71–73 of 73 posts
This is a sort of weird criterion, but I'm partial to the CVs done in LaTeX...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This might be a good place to get started: http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/Copyright Here's some more on "Fair Use": http://www.benedict.com/Info/FairUse/FairUse.aspx
A very good source on fair use: http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/... Note the "four factors" in fair use: * The extent to which the use transforms the original work * The nature of the work being used * The amount and substantiality of the use * The effect of the use on the market I'm pretty sure soundtracking your resume with almost the entirety of a signed band's most popular track flunks…
I mean... yeah, using the music means that a payment should be made, but why is it copyright rather than performance rights?
This is just a general question. I used to work in the industry and only reading this do I see how weird it is.
We had the MCPS and PRS. One does physical copies of recordings, and the other does performances of a recording.
Performing rights are what should be applied here, no copy is being offered, it's simply a broadcast.
That being so... why would copyright apply? And if that is the case, then surely all of the fair use doesn't apply because that's related to fair use of copyrights, not performance rights.
Example: If I made a video and had the Beatles on as a sound track. Then I need to make sure I have performance rights (usually by a blanket fee), and don't need to consider copyright at all.
PRS music fees are covered here: http://www.prsformusic.com/users/broadcastandonline/onlinemo...
Obviously this all has a UK slant, it's what I know... just curious as to why a similar thing doesn't apply here and it's considered copyright (MCPS equivalent) when no copy is being made.