Digital BW, The Print

Music sampling is considered legal where the sample does not consist of a
recognisable element of the original. Can't copyright drum loops for
instance as they are said to be too generic. However, even inexperienced
listeners (and more often producers) will recognisable certain drum loops
after the first hi hat. If The Winstons had got royalties every time a pair
of dancefloor hooligans used the single clean bar of drums on "amen brother"
(surely one of the kickingest loops ever in the world), they'd be very rich
winstons by now, instead of being utterly forgotten by everyone except
sample spotters and dance music producers. Also, dance music would be rather
different today had such a copyright rule been enforced. The version of the
shadows "apache" covered by the incredible bongo band supplies another of
the most famous loops, neither shadows nor bongo band made any cash off
that. However, apart from the folks who used it as a backing for their own
tunes, there also exist those who merely collect these loops and sell them
on in a format ready for sampling.

In my library (I only work there) we tend to allow people to copy 10% of a
work within the fair use rules. However, its illegal to photocopy sheet
music in any amount as this is said to contain the real "substance" of a
piece of music (often seems very expensive to buy new, considering it might
just be four sides of print), and also illegal to copy things like knitting
and sewing patterns. I daresay this could stretch to published plans for
furniture and things like that too. Ordance Survey forbid photocopying of
their maps. Our license to supply Mintel market research reports doesn't
allow making photocopies or print-outs at all, but Which? (subscription
consumer magazine) allows direct photocopying of one article. One at a time?
one per visit? one per year? one per issue? Could I photocopy one entire
issue, and then none for the rest of the year? Nobody really knows,
limitations set down are usually arbitrary within this notion of "fair use".
Re-recording a piece of audio-visual (cd or tape or dvd or what have you)
you have on loan from us is entirely forbidden. If you had bought the CD,
lost it (or broken it) and then recorded yourself a new copy using one from
the library (copying inlays too), where would you stand then? Not sure. Does
buying one copy give you rights to always maintain a copy forever?

What bearing does this have on the current discussion? I'm not sure, but it
did seem relevent when I started, really it did. Curse my absent mind.


Re: mike kravits protected buildings: I was going to pay extra for the
transparency adapter on my city-sized scanner, in order to properly capture
the windows and interiors, but I won't bother now. Bah, I really should
learn to research these big purchases more thoroughly...




sandy @ www.euphy.co.uk


----- Original Message -----
From: "Editor P.O.V. Image Service" <editor@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2002 6:46 AM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Image theft


> Jerry Olson wrote:
>
> > Not originals, but they take them from magazines.
> >
> > I have seen many a painting in art galleries and museums that have
> > copyrighted images as their subject. I've seen a huge painting of Donald
> > Duck (about 8x12 feet) in psychedelic colors that went for about $5000.
> > I'm fairly certain the painter did not get copyright permission from
> > Disney. And I've seen many other samples like this. Andy Warhol comes
> > to mind...
> >
> These uses generally fall under the protected category of fair use in
> one of two  ways:
>
> 1)    Fair editorial comment which voids attacks based upon:
>
> a) copyright
>
> b) appropriation of image or likeness -- Like using Marilyn Monroe's
> image in a Warhol
>
> 2)    As a derivative work in which the included work is a small part of
> the overall new work (the early music sampling defenses by MC-style
> rappers used this argument)
>
> That said, ART is not considered Commercial speech.  Were it considered
> commercial instead of editorial, for example, were one to make Marilyn
> Monroe keychains instead, expect lawsuits - as those who made Elvis
> memorabilia found out... The line between art and commerce may be
> blurry, but in clear cases of obvious violation, expect to get bitten..
>
> Keith
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>