the MV, just like you have to own licenses to all the tracks on an album, to be able to claim to have a license for listening to the album.
This would be wrong under US, EU, and even just international IP law generally. The lyrics, music arrangement, audio performance, and music video are all separate creative works. If you want to get technical, the choreography in the music video may itself be a separate copyrightable work.
And, as such, it really wouldn’t make sense to attempt to sell licenses to consumption of MVs, that don’t implicitly include licenses to consumption of the audio tracks within said MVs.
Licensing music videos for money is actually a thing that has happened since the 1980s. These licenses are separate from the right to consume a standalone non-video audio performance.
Has anyone ever argued that people don’t have a right to use youtube-dl to extract the audio track from MVs publicly-posted by their rights-owners? I assume, if they did, this argument went about as well as arguing you can’t record music off the radio...
Yes, and it was found to be fair use. Decades ago, the music labels tried to ban tape recorders on the grounds that they could be used to record radio broadcasts. The courts agreed, but said that such use would be fair use if the recordings were just for private use.
You do not. You have a license for the music video, which is the consolidated song+video adaptation of the underlying song.
I would argue you do—you have to have that license, to be able to have a license for the MV, just like you have to own licenses to all the tracks on an album, to be able to claim to have a license for listening to the album.
This would be wrong under US, EU, and even just international IP law generally. The lyrics, music arrangement, audio performance, and music video are all separate creative works. If you want to get technical, the choreography in the music video may itself be a separate copyrightable work.
And, as such, it really wouldn’t make sense to attempt to sell licenses to consumption of MVs, that don’t implicitly include licenses to consumption of the audio tracks within said MVs.
Licensing music videos for money is actually a thing that has happened since the 1980s. These licenses are separate from the right to consume a standalone non-video audio performance.
Has anyone ever argued that people don’t have a right to use youtube-dl to extract the audio track from MVs publicly-posted by their rights-owners? I assume, if they did, this argument went about as well as arguing you can’t record music off the radio...
Yes, and it was found to be fair use. Decades ago, the music labels tried to ban tape recorders on the grounds that they could be used to record radio broadcasts. The courts agreed, but said that such use would be fair use if the recordings were just for private use.