Lost Avatar

[NYGman]

Looks like the site that was the host I was using for my Avatar deleted my photo and replaced it with an odd ball of some type. Not sure if anyone cached my old one but it was called http://i60.tinypic.com/242savm.png. would love to get it back as the original was lost ages ago.

EDIT:
And found on Amazon at:
https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com ... 3,200_.jpg

So I linked to that, but it may disappear again. Any suggestions on a web hosting place for this?

[Pottapaug1938]

Odd. My avatar disappeared, a month ago; and it took a while before I found a new one.

[The Observer]

I suspect hosting sites are taking the issue of copyrights and trademarks very seriously, and are looking for and removing anything that they suspect as infringing on the rights of the intellectual property owner.

I recently saw a video on Youtube where a poster is under threat of lawsuit for using music that belongs to an artist. Youtube told the poster that he was violating the copyright by using the music and he responded that he had written to the owner of the music and had received express permission by the artist to use that particular music selection. Youtube responded and explained that the artist had licensed permission to use some underlying rhythm/synthetic section from another artist in that music, and that was the copyright that was being violated; the artist had no right to allow that section to be used by others.

It's getting that sensitive.

[ArthurWankspittle]

Greg's avatar has a watermark or something similar on it which only started appearing recently.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

Youtube told the poster that he was violating the copyright by using the music and he responded that he had written to the owner of the music and had received express permission by the artist to use that particular music selection.

I made a You Tube video and used a Carter and the Unstoppable Sex Machine song. I had the band and their manager's permission to use it. Still didn't stop their publishers from making a claim. As I wasn't monetising the video and they didn't go for the "delete" option I didn't counter claim, but you only have to look at Taylor Swift threatening to re-record her own back catalogue get around ownership to understand that we are through the looking glass here!

[Chaos]

Thought this thread was about you losing this:

[noblepa]

Youtube told the poster that he was violating the copyright by using the music and he responded that he had written to the owner of the music and had received express permission by the artist to use that particular music selection.

I made a You Tube video and used a Carter and the Unstoppable Sex Machine song. I had the band and their manager's permission to use it. Still didn't stop their publishers from making a claim. As I wasn't monetising the video and they didn't go for the "delete" option I didn't counter claim, but you only have to look at Taylor Swift threatening to re-record her own back catalogue get around ownership to understand that we are through the looking glass here!

IANAL, and certainly not an expert on intellectual property, but it is my understanding that many artists don't actually own the rights to their own music. The publishers do. So the band or their manager may not have had a legal right to give you permission. This would be especially true if someone else had written the song.

Remember, twenty years ago or so, when Michael Jackson purchased the rights to all the Beatles songs? Paul McCartney himself has no legal right to give me permission to use "Yesterday", even though he wrote it and performed it.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

IANAL, and certainly not an expert on intellectual property, but it is my understanding that many artists don't actually own the rights to their own music.

This is true... most bands sign over their rights during their early years when they don't have any power and their work then becomes a commodity; not only the publishing rights but the studio master tapes. I know of one band who had a top ten hit and 9 other top 40 songs that have no control over their back catalogue and cannot re-release their out of print albums.

However, there appears to be a way to get around this. You can record a "live" performance of a whole song (samples require permission) and as long as you pay the statutory copyright fees, you then own your own recording of a song that you no longer own! I suspect this is the loophole that Taylor Swift is planning to use!

[Burnaby49]

Remember, twenty years ago or so, when Michael Jackson purchased the rights to all the Beatles songs? Paul McCartney himself has no legal right to give me permission to use "Yesterday", even though he wrote it and performed it.

Nobody has to give you permission to sing Yesterday, you can sing and record it all you want. As I understand copyright the author of a song has the right of first refusal regarding the first recording of it. If this isn't given nobody except the writer (McCartney/Lennon in the case of yesterday) can record it. However once a recording is made it's open season and anyone can record it without permission from the work's owner. Irving Berlin hated, HATED, Elvis Presley's version of White Christmas. He phoned radio stations demanding that they not play it. But he had no control over the recording itself.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

Nobody has to give you permission to sing Yesterday, you can sing and record it all you want. As I understand copyright the author of a song has the right of first refusal regarding the first recording of it. If this isn't given nobody except the writer (McCartney/Lennon in the case of yesterday) can record it. However once a recording is made it's open season and anyone can record it without permission from the work's owner. Irving Berlin hated, HATED, Elvis Presley's version of White Christmas. He phoned radio stations demanding that they not play it. But he had no control over the recording itself.

FIrst, you could be absolutely right, I've not published any music.

However, I was told by someone who worked at BMG in the movie and TV royalties department that it was the act of publishing a song that opened it up to being recorded by others as a cover, as opposed to copyright which gives you rights over your own creation e.g. stopping sampling or use in adverts and films.

(He also told me that most music is transcribed to piano for publishing and then transcribed back to various instruments which is why sometimes the published guitar tabs are nothing like the original.)

[Burnaby49]

Apart from Irving Berlin I'm just going by an old Bob Dylan story which I may have remembered incorrectly. When Dylan wrote Mr. Tambourine Man he sang it frequently in concert but did not record it. Some fading folk group (forgot name, maybe Brothers Four) wanted to do it but couldn't because Dylan wouldn't give recording permission to anyone. Then he let the Byrds do it which gave their career a kick-start and the folk group never found its hit.

Either way once a song is available for recording anyone can do it without the permission of the publisher or author.

[The Observer]

Either way once a song is available for recording anyone can do it without the permission of the publisher or author.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/cover-so ... -sue-basko

According to the law, once a song subject to U.S. Copyright has been recorded and distributed publicly, anyone can obtain a license and record the song, and pay statutory royalty rates.

[AndyK]

Is there ANYTHING which when raised as a question here will not immediately get the response of a few experts in that field or a reply from someone who has rapidly researched the issue?

Despite the reason(s) for its founding, Quatloosia has become a wonderful nation.

[Dark Optimist]

Gibberish that is not Genuine Frontier Gibberish (TM) will not receive an immediate reply in my experience. If it's fresh, it gets a response.