Copy right issue with music

[MachIII]

Hi all,

Is there a channel to apply for a licensing to use of music files for commercial?

Suppose i want to integrate a music file (from CD stores) into my video for low cost production reason, how much will be the cost like? Who is the governing body and how much will it cost for a somg licensing?

Anyone has similar experiences to share?

Thank you very much.

 

[jaegersing]

Hi all,

Is there a channel to apply for a licensing to use of music files for commercial?

Suppose i want to integrate a music file (from CD stores) into my video for low cost production reason, how much will be the cost like? Who is the governing body and how much will it cost for a somg licensing?

Anyone has similar experiences to share?

Thank you very much.

Try here:

http://www.compass.org.sg/cIndex141.aspx

 

[chanxj]

Explore the use of royalty free music.

 

[m3lv1nh0]

It will cost you $1000 for the use of 10 songs per year. Apply thru COMPASS.

 

[vince123123]

When going through these mass license agencies, make sure you ask them to prove that they have the right to collect royalties for that particular song. My previous experiences show that they will try to gloss over these details and tell you that they represent "tens of thousands so its right to pay me, don't worry".

However, if they do not have the right to collect royalties for that particular song, what this means is that even if you paid them, you are still infringing the work - sucks right? Well that's how it works. The smart ones will ask, the normal Joe will not know better.

 

[m3lv1nh0]

Beside buying royalty free songs, you can also approach some of the unsigned bands on the web to use their songs FOC. Personally, I just got permission from one of these bands to use their songs on my website free of charge. :thumbsup:

 

[AristDing]

You can use copyrighted songs as long as

1) Your production is not for mass distribution. No no if it's intended for mass viewing as well.

2) You do not use more than 10%. Hope this helps.

 

[chanxj]

You can use copyrighted songs as long as

1) Your production is not for mass distribution. No no if it's intended for mass viewing as well.

2) You do not use more than 10%. Hope this helps.

The case here is for a commercial so fair use is not valid here.

 

[vince123123]

My view is that this is inaccurate - can you point us to any legal authorities or statutes to support your point of view?

You can use copyrighted songs as long as

1) Your production is not for mass distribution. No no if it's intended for mass viewing as well.

2) You do not use more than 10%. Hope this helps.

 

[AristDing]

My view is that this is inaccurate - can you point us to any legal authorities or statutes to support your point of view?

My view is that if I'm wrong you should point me to a legal authority or statue that says otherwise.

If everyone asks me the same question wouldn't I be terribly busy trying to back up everything I know?

 

[vince123123]

Nice shifting of burden of proof. Obviously you need to back up what you say and not for me to disprove you!

How do I prove to you that there is no law that says so? You're asking me to prove a negative?

Try telling a Judge "Your Honour, David owes me S$100.00, please tell David that if he cannot prove to me that he does not owe me S$100.00, he has to pay up - I don't need to prove anything".

But nevermind, I'll humour you for now. Under the Copyright Act, Section 31 read with Section 26.

31. —(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the copyright in a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work is infringed by a person who, not being the owner of the copyright, and without the licence of the owner of the copyright, does in Singapore, or authorises the doing in Singapore of, any act comprised in the copyright.

26. —(1) For the purposes of this Act, unless the contrary intention appears, copyright, in relation to a work, is the exclusive right —

(a) in the case of a literary, dramatic or musical work, to do all or any of the following acts:
(i) to reproduce the work in a material form;
(ii) to publish the work if the work is unpublished;
(iii) to perform the work in public;
(iv) to communicate the work to the public;
(v) to make an adaptation of the work;
(vi) to do, in relation to a work that is an adaptation of the first-mentioned work, any of the acts specified in relation to the first-mentioned work in sub-paragraphs (i) to (v);Since there's reproduction, there's infringement. No mention of mass distribution or 10% there

Now ball is in your court.

My view is that if I'm wrong you should point me to a legal authority or statue that says otherwise.

If everyone asks me the same question wouldn't I be terribly busy trying to back up everything I know?

 

[AristDing]

Nice shifting of burden of proof. Obviously you need to back up what you say and not for me to disprove you!

How do I prove to you that there is no law that says so? You're asking me to prove a negative?

Try telling a Judge "Your Honour, David owes me S$100.00, please tell David that if he cannot prove to me that he does not owe me S$100.00, he has to pay up - I don't need to prove anything".

But nevermind, I'll humour you for now. Under the Copyright Act, Section 31 read with Section 26.

31. —(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the copyright in a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work is infringed by a person who, not being the owner of the copyright, and without the licence of the owner of the copyright, does in Singapore, or authorises the doing in Singapore of, any act comprised in the copyright.

26. —(1) For the purposes of this Act, unless the contrary intention appears, copyright, in relation to a work, is the exclusive right —

(a) in the case of a literary, dramatic or musical work, to do all or any of the following acts:
(i) to reproduce the work in a material form;
(ii) to publish the work if the work is unpublished;
(iii) to perform the work in public;
(iv) to communicate the work to the public;
(v) to make an adaptation of the work;
(vi) to do, in relation to a work that is an adaptation of the first-mentioned work, any of the acts specified in relation to the first-mentioned work in sub-paragraphs (i) to (v);Since there's reproduction, there's infringement. No mention of mass distribution or 10% there

Now ball is in your court.

Funnily, you couldn't bring this out earlier. Surely I can be entitled to be wrong? Or do you see a need to jump onto people on the internet?

 

[jaegersing]

Funnily, you couldn't bring this out earlier. Surely I can be entitled to be wrong? Or do you see a need to jump onto people on the internet?

I didn't interpret vince123123's post as jumping on anybody. He just asked you if you could substantiate your statement which I think is a fair question.

 

[vince123123]

I'm not jumping on anyone nor did I say you are not entitled to be wrong. I merely asked you for the basis of your statement.

To be honest, what I posted was merely to encourage you to post your basis, as it does not by itself, tell us whether there's a defence of 10% or non-mass distribution.

But since you have now withdrawn your earlier statement as being incorrect, that is now no longer necessary.

Funnily, you couldn't bring this out earlier. Surely I can be entitled to be wrong? Or do you see a need to jump onto people on the internet?

 

[hanqiang1011]

Maybe the both of you should cool down... Both Vince 123 and AristDing are just trying to proof their points. Since this is a forum, should keep threads to a polite one as we dont see each other personality, any forms of words can be misread as 'offensive' to others.

Anyway, I am not doing the job of a mod to mediate things or to proof anything, just feel that it is not nice to have this mini war of words here, kinda not right to the TS. Also whatever examples pointed out should comes with an example to avoid unnecessary argues.

Back to the thread, good to have know new things today

 

[chanxj]

There was no mistake on Vince's part. Cause what was posted was not substantiated and thus it is not wrong for Vince to query as the law might have changed without us knowing.

 

[vince123123]

Yup, that was exactly what I was thinking. Or perhaps someone could have known something that I didn't know (despite extensive research previously done) and hence I asked.

There was no mistake on Vince's part. Cause what was posted was not substantiated and thus it is not wrong for Vince to query as the law might have changed without us knowing.

 

[vince123123]

Hehe don't worry, I didn't have anything to prove. I was more asking him to substantiate his POV, which has since, according to my undersatnding, been withdrawn

Maybe the both of you should cool down... Both Vince 123 and AristDing are just trying to proof their points. Since this is a forum, should keep threads to a polite one as we dont see each other personality, any forms of words can be misread as 'offensive' to others.

Anyway, I am not doing the job of a mod to mediate things or to proof anything, just feel that it is not nice to have this mini war of words here, kinda not right to the TS. Also whatever examples pointed out should comes with an example to avoid unnecessary argues.

Back to the thread, good to have know new things today

 

[m3lv1nh0]

Vince, let's say I created a photo slideshow with copyright music. This slideshow was pass to my clients meant for their personal viewing. If they post that slideshow on to their blogs or website, will I get into trouble?

 

[chanxj]

yes.

does in Singapore, or authorises the doing in Singapore of