31–40 of 219 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then how are Elvis impersonators not a copyright violation?
Or cover bands, for that matter.
It depends upon how you do it.
If you cover the song, then that's one copyright.
However, if you hire a bunch of people because they actually look and sound like the original band, that's a completely different copyright.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Its a little tricky.. Even Weird Al gets the original artist's permission. Weird Al's preferences don't add any strength [evidence] to any argument regarding the legality.
Weird Al is trying to save himself trouble, because going to court can be expensive even when you win. He can legally do parodies without consent, but since so many people are happy to give him permission, that's the easier route for him.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or cover bands, for that matter.
TBH, I saw an AC/DC cover band in a backwater Wichita Falls, Texas bar that was way better than the original. They were far, far nuttier animals and absolutely mad.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Very important to note that the Midler case has very narrow interpretation. From the Opinion: > We need not and do not go so far as to hold that every imitation of a voice to advertise merchandise is actionable. We hold only that when a distinctive voice of a professional singer is widely known and is deliberately imitated in order to sell a product, the sellers have appropriated what is not theirs and have committed…
This doesn't seem to narrow the interpretation very much to me besides noting that imitating a random, unrecognizable stranger off the street would be a different situation.
‘In order to sell’ also may not cover all business transactions if they are not the primary purpose, or at least that is what the defense will be partly based on. In other words, just because a video is monetized does not necessarily mean it falls under this ruling.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or cover bands, for that matter.
I believe cover bands can actually be in violation of copyright. It depends upon how you do it. If you cover the song, then that's one copyright. However, if you hire a bunch of people because they actually look and sound like the original band, that's a completely different copyright.
https://www.descript.com/ and Lyrebird prevent people from making copies of voices that arent their own, but it looks like that cat is out of the bag. Abuse potential notwithstanding, and ignoring the complete distortion of "reality" coming soon, I'm extremely excited for this technology to become more mainstream. Being able to edit audio and video, like you edit a word document. Record a conversation for a couple ho…
A YouTuber (carykh) made a video where he explains an algorithm he made to automatically process lecture videos by speeding up, condensing and removing parts of the video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQ8orIurGxw
Isn't parodies are explicitly excluded from requiring to hold copyright to an object of a parody?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
TBH, I saw an AC/DC cover band in a backwater Wichita Falls, Texas bar that was way better than the original. They were far, far nuttier animals and absolutely mad.
Hey, AC/DC were young once. Their lead singer died from partying too hard ffs.
Isn't parodies are explicitly excluded from requiring to hold copyright to an object of a parody?
For my own edification, wouldn't trademark law be more applicable?
However I’m not sure if YT has a separate DMCA process for copyright vs. trademark, or if they or people writing about this are just too lazy or uninformed to make the distinction.