Tonight we can experience a very rare lunar eclipse (Luna Negra):
SpaceWeather.com
RARE LUNAR ECLIPSE: The lunar eclipse of Dec. 21st falls on the same date as the northern winter solstice. Is this rare? It is indeed, according to Geoff Chester of the US Naval Observatory, who inspected a list of eclipses going back 2000 years. “Since Year 1, I can only find one previous instance of an eclipse matching the same calendar date as the solstice, and that is Dec. 21, 1638,” says Chester. “Fortunately we won’t have to wait 372 years for the next one…that will be on Dec. 21, 2094.”WHEN TO LOOK: The total eclipse lasts more than an hour from 02:41 am to 03:53 am EST on Tuesday morning, Dec. 21st. Any time within that interval is a good time to look. For other time zones, consult Shadow & Substance’s animated eclipse.
And here is an email exchange from this weekend:
On 2010-12-19, at 10:13 , A.S. wrote:
Hola!
A friend of mine in Lebanon and I are recording a video of Santa Fe – he’ll video himself playing the rhythm part, I’ll record myself playing the solo part and we’ll splice them together. Obviously we’d like to share this; would we have your permission to post it to YouTube?
Since you ask.
You are performing a cover, meaning a composition belonging to another person.
If you were to perform the song in public, at a theater or club, that club would pay a small fee that goes to the composer via BMI.
If you were to record the song, the composer would receive money via album sales and would also receive money every time the song is played on the radio or on TV, also via BMI.
If you upload the song to YouTube, only Google wins. It’s a most awful and unfortunate arrangement. Google does not pay the composers. It’s more free content for them and they get to make money via advertising. In my opinion Google should have to pay something to the composers as Google are the ones who gain from the uploaded content, not the people who record the videos. Yes, I also think that there should be a music file search engine that determines whose files are being shared on sites like Rapidshare and the sharing sites should have to pay something…
Essentially one takes from the composer and gives to Google when recording and uploading a cover version to YouTube. Again, I don’t blame the people who make the videos. The Internet has always been about sharing and about “free”. I blame large corporations like Google and the politicians, who are clearly not smart enough to understand performing rights, copyright and the internet.
But, since I do not have the administration rights for the publishing of that song I literally cannot give you permission anyway. I signed those away when I agreed to a deal with Higher Octave in 1989 – for NF, Borrasca and Poets & Angels.
So, let’s say you did not ask me. I will not notify the publisher, but I will also not help if they should decide to go after people. I am Switzerland.
The profitability of Internet companies such as Google is greatly enhanced by their ability to provide ‘free’ content to the enduser. It is indeed unfortunate their business model does not incorporate payment in the form of royalties, user fees, etc. to the artist and publisher. Live performance videos posted on YouTube might be entertaining for fans of an artist, but the quality of such recordings, makes me cringe.
Too much fog here in the Texas Hill Country for the Lunar Eclipse last night; however, the memory of the Christmas Eve 1997 eclipse in El Paso, followed by a White Christmas morning will last me a lifetime.
I think we beat this to death somewhat over the summer but I’ll admit I still don’t understand the crucial bit of this reasoning. I agree it’s unfair that online covers aren’t treated the same as covers at a club or on an album, but since most people who post covers online aren’t doing it in place of, e.g., playing at a club, the money Google gets is not money that would have ever gone to the artist in the first place. And surely YouTube covers aren’t going to affect album sales. So it seems to me that for the most part covers on YouTube, etc., just don’t have an impact on the artist’s wallet. Not sure if I’m getting my facts wrong or just misunderstanding you.
I’m still undecided if this will be posted anywhere other than Facebook. If anyone here wants to see the video, my e-mail is adam.solomon@gmail and I’m happy to send it your way when it’s done (as I’d imagine OL is fine with that!) :)
I’m not speaking for Ottmar AT ALL, but I have a hunch that it really boils down to an artist attempting to protect and/or regulate their intellectual property.
If you think about an artist that depends on their IP pretty much for their livelihood, they will be like a female grizzly bear protecting her cubs when it comes to that IP.
Sorry you don’t get it Adam. As long as you play other people’s music you better try to wrap your head around it eventually.
And that argument about the Google money never going to the artist in the first place is just solid bullshit. You could say the exactly same thing about a person doing a cover of my song. Let’s take the example of La Fortezza in Italy, who covered “2 the Night” in 1997. That wasn’t money I knew about, that wasn’t money that would have come to me if there weren’t international copyright rules in place. I am told they even claimed to have written the song in some interviews, but were smart enough to have my name on the release and I got paid for every radio play they received. And how do radio stations pay composers for the songs they play? By selling air-time for commercials, or in case of many European radio stations, by charging listeners – the broadcast taxes of Britain and Germany and other countries, or by requesting donations like NPR.
OK, you don’t get it, fine. Don’t ask me for anything in the future. You don’t have my permission to cover my songs, unless you buy a license from Harry Fox. The Karma is yours.
Right, sorry for asking.
Adam you say:
“the Google gets is not money that would have ever gone to the artist in the first place.”but that’s a very weak argument under the premise that if something does exist it should be treated and if it doesn’t this is the main problem with the web in general people want to treat it as if it doesn’t exist like it’s a bonus in our lives somehow enhancing what existed before and not like its own entity.
Google should pay the people it makes money from.
As for the rest of your point about it not affecting record sales, that is irrelevant…Brad Pitt is a multimillionaire
but every time he makes a new movie they still give him another $20 million just like every time someone uses Ottmar’s music he should get paid regardless of him selling 1 record or a million.
Google are ripping artists off. For those that don’t agree, I would say try composing some music. If it’s no good, keep trying – put your heart and soul into it for months/ years until you get something that you’re really proud of. Then post it on youtube for any Tom, Dick or Harriet. Intellectual property – I agree.
I’m reluctant to post more thoughts here since there was a bit of hostility the last time I asked a couple of questions, but I’m legitimately interested in this so here goes anyway.
I don’t disagree with most of what you guys are saying. Let’s put it like this: I’m wondering where the line gets drawn, because just invoking intellectual property (as Steve did, and I also think that’s largely where OL is coming from) doesn’t do that. Obviously it’s an IP violation to, say, record Santa Fe and release it on a record without paying royalties, but I’m sure we’d agree it isn’t a violation of IP if I learn it with a friend and we play it for our friends and family. (After all, what musician learns without first “playing other people’s music?”) If I post to YouTube, it’ll be for that reason – sharing the video with friends (which is why I might well only post it to Facebook). So does it become a violation of IP when it hits the “public domain” in the form of an internet posting? Or does it become a violation of IP when money is involved? (That would make this scenario tricky since neither I nor OL get money, only Google does. Unfair? Probably, but it’s unclear whether that would mean I’m then violating IP because a third party happens to get ad revenue). Or is there some other set of criteria? Seriously, I’m only asking out of curiosity.
My Google “argument”, as OL put it (it *was* a question, but whatever), was essentially looking for clarification to his statement that uploading a cover to YouTube “takes from the composer.” Obviously I wouldn’t want to do anything that takes the money out of an OL’s pocket, but frankly I just don’t see how any money which would have gone to OL doesn’t once I post a cover to YouTube. The fact that, as far as I can tell, neither the post nor the comments answer that question is likely a testament to my lack of clarity when attempting to ask it. But now that I’ve clarified myself, I’m very curious to hear people’s answers to this. OL mentioned karma; if I’m actually taking money away from him, then obviously the video’s staying off YouTube, but if I’m not then I’m wondering if the objection is financial, philosophical, etc. These have all been jumbled up so far.
Incidentally, Gerry, you aren’t British perchance, are you? :)
Beat. Dead. Horse.
I realize that we may not make progress here, because “you say potatoe I say potato”, is what this will degenerate into. I’m going to give this a shot, simply because I have time to kill before my flight leaves:
Simply invoking Intellectual Property rights is where the line is made. You post something to YT. It’s not your song. Neither you nor the composer makes money off of it, YET it is someone else’s intellectual property.
WHO makes money off of it? Google does. Perhaps advertisers do. There is an economic multiplier that takes place by virtue of you leveraging intellectual property that is not yours and putting it on YT- EVEN if you don’t make money off of it, someone does and that someone IS NOT the composer.
This is the punch line: THE ONLY person that matters in an IP discussion is the composer, creator, inventor, etc. It is their creation and they should be compensated for any and all usage of that IP. Since BMI/ASCAP/Harry Fox/etc (trying to include as many and as varied a list as possible) aren’t involved, the composer sees ZERO for the exploitation of their IP.
Now, this could have really turned ugly: Say you decide to post it anyway: All Ottmar has to do is execute a DMCA takedown, and your vid is toast.
Adam: What type of work do you do for a living?
I am the biggest non expert on copyright, licensing, Internet, covers (I learn something new from Ottmar all the time) and there was a lot here, so I sorted it.
Adam had a request on the permission of a particular work. The answer was given…not permission, but an answer along with an explanation on performing rights, copyright and the internet.
Adam, you’ve contributed so much in the past. Just yesterday I started reading the forum that you started in 2004. Great admiration and enthusiasm for Ottmar’s work there and it was a nice introduction to people that I’ve met or corresponded with over the years.
Ottmar, there is so much of an emotional investment it is to present and protect a creative work, yes? Time, money, commitment all are there and it’s not a 9 to 5 feeling where you leave it behind.
I’m personally just beginning to experience what it is for people to not understand artistic property. Recently at an event a gentleman wanted to buy my artwork and told me that he would use it to advertise his company. I could tell that he thought it was a great idea and that I would be thrilled. I told him, “no” and that the work was no longer for sale. He persisted because he could not believe my answer. Having control over your work is hard work.
…and it is hard to combine that with patience.
Recently I was reminded gently that, “the outcome is not as important as the attempt”.
So Adam, I sorted out your questions so just those questions are present and maybe that will help:
1) Does it become a violation of IP when it hits the “public domain” in the form of an internet posting?
2) Does it become a violation of IP when money is involved?
3) Unfair? third party/ad revenue.
4) Is there some other set of criteria?
5) I’m wondering if the objection is financial, philosophical, etc.?
…and then you have to answer this for yourself:
“If I post to YouTube, it’ll be for that reason – sharing the video with friends (which is why I might well only post it to Facebook).”
This part we all agree:
“Obviously I wouldn’t want to do anything that takes the money out of an OL’s pocket”
Adam’s question: “My Google “argument”, as OL put it (it *was* a question, but whatever), was essentially looking for clarification to his statement that uploading a cover to YouTube “takes from the composer.”
Ottmar’s answer: “Google does not pay the composers. It’s more free content for them and they get to make money via advertising.
Adam’s opinion: “but frankly I just don’t see how any money which would have gone to OL doesn’t once I post a cover to YouTube.
Ottmar’s opinion: “In my opinion Google should have to pay something to the composers as Google are the ones who gain from the uploaded content. Essentially one takes from the composer and gives to Google when recording and uploading a cover version to YouTube.”
“I am Switzerland.”
Maybe I should be serious as the previous comments, but that’s the best part for me.
So classic Ottmar.
Steve, I agree there’s probably not much more we can get out of this and it might well degenerate into that. I do find IP very interesting because of the intangibles involved and want to know more, but I’ve already laid out my questions (see Yumi’s very helpful post above!) so I’ll leave those there and if anyone wants to throw in their two cents, I’ll enjoy reading it.
Hope you caught your flight okay! I was just stuck trying to get to Heathrow for four days and had little to do but study and post here :P
Brenda, I’m a grad student in theoretical physics.
Thanks Adam! Good for you! My youngest son just graduated with a degree from WVU in Wood Science and Technology. I am soooooooooo thankful as a parent that I finally can direct my income in another direction and my son begins to learn value of a dollar as he begins paying back government loans. Is it wonderful life as a student? I would love to have the opportunity of higher education but I have always worked full time and went to school part-time. Enjoy your unique opportunity of time for free graitas studies because it is worth millions.
I would like to address this part:
“Obviously, we’d like to share this;”
If I had a question on music, the music industry, copyright, licensing…Would I ask Ottmar’s opinion?
Yes. He would give me an answer that was built from first hand experience, knowledge, years of experience. It would have directness and it would be detailed.
If I was having a discussion with Ottmar, would I feel free to have a different point of view?
Yes. Would I express it.
Yes. For the integrity of the discussion, for the integrity of the friendship.
Would I allow it to get heated?
No.
Would I apologize?
Yes. Especially if I was not clear and that lack of clarity hurt them in some way.
To Adam’s request:
Would I post to YouTube? No.
Would I post to Facebook? No (because I can’t stand Facebook).
Is Ottmar fine with you sending out the video to others via email? You didn’t ask him.
In the end did you receive permission? No.
What do I think:
I don’t think everything has to be shared with the masses.
My years of friendship with someone would out weigh what I want.
Did I think Steve made sense in this post? Yes.
Do I think that people do not, or can’t understand the protection of artistic property?
I don’t think they care.
Do I think it’s wrong?
Yes. In the end what is presented is distorted, not of quality….creating a society that grows up with a lesser standard of behavior, taste, conscience.
If the ending result is a lack of depth and understanding, it didn’t matter where they traveled to, what school they went to, what job they had, what their income level is, with whom they associate.
Yes, it is Karma.
Really interesting discussion about copyright and IP. I don’t spend much time online and don’t know what rationale people use for posting covers of songs on YouTube, Facebook, or whatever. If they don’t have permission from the copyright holder to post versions of a song online, then I would think their only legal rationale is that it constitutes fair use. Here are the four factors to consider in determining fair use from the US Copyright Office – http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html :
1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes.
2. The nature of the copyrighted work.
3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole.
4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work.
Using the substantiality guideline, I would think posting online a cover of a few seconds of a song and then discussing some aspect about it would be OK, while posting a cover of an entire song would not be cool. If it is a particularly good cover, then people would be more willing to just listen to it online or copy it than purchase the original, so that would definitely affect the potential market for the copyrighted work.
The Copyright Office advises: “The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material….When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted material should be avoided unless the doctrine of fair use would clearly apply to the situation.”
Well then, I apologize if I let this get heated. For the umpteenth time, my ONLY intention was to ask some questions and try to get a better understanding of this. A healthy discussion and asking questions shouldn’t offend anyone, even if it does provoke emotional reactions. But if I was unclear and some people (i.e. OL) were in turn offended then my apologies.
And for further clarity; I’m doing this “cover” for practice, particularly to work on improvising (since I plan to lift as little from the original song as possible; what would be the fun in that?) and to practice playing with another guitarist. I’m hoping to share it because I’m spending quite a bit of time working on it and presumably when it’s done, it’s going to be something I’m proud of and will want to share with friends. YouTube is the easiest way to do that, because it gives you a link to give to anyone who’s interested. That’s absolutely all that’s behind any of this. Perhaps that’s useful background! (Or perhaps not :D)