Synth-DIY Yahoo! Groups Archives

samples and copyright

2011-02-24 by Dieter

Hello

I started recording some tracks featuring Mellotron, Optigan and Orchestron.  Now, I was wondering, in fact, all these sounds are just samples - who owns the copyright on these recordings? In fact, can you just use this free?
I know that with the usual tron sounds nobody bothers and just puts them on their records, but it was in fact when I was using the optigan, where you have loops of recorded big band and such, at that point this question came up to me...


thanks

Dieter

Re: [newmellotrongroup] samples and copyright

2011-02-24 by mattias

I recorded an entire album with only Mellotron, Orchestron and Optigan and I
have always thought that if you have bought the instrument you would own the
sounds ? 

// Mattias




Den 2011-02-24 17.36, skrev "Dieter" <dieter_vanmarcke@yahoo.com>:

Show quoted textHide quoted text

>  
>  
>  
>    
> 
> Hello
> 
> I started recording some tracks featuring Mellotron, Optigan and Orchestron.
> Now, I was wondering, in fact, all these sounds are just samples - who owns
> the copyright on these recordings? In fact, can you just use this free?
> I know that with the usual tron sounds nobody bothers and just puts them on
> their records, but it was in fact when I was using the optigan, where you have
> loops of recorded big band and such, at that point this question came up to
> me...
> 
> thanks
> 
> Dieter
> 
>  
>    
> 
>>>

Re: [newmellotrongroup] samples and copyright

2011-02-24 by Fritz Doddy

You don't own the sounds, but are granted a license to use them as you  
will.

Sorry for the brevity as I am replying from a remote region of  
iPhonekstan.

fritzdoddy

Show quoted textHide quoted text

On Feb 24, 2011, at 11:47 AM, mattias <Mattias.olsson5@comhem.se> wrote:

> I recorded an entire album with only Mellotron, Orchestron and  
> Optigan and I have always thought that if you have bought the  
> instrument you would own the sounds ?
>
> // Mattias
>
>
>
>
> Den 2011-02-24 17.36, skrev "Dieter" <dieter_vanmarcke@yahoo.com>:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hello
>
> I started recording some tracks featuring Mellotron, Optigan and  
> Orchestron.  Now, I was wondering, in fact, all these sounds are  
> just samples - who owns the copyright on these recordings? In fact,  
> can you just use this free?
> I know that with the usual tron sounds nobody bothers and just puts  
> them on their records, but it was in fact when I was using the  
> optigan, where you have loops of recorded big band and such, at that  
> point this question came up to me...
>
> thanks
>
> Dieter
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [newmellotrongroup] samples and copyright

2011-02-24 by lsf5275@aol.com

...Where currently, rebels are demonstrating in the street and demanding  
the ouster of the iPhonekstan government.
 
 
In a message dated 2/24/2011 11:52:41 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
fdoddy@aol.com writes:

Sorry  for the brevity as I am replying from a remote region of 
iPhonekstan.  


fritzdoddy

Re: [newmellotrongroup] samples and copyright

2011-02-24 by Vance Pomeroy

...and shaking their brevity all over the central plaza.

On 2/24/2011 9:12 AM, lsf5275@aol.com wrote:

Show quoted textHide quoted text

...Where currently, rebels are demonstrating in the street and demanding the ouster of the iPhonekstan government.

In a message dated 2/24/2011 11:52:41 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, fdoddy@aol.com writes:

Sorry for the brevity as I am replying from a remote region of iPhonekstan.

fritzdoddy

RE: [newmellotrongroup] samples and copyright

2011-02-24 by Gary Brumm

Did you pay off the union?  They blackballed the Mellotron because they wanted a "cut" every time a note was played.....
...which, like the unions themselves, is ridiculous....

Show quoted textHide quoted text

From: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Dieter
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2011 8:36 AM
To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [newmellotrongroup] samples and copyright

Hello

I started recording some tracks featuring Mellotron, Optigan and Orchestron. Now, I was wondering, in fact, all these sounds are just samples - who owns the copyright on these recordings? In fact, can you just use this free?
I know that with the usual tron sounds nobody bothers and just puts them on their records, but it was in fact when I was using the optigan, where you have loops of recorded big band and such, at that point this question came up to me...

thanks

Dieter

Re: [newmellotrongroup] samples and copyright

2011-02-24 by Mike Dickson

Exactly. Who owns the sound that come out a Nord synth?

On 24/02/2011 16:47, mattias wrote:

Show quoted textHide quoted text

I recorded an entire album with only Mellotron, Orchestron and Optigan and I have always thought that if you have bought the instrument you would own the sounds ?

RE: [newmellotrongroup] samples and copyright

2011-02-24 by John Wright

It's a good question.  I did a little googling and as usual can't really
find anything exactly on point.  What Fritz says makes sense, but the
license is implied.  I doubt if Trons were shipped with a license like a
shrink wrapped piece of software has these days.
 
But, for the musicians that recorded the sounds for the Chamberlin and
Mellotron masters, I assume it was just another gig and they were paid.
Wouldn't that potentially relinquish future rights and royalties?  
 
John
#911


________________________________

Show quoted textHide quoted text

	From: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Fritz Doddy
	Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2011 11:52 AM
	To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
	Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] samples and copyright
	
	
	  

	
	You don't own the sounds, but are granted a license to use them
as you will.
	
	Sorry for the brevity as I am replying from a remote region of
iPhonekstan. 

	fritzdoddy

	On Feb 24, 2011, at 11:47 AM, mattias
<Mattias.olsson5@comhem.se> wrote:
	
	

		  

		I recorded an entire album with only Mellotron,
Orchestron and Optigan and I have always thought that if you have bought
the instrument you would own the sounds ? 
		
		// Mattias
		
		
		
		
		Den 2011-02-24 17.36, skrev "Dieter"
<dieter_vanmarcke@yahoo.com>:
		
		

			
			 
			 
			   
			
			Hello
			
			I started recording some tracks featuring
Mellotron, Optigan and Orchestron.  Now, I was wondering, in fact, all
these sounds are just samples - who owns the copyright on these
recordings? In fact, can you just use this free?
			I know that with the usual tron sounds nobody
bothers and just puts them on their records, but it was in fact when I
was using the optigan, where you have loops of recorded big band and
such, at that point this question came up to me...
			
			thanks
			
			Dieter

Re: [newmellotrongroup] samples and copyright

2011-02-24 by Fritz Doddy

Typically, musicians waive their right to any performance royalties  
in  "sample" situations. In the case of synths, you could create your  
own patches and sell them. However, you could not simply copy the  
patch info and resell it. Since the synth owners already have the  
patch presets, this rairly needs to be enforced. I am not sure of the  
finer points when it comes to sampling a synth. Obviously, there has  
been many a blind eye turned toward this.

Sorry for the brevity as I am replying from a remote region of  
iPhonekstan.

fritzdoddy

On Feb 24, 2011, at 1:23 PM, "John Wright" <john.wright@consona.com>  
wrote:

Show quoted textHide quoted text

> It's a good question.  I did a little googling and as usual can't  
> really find anything exactly on point.  What Fritz says makes sense,  
> but the license is implied.  I doubt if Trons were shipped with a  
> license like a shrink wrapped piece of software has these days.
>
> But, for the musicians that recorded the sounds for the Chamberlin  
> and Mellotron masters, I assume it was just another gig and they  
> were paid.  Wouldn't that potentially relinquish future rights and  
> royalties?
>
> John
> #911
>
> From: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com  
> [mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Fritz Doddy
> Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2011 11:52 AM
> To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] samples and copyright
>
>
> You don't own the sounds, but are granted a license to use them as  
> you will.
>
> Sorry for the brevity as I am replying from a remote region of  
> iPhonekstan.
>
> fritzdoddy
>
> On Feb 24, 2011, at 11:47 AM, mattias <Mattias.olsson5@comhem.se>  
> wrote:
>
>>
>> I recorded an entire album with only Mellotron, Orchestron and  
>> Optigan and I have always thought that if you have bought the       
>> instrument you would own the sounds ?
>>
>> // Mattias
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Den 2011-02-24 17.36, skrev "Dieter" <dieter_vanmarcke@yahoo.com>:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Hello
>>
>> I started recording some tracks featuring Mellotron, Optigan and  
>> Orchestron.  Now, I was wondering, in fact, all these sounds are  
>> just samples - who owns the copyright on these recordings? In fact,  
>> can you just use this free?
>> I know that with the usual tron sounds nobody bothers and just puts  
>> them on their records, but it was in fact when I was using the  
>> optigan, where you have loops of recorded big band and such, at  
>> that point this question came up to me...
>>
>> thanks
>>
>> Dieter
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [newmellotrongroup] samples and copyright

2011-02-24 by john barrick

I've always believed it was a session musician/work for hire arrangement with any and all rights relinquished.

john barrick

Show quoted textHide quoted text

On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 12:23 PM, John Wright <john.wright@consona.com> wrote:

It's a good question. I did a little googling and as usual can't really find anything exactly on point. What Fritz says makes sense, but the license is implied. I doubt if Trons were shipped with a license like a shrink wrapped piece of software has these days.

But, for the musicians that recorded the sounds for the Chamberlin and Mellotron masters, I assume it was just another gig and they were paid. Wouldn't that potentially relinquish future rights and royalties?

John

#911

From: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Fritz Doddy
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2011 11:52 AM
To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] samples and copyright

You don't own the sounds, but are granted a license to use them as you will.

Sorry for the brevity as I am replying from a remote region of iPhonekstan.

fritzdoddy

On Feb 24, 2011, at 11:47 AM, mattias <Mattias.olsson5@comhem.se> wrote:

I recorded an entire album with only Mellotron, Orchestron and Optigan and I have always thought that if you have bought the instrument you would own the sounds ?

// Mattias

Den 2011-02-24 17.36, skrev "Dieter" <dieter_vanmarcke@yahoo.com>:

Hello

I started recording some tracks featuring Mellotron, Optigan and Orchestron. Now, I was wondering, in fact, all these sounds are just samples - who owns the copyright on these recordings? In fact, can you just use this free?
I know that with the usual tron sounds nobody bothers and just puts them on their records, but it was in fact when I was using the optigan, where you have loops of recorded big band and such, at that point this question came up to me...

thanks

Dieter

Re: [newmellotrongroup] samples and copyright

2011-02-24 by Fritz Doddy

Correct, and In a perfect world, it would all be agreed upon and in  
writing before any work began.

Sorry for the brevity as I am replying from a remote region of  
iPhonekstan.

fritzdoddy

On Feb 24, 2011, at 1:33 PM, john barrick <barrickjohn262@gmail.com>  
wrote:

Show quoted textHide quoted text

> I've always believed it was a session musician/work for hire  
> arrangement with any and all rights relinquished.
>
> john barrick
>
> On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 12:23 PM, John Wright  
> <john.wright@consona.com> wrote:
>
> It's a good question.  I did a little googling and as usual can't  
> really find anything exactly on point.  What Fritz says makes sense,  
> but the license is implied.  I doubt if Trons were shipped with a  
> license like a shrink wrapped piece of software has these days.
>
> But, for the musicians that recorded the sounds for the Chamberlin  
> and Mellotron masters, I assume it was just another gig and they  
> were paid.  Wouldn't that potentially relinquish future rights and  
> royalties?
>
> John
> #911
>
> From: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com  
> [mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Fritz Doddy
> Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2011 11:52 AM
> To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] samples and copyright
>
>
> You don't own the sounds, but are granted a license to use them as  
> you    will.
>
> Sorry for the brevity as I am replying from a remote region of  
> iPhonekstan.
>
> fritzdoddy
>
> On Feb 24, 2011, at 11:47 AM, mattias <Mattias.olsson5@comhem.se>  
> wrote:
>
>>
>> I recorded an entire album with only Mellotron, Orchestron and  
>> Optigan and I have always thought that if you have bought the  
>> instrument you would own the sounds ?
>>
>> // Mattias
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Den 2011-02-24 17.36, skrev "Dieter" <dieter_vanmarcke@yahoo.com>:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Hello
>>
>> I started recording some tracks featuring Mellotron, Optigan and  
>> Orchestron.  Now, I was wondering, in fact, all these sounds are  
>> just samples - who owns the copyright on these recordings? In fact,  
>> can you just use this free?
>> I know that with the usual tron sounds nobody bothers and just puts  
>> them on their records, but it was in fact when I was using the  
>> optigan, where you have loops of recorded big band and such, at  
>> that point this question came up to me...
>>
>> thanks
>>
>> Dieter
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

Re: [newmellotrongroup] samples and copyright

2011-02-24 by lsf5275@aol.com

Lawrence Elrod. Everyone knows that.
 
 
In a message dated 2/24/2011 12:51:17 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
mike.dickson@gmail.com writes:

Exactly. Who owns the sound that come out a Nord  synth?

Re: [newmellotrongroup] samples and copyright

2011-02-24 by lsf5275@aol.com

Here's a photo of Fritz with his iPhone, reporting from iPhonekstan. Notice
he is wearing the traditional clothing.

(http://stlouisreview.com/sites/default/files/article-images/137252/seminarian_itouch.jpg)

In a message dated 2/24/2011 1:31:48 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
fdoddy@aol.com writes:

Typically, musicians waive their right to any performance royalties in
"sample" situations. In the case of synths, you could create your own patches
and sell them. However, you could not simply copy the patch info and resell
it. Since the synth owners already have the patch presets, this rairly
needs to be enforced. I am not sure of the finer points when it comes to
sampling a synth. Obviously, there has been many a blind eye turned toward this.

Sorry for the brevity as I am replying from a remote region of
iPhonekstan.

fritzdoddy

On Feb 24, 2011, at 1:23 PM, "John Wright" <_john.wright@consona.com_
(mailto:john.wright@consona.com) > wrote:

It's a good question. I did a little googling and as usual can't really
find anything exactly on point. What Fritz says makes sense, but the
license is implied. I doubt if Trons were shipped with a license like a shrink
wrapped piece of software has these days.

But, for the musicians that recorded the sounds for the Chamberlin and
Mellotron masters, I assume it was just another gig and they were paid.
Wouldn't that potentially relinquish future rights and royalties?

John
#911

____________________________________

Show quoted textHide quoted text

 From: _newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com_ 
(mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com)   [mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Fritz  
Doddy
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2011 11:52 AM
To:  _newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com_ 
(mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com) 
Subject:  Re: [newmellotrongroup] samples and copyright

You don't own the sounds, but are granted a license to use them as  you 
will.

Sorry for the brevity as I am replying from a remote  region of 
iPhonekstan.  

fritzdoddy

On Feb 24, 2011, at 11:47 AM, mattias <_Mattias.olsson5@comhem.se_ 
(mailto:Mattias.olsson5@comhem.se) >  wrote:

I recorded an entire album with only Mellotron,  Orchestron and Optigan and 
I have always thought that if you have bought  the instrument you would own 
the sounds ? 

//  Mattias

Den 2011-02-24 17.36, skrev "Dieter" <_dieter_vanmarcke@yahoo.com_ 
(mailto:dieter_vanmarcke@yahoo.com) >:

Hello

I  started recording some tracks featuring Mellotron, Optigan and  
Orchestron.  Now, I was wondering, in fact, all these sounds are  just samples - who 
owns the copyright on these recordings? In fact,  can you just use this 
free?
I know that with the usual tron sounds  nobody bothers and just puts them 
on their records, but it was in fact  when I was using the optigan, where you 
have loops of recorded big  band and such, at that point this question came 
up to  me...

thanks

Dieter

Re: [newmellotrongroup] samples and copyright

2011-02-24 by lsf5275@aol.com

(http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyarchives/1349.html)

Re: [newmellotrongroup] samples and copyright

2011-02-24 by Fritz Doddy

You are too good to me.

Sorry for the brevity as I am replying from a remote region of  
iPhonekstan.

fritzdoddy

Show quoted textHide quoted text

On Feb 24, 2011, at 2:28 PM, lsf5275@aol.com wrote:

> Here's a photo of Fritz with his iPhone, reporting from iPhonekstan.  
> Notice he is wearing the traditional clothing.
>
>
>
> In a message dated 2/24/2011 1:31:48 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, fdoddy@aol.com 
>  writes:
>
> Typically, musicians waive their right to any performance royalties  
> in  "sample" situations. In the case of synths, you could create  
> your own patches and sell them. However, you could not simply copy  
> the patch info and resell it. Since the synth owners already have  
> the patch presets, this rairly needs to be enforced. I am not sure  
> of the finer points when it comes to sampling a synth. Obviously,  
> there has been many a blind eye turned toward this.
>
> Sorry for the brevity as I am replying from a remote region of  
> iPhonekstan.
>
> fritzdoddy
>
> On Feb 24, 2011, at 1:23 PM, "John Wright" <john.wright@consona.com>  
> wrote:
>
>>
>> It's a good question.  I did a little googling and as usual can't  
>> really find anything exactly on point.  What Fritz says makes  
>> sense, but the license is implied.  I doubt if Trons were shipped  
>> with a license like a shrink wrapped piece of software has these  
>> days.
>>
>> But, for the musicians that recorded the sounds for the Chamberlin  
>> and Mellotron masters, I assume it was just another gig and they  
>> were paid.  Wouldn't that potentially relinquish future rights and  
>> royalties?
>>
>> John
>> #911
>>
>> From: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com  
>> [mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Fritz Doddy
>> Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2011 11:52 AM
>> To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
>> Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] samples and copyright
>>
>>
>> You don't own the sounds, but are granted a license to use them as  
>> you will.
>>
>> Sorry for the brevity as I am replying from a remote region of  
>> iPhonekstan.
>>
>> fritzdoddy
>>
>> On Feb 24, 2011, at 11:47 AM, mattias <Mattias.olsson5@comhem.se>  
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I recorded an entire album with only Mellotron, Orchestron and  
>>> Optigan and I have always thought that if you have bought the  
>>> instrument you would own the sounds ?
>>>
>>> // Mattias
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Den 2011-02-24 17.36, skrev "Dieter" <dieter_vanmarcke@yahoo.com>:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hello
>>>
>>> I started recording some tracks featuring Mellotron, Optigan and  
>>> Orchestron.  Now, I was wondering, in fact, all these sounds are  
>>> just samples - who owns the copyright on these recordings? In  
>>> fact, can you just use this free?
>>> I know that with the usual tron sounds nobody bothers and just  
>>> puts them on their records, but it was in fact when I was using  
>>> the optigan, where you have loops of recorded big band and such,  
>>> at that point this question came up to me...
>>>
>>> thanks
>>>
>>> Dieter
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

Re: [newmellotrongroup] samples and copyright

2011-02-24 by lsf5275@aol.com

I was gonna use this one...

In a message dated 2/24/2011 2:46:27 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
fdoddy@aol.com writes:

You are too good to me.

Sorry for the brevity as I am replying from a remote region of
iPhonekstan.

fritzdoddy

On Feb 24, 2011, at 2:28 PM, _lsf5275@aol.com_ (mailto:lsf5275@aol.com)
wrote:

Here's a photo of Fritz with his iPhone, reporting from iPhonekstan.
Notice he is wearing the traditional clothing.

(http://stlouisreview.com/sites/default/files/article-images/137252/seminarian_itouch.jpg)

In a message dated 2/24/2011 1:31:48 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
_fdoddy@aol.com_ (mailto:fdoddy@aol.com) writes:

Typically, musicians waive their right to any performance royalties in
"sample" situations. In the case of synths, you could create your own patches
and sell them. However, you could not simply copy the patch info and
resell it. Since the synth owners already have the patch presets, this rairly
needs to be enforced. I am not sure of the finer points when it comes to
sampling a synth. Obviously, there has been many a blind eye turned toward this.

Sorry for the brevity as I am replying from a remote region of
iPhonekstan.

fritzdoddy

On Feb 24, 2011, at 1:23 PM, "John Wright" <_john.wright@consona.com_
(mailto:john.wright@consona.com) > wrote:

It's a good question. I did a little googling and as usual can't really
find anything exactly on point. What Fritz says makes sense, but the
license is implied. I doubt if Trons were shipped with a license like a shrink
wrapped piece of software has these days.

But, for the musicians that recorded the sounds for the Chamberlin and
Mellotron masters, I assume it was just another gig and they were paid.
Wouldn't that potentially relinquish future rights and royalties?

John
#911

____________________________________

Show quoted textHide quoted text

 From: _newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com_ 
(mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com)   [mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Fritz  
Doddy
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2011 11:52  AM
To:  (mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com) 
_newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com_ (mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com) 
Subject:  Re: [newmellotrongroup] samples and copyright

You don't own the sounds, but are granted a license to use them  as you 
will.

Sorry for the brevity as I am replying from a  remote region of 
iPhonekstan.  

fritzdoddy

On Feb 24, 2011, at 11:47 AM, mattias < (mailto:Mattias.olsson5@comhem.se) 
_Mattias.olsson5@comhem.se_ (mailto:Mattias.olsson5@comhem.se) >  wrote:

I recorded an entire album with only  Mellotron, Orchestron and Optigan and 
I have always thought that if  you have bought the instrument you would own 
the sounds ? 

//  Mattias

Den 2011-02-24 17.36, skrev "Dieter"  < (mailto:dieter_vanmarcke@yahoo.com) 
_dieter_vanmarcke@yahoo.com_ (mailto:dieter_vanmarcke@yahoo.com) >:

Hello

I  started recording some tracks featuring Mellotron, Optigan and  
Orchestron.  Now, I was wondering, in fact, all these sounds  are just samples - who 
owns the copyright on these recordings? In  fact, can you just use this 
free?
I know that with the usual  tron sounds nobody bothers and just puts them 
on their records,  but it was in fact when I was using the optigan, where you 
have  loops of recorded big band and such, at that point this question  
came up to  me...

thanks

Dieter

Re: [newmellotrongroup] samples and copyright

2011-02-24 by john barrick

This is a photo of the guy they got to play Bluto in the Afghani version of Popeye.

Show quoted textHide quoted text

On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 1:48 PM, <lsf5275@aol.com> wrote:

I was gonna use this one...

In a message dated 2/24/2011 2:46:27 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, fdoddy@aol.com writes:

You are too good to me.

Sorry for the brevity as I am replying from a remote region of iPhonekstan.

fritzdoddy

On Feb 24, 2011, at 2:28 PM, lsf5275@aol.com wrote:

Here's a photo of Fritz with his iPhone, reporting from iPhonekstan. Notice he is wearing the traditional clothing.

In a message dated 2/24/2011 1:31:48 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, fdoddy@aol.com writes:

Typically, musicians waive their right to any performance royalties in "sample" situations. In the case of synths, you could create your own patches and sell them. However, you could not simply copy the patch info and resell it. Since the synth owners already have the patch presets, this rairly needs to be enforced. I am not sure of the finer points when it comes to sampling a synth. Obviously, there has been many a blind eye turned toward this.

Sorry for the brevity as I am replying from a remote region of iPhonekstan.

fritzdoddy

On Feb 24, 2011, at 1:23 PM, "John Wright" <john.wright@consona.com> wrote:

It's a good question. I did a little googling and as usual can't really find anything exactly on point. What Fritz says makes sense, but the license is implied. I doubt if Trons were shipped with a license like a shrink wrapped piece of software has these days.

But, for the musicians that recorded the sounds for the Chamberlin and Mellotron masters, I assume it was just another gig and they were paid. Wouldn't that potentially relinquish future rights and royalties?

John

#911

From: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Fritz Doddy
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2011 11:52 AM
To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] samples and copyright

You don't own the sounds, but are granted a license to use them as you will.

Sorry for the brevity as I am replying from a remote region of iPhonekstan.

fritzdoddy

On Feb 24, 2011, at 11:47 AM, mattias <Mattias.olsson5@comhem.se>; wrote:

I recorded an entire album with only Mellotron, Orchestron and Optigan and I have always thought that if you have bought the instrument you would own the sounds ?

// Mattias

Den 2011-02-24 17.36, skrev "Dieter" <dieter_vanmarcke@yahoo.com>:

Hello

I started recording some tracks featuring Mellotron, Optigan and Orchestron. Now, I was wondering, in fact, all these sounds are just samples - who owns the copyright on these recordings? In fact, can you just use this free?
I know that with the usual tron sounds nobody bothers and just puts them on their records, but it was in fact when I was using the optigan, where you have loops of recorded big band and such, at that point this question came up to me...

thanks

Dieter

Re: samples and copyright

2011-02-25 by feline1973

This is an interesting one. 
One thing no-one has mentioned in the replies so far is that, since the mellotron recordings were made, a new legal right called the "performing right" in a recording has come in to being. 
This entitles performers on a recording to get paid a royalty when a recording them play on is publically broadcast on radio/TV/streaming digital media etc.
This was to redress the situation whereby a hit record could keep on earning the record label and the songwriters royalties for decades, but the original session musicians would never see a penny more than their original session fee.

When a country has this legal approach, there'll be a collection society performers can register with, and get paid by. In the UK it's called PPL. 

So, in principle, the performers on the mellotron tapes could earn remuneration when, for example, Strawberry Fields Forever is played on the radio. (Note - it's actually the BROADCASTER who pays the money - the record label/artist don't have to worry their little heads about it).

However, in practice, when labels register track details with PPL for this purpose, they would just put down the name of the guy playing the mellotron on the performer list. Nobody knows the name of the people on the tapes and so PPL don't have this info so they ain't getting paid at present.


--- In newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dieter" <dieter_vanmarcke@...> wrote:

Show quoted textHide quoted text

>
> Hello
> 
> I started recording some tracks featuring Mellotron, Optigan and Orchestron.  Now, I was wondering, in fact, all these sounds are just samples - who owns the copyright on these recordings? In fact, can you just use this free?
> I know that with the usual tron sounds nobody bothers and just puts them on their records, but it was in fact when I was using the optigan, where you have loops of recorded big band and such, at that point this question came up to me...
> 
> 
> thanks
> 
> Dieter
>

Re: samples and copyright

2011-02-25 by tron400

I wish I knew the name of the guy who recorded the Ian McDonald Classical Flute

Bernie

--- In newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com, "feline1973" wrote:
>
> This is an interesting one.
> One thing no-one has mentioned in the replies so far is that, since the mellotron recordings were made, a new legal right called the "performing right" in a recording has come in to being.
> This entitles performers on a recording to get paid a royalty when a recording them play on is publically broadcast on radio/TV/streaming digital media etc.
> This was to redress the situation whereby a hit record could keep on earning the record label and the songwriters royalties for decades, but the original session musicians would never see a penny more than their original session fee.
>
> When a country has this legal approach, there'll be a collection society performers can register with, and get paid by. In the UK it's called PPL.
>
> So, in principle, the performers on the mellotron tapes could earn remuneration when, for example, Strawberry Fields Forever is played on the radio. (Note - it's actually the BROADCASTER who pays the money - the record label/artist don't have to worry their little heads about it).
>
>; However, in practice, when labels register track details with PPL for this purpose, they would just put down the name of the guy playing the mellotron on the performer list. Nobody knows the name of the people on the tapes and so PPL don't have this info so they ain't getting paid at present.
>
>
> --- In newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dieter" dieter_vanmarcke@ wrote:
> >
> > Hello
> >
>; > I started recording some tracks featuring Mellotron, Optigan and Orchestron. Now, I was wondering, in fact, all these sounds are just samples - who owns the copyright on these recordings? In fact, can you just use this free?
> > I know that with the usual tron sounds nobody bothers and just puts them on their records, but it was in fact when I was using the optigan, where you have loops of recorded big band and such, at that point this question came up to me...
> >
> >
> > thanks
> >
> > Dieter
> >
>

Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

2011-02-25 by fdoddy@aol.com

In the US, those performing rights/royalties are handled by the AFofM, American Federation of Musiciians, for those jobs under their jurisdiction (TV,adverts, cinema,Internet).  I've been working this way for years.  However, there is no requirement for work to fall under AFofM jurisdiction if the employer is not a signatory to the collective bargaining agreement. As before, simple legal documents releasing the employer from any future financial responsibility is all that would be needed.  

My guess is that the original Mellotron recordings were done on a handshake and at a time when people were far less litigious than they are today.


fritz



 

 


 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: feline1973 <feline1@feline1.co.uk>
To: newmellotrongroup <newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Fri, Feb 25, 2011 8:01 am
Subject: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright


  
    
                  
This is an interesting one. 
One thing no-one has mentioned in the replies so far is that, since the mellotron recordings were made, a new legal right called the "performing right" in a recording has come in to being. 
This entitles performers on a recording to get paid a royalty when a recording them play on is publically broadcast on radio/TV/streaming digital media etc.
This was to redress the situation whereby a hit record could keep on earning the record label and the songwriters royalties for decades, but the original session musicians would never see a penny more than their original session fee.

When a country has this legal approach, there'll be a collection society performers can register with, and get paid by. In the UK it's called PPL. 

So, in principle, the performers on the mellotron tapes could earn remuneration when, for example, Strawberry Fields Forever is played on the radio. (Note - it's actually the BROADCASTER who pays the money - the record label/artist don't have to worry their little heads about it).

However, in practice, when labels register track details with PPL for this purpose, they would just put down the name of the guy playing the mellotron on the performer list. Nobody knows the name of the people on the tapes and so PPL don't have this info so they ain't getting paid at present.

--- In newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dieter" <dieter_vanmarcke@...> wrote:

Show quoted textHide quoted text

>
> Hello
> 
> I started recording some tracks featuring Mellotron, Optigan and Orchestron.  Now, I was wondering, in fact, all these sounds are just samples - who owns the copyright on these recordings? In fact, can you just use this free?
> I know that with the usual tron sounds nobody bothers and just puts them on their records, but it was in fact when I was using the optigan, where you have loops of recorded big band and such, at that point this question came up to me...
> 
> 
> thanks
> 
> Dieter
>

Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

2011-02-25 by fdoddy@aol.com

That would be Jethro Tul  :>)

fritz

 

 


 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: tron400 <tron400@yahoo.com>
To: newmellotrongroup <newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Fri, Feb 25, 2011 8:31 am
Subject: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright


  
    
                  
I wish I knew the name of the guy who recorded the Ian McDonald Classical Flute 

Bernie

--- In newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com, "feline1973" <feline1@...> wrote:

Show quoted textHide quoted text

>
> This is an interesting one. 
> One thing no-one has mentioned in the replies so far is that, since the mellotron recordings were made, a new legal right called the "performing right" in a recording has come in to being. 
> This entitles performers on a recording to get paid a royalty when a recording them play on is publically broadcast on radio/TV/streaming digital media etc.
> This was to redress the situation whereby a hit record could keep on earning the record label and the songwriters royalties for decades, but the original session musicians would never see a penny more than their original session fee.
> 
> When a country has this legal approach , there'll be a collection society performers can register with, and get paid by. In the UK it's called PPL. 
> 
> So, in principle, the performers on the mellotron tapes could earn remuneration when, for example, Strawberry Fields Forever is played on the radio. (Note - it's actually the BROADCASTER who pays the money - the record label/artist don't have to worry their little heads about it).
> 
> However, in practice, when labels register track details with PPL for this purpose, they would just put down the name of the guy playing the mellotron on the performer list. Nobody knows the name of the people on the tapes and so PPL don't have this info so they ain't getting paid at present.
> 
> 
> --- In newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dieter" dieter_vanmarcke@ wrote:
> >
> > Hello
> > 
> > I started recording some tracks featuring Mellotron, Optigan and Orchestron.  Now, I was wondering, in fact,  all these sounds are just samples - who owns the copyright on these recordings? In fact, can you just use this free?
> > I know that with the usual tron sounds nobody bothers and just puts them on their records, but it was in fact when I was using the optigan, where you have loops of recorded big band and such, at that point this question came up to me...
> > 
> > 
> > thanks
> > 
> > Dieter
> >
>

Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

2011-02-25 by fdoddy@aol.com

oops! Tull


fd

 

 


 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: tron400 <tron400@yahoo.com>
To: newmellotrongroup <newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Fri, Feb 25, 2011 8:31 am
Subject: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright


  
    
                  
I wish I knew the name of the guy who recorded the Ian McDonald Classical Flute 

Bernie

--- In newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com, "feline1973" <feline1@...> wrote:

Show quoted textHide quoted text

>
> This is an interesting one. 
> One thing no-one has mentioned in the replies so far is that, since the mellotron recordings were made, a new legal right called the "performing right" in a recording has come in to being. 
> This entitles performers on a recording to get paid a royalty when a recording them play on is publically broadcast on radio/TV/streaming digital media etc.
> This was to redress the situation whereby a hit record could keep on earning the record label and the songwriters royalties for decades, but the original session musicians would never see a penny more than their original session fee.
> 
> When a country has this legal approach , there'll be a collection society performers can register with, and get paid by. In the UK it's called PPL. 
> 
> So, in principle, the performers on the mellotron tapes could earn remuneration when, for example, Strawberry Fields Forever is played on the radio. (Note - it's actually the BROADCASTER who pays the money - the record label/artist don't have to worry their little heads about it).
> 
> However, in practice, when labels register track details with PPL for this purpose, they would just put down the name of the guy playing the mellotron on the performer list. Nobody knows the name of the people on the tapes and so PPL don't have this info so they ain't getting paid at present.
> 
> 
> --- In newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dieter" dieter_vanmarcke@ wrote:
> >
> > Hello
> > 
> > I started recording some tracks featuring Mellotron, Optigan and Orchestron.  Now, I was wondering, in fact,  all these sounds are just samples - who owns the copyright on these recordings? In fact, can you just use this free?
> > I know that with the usual tron sounds nobody bothers and just puts them on their records, but it was in fact when I was using the optigan, where you have loops of recorded big band and such, at that point this question came up to me...
> > 
> > 
> > thanks
> > 
> > Dieter
> >
>

Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

2011-02-25 by Mike Dickson

On 25/02/2011 13:01, feline1973 wrote:

Nobody knows the name of the people on the tapes and so PPL don't have this info so they ain't getting paid at present.

Well..we know some of them. Trouble is I suspect most of them are dead.

-- 
Mike Dickson, Edinburgh

Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

2011-02-25 by mattias

How about the guy who programmed  the synthbrass sound  on the DX7 ?

Should he get paid or sued everytime the sound is heard on the radio ?

// Mattias


Den 2011-02-25 17.56, skrev "Mike Dickson" <mike.dickson@gmail.com>:

Show quoted textHide quoted text

>  
>  
>  
>    
> 
>    On 25/02/2011 13:01, feline1973 wrote:
>>     
>>  
>> 
>> Nobody knows the name of the people on the tapes and so PPL don't have this
>> info so they ain't getting paid at present.
>>  
>>  
>>    
>   
>  Well..we know some of them. Trouble is I suspect most of them are dead.
>

Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

2011-02-25 by Thomas C. Doncourt

yes, and the pan flute sound guy too. Or maybe Yamaha should just be
slapped with a civil lawsuit for making the DX7 in the first place.

Show quoted textHide quoted text

> How about the guy who programmed  the synthbrass sound  on the DX7 ?
>
> Should he get paid or sued everytime the sound is heard on the radio ?
>
> // Mattias
>
>
> Den 2011-02-25 17.56, skrev "Mike Dickson" <mike.dickson@gmail.com>:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>    On 25/02/2011 13:01, feline1973 wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Nobody knows the name of the people on the tapes and so PPL don't have
>>> this
>>> info so they ain't getting paid at present.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>  Well..we know some of them. Trouble is I suspect most of them are dead.
>>
>
>

Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

2011-02-25 by john barrick

How about kicked in the balls?

On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 11:46 AM, mattias <Mattias.olsson5@comhem.se> wrote:

Show quoted textHide quoted text

How about the guy who programmed the synthbrass sound on the DX7 ?

Should he get paid or sued everytime the sound is heard on the radio ?

Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

2011-02-25 by lsf5275@aol.com

Funny!
 
 
In a message dated 2/25/2011 12:46:19 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
Mattias.olsson5@comhem.se writes:

How about the guy who programmed  the synthbrass  sound  on the DX7 ?

Should he get paid or sued everytime the sound  is heard on the radio ?

//  Mattias

Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

2011-02-25 by fdoddy@aol.com

He probably signed a "work for hire" agreement, and besides, it is not a performance, but instead,programming.  In the US, there is no performance royalty on programming, that would make no sense.


fd

Show quoted textHide quoted text

-----Original Message-----
From: mattias <Mattias.olsson5@comhem.se>
To: newmellotrongroup <newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Fri, Feb 25, 2011 12:46 pm
Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

How about the guy who programmed  the synthbrass sound  on the DX7 ?

Should he get paid or sued everytime the sound is heard on the radio ?

// Mattias

Den 2011-02-25 17.56, skrev "Mike Dickson" <mike.dickson@gmail.com>:

   On 25/02/2011 13:01, feline1973 wrote: 

Nobody knows the name of the people on the tapes and so PPL don't have this info so they ain't getting paid at present.

 Well..we know some of them. Trouble is I suspect most of them are dead.

RE: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

2011-02-25 by John Hammaren

Well, as a programmer, that’s not entirely true. Whatever agreement was signed whether that person was an employee or outside consultant would dictate what remuneration was received. If the agreement stipulated that the employee or consultant received a royalty in whatever fashion was agreed, then that would be it. But, on the other hand the agreement would be between those two entities, not the end-user or consumer. In that case, whatever agreement or license agreement that was agreed to upon sale of such product would be in force between end user and manufacturer of product. I have not looked at whatever legalese came with my Triton for example, but since I have not read about any brouhahas regarding this, it is probably safe to assume that end users are granted a general use license for whatever purpose including performance. That’s not to say the programmer may not get a cut of total unit sales. What probably would not be included would be redistribution of said programs for the purpose of the end-user profiting from that work. Pretty much the same as if you cloned a Triton and sold it as a TritonGrande’ with all the sounds intact. But there is nothing to say he couldn’t profit from performances of his work if the end-user agreement stipulated it. Kind of hard to enforce this, but the way things are getting in this world, don’t count this out some day. Particularly since we are at the point where every, and I mean every device and person will have an IPV6 address in 20 or 30 years and whatever it is we will do will have some form of tracking associated with it. Look at Microsoft. Software as a service is a prime example – compose a doc and pay them a royalty. That’s their future.

It ain;t mine.

Cheers,

John

Show quoted textHide quoted text

From: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of fdoddy@aol.com
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2011 2:44 PM
To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

He probably signed a "work for hire" agreement, and besides, it is not a performance, but instead,programming. In the US, there is no performance royalty on programming, that would make no sense.

fd

-----Original Message-----
From: mattias <Mattias.olsson5@comhem.se>
To: newmellotrongroup <newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Fri, Feb 25, 2011 12:46 pm
Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

How about the guy who programmed the synthbrass sound on the DX7 ?

Should he get paid or sued everytime the sound is heard on the radio ?

// Mattias

Den 2011-02-25 17.56, skrev "Mike Dickson" <mike.dickson@gmail.com>:

On 25/02/2011 13:01, feline1973 wrote:

Nobody knows the name of the people on the tapes and so PPL don't have this info so they ain't getting paid at present.

Well..we know some of them. Trouble is I suspect most of them are dead.

Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

2011-02-25 by lsf5275@aol.com

Welcome to the group John! Is this your first post here?
 
John is the owner of the "Johnny Neel" Mellotron, #525
 
Frank
 
 
 
 
In a message dated 2/25/2011 4:30:43 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
hammaren@geoconcepts.com writes:

 
 
 
 
Well, as a  programmer, that’s not entirely true. Whatever agreement was 
signed whether  that person was an employee or outside consultant would 
dictate what  remuneration was received. If the agreement stipulated that the 
employee or  consultant received a royalty in whatever fashion was agreed, then 
that would  be it. But, on the other hand the agreement would be between 
those two  entities, not the end-user or consumer. In that case, whatever 
agreement or  license agreement that was agreed to upon sale of such product 
would be in  force between end user and manufacturer of product. I have not 
looked at  whatever legalese came with my Triton for example, but since I have 
not read  about any brouhahas regarding this, it is probably safe to assume 
that end  users are granted a general use license for whatever purpose 
including  performance. That’s not to say the programmer may not get a cut of 
total unit  sales. What probably would not be included would be redistribution 
of said  programs for the purpose of the end-user profiting from that work. 
Pretty much  the same as if you cloned a Triton and sold it as a TritonGrande’
 with all the  sounds intact. But there is nothing to say he couldn’t 
profit from  performances of his work if the end-user agreement stipulated it. 
Kind of hard  to enforce this, but the way things are getting in this world, 
don’t count  this out some day. Particularly since we are at the point where 
every, and I  mean every device and person will have an IPV6 address in 20 
or 30 years and  whatever it is we will do will have some form of tracking 
associated with it.  Look at Microsoft. Software as a service is a prime 
example – compose a doc  and pay them a royalty. That’s their future. 
It ain;t  mine. 
Cheers, 
John

Show quoted textHide quoted text

From: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com  
[mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of  fdoddy@aol.com
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2011 2:44  PM
To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re:  [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

He probably signed a "work for  hire" agreement, and besides, it is not a 
performance, but  instead,programming.  In the US, there is no performance 
royalty on  programming, that would make no sense.

fd

-----Original  Message-----
From: mattias <Mattias.olsson5@comhem.se>
To:  newmellotrongroup <newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Fri, Feb  25, 2011 12:46 pm
Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and  copyright 

How about the  guy who programmed  the synthbrass sound  on the DX7 ?

Should  he get paid or sued everytime the sound is heard on the radio ?

//  Mattias

Den 2011-02-25 17.56, skrev "Mike Dickson" <_mike.dickson@gmail.com_ 
(mailto:mike.dickson@gmail.com) >:

On  25/02/2011 13:01, feline1973 wrote:  

Nobody  knows the name of the people on the tapes and so PPL don't have 
this info so  they ain't getting paid at  present.

Well..we know some of them.  Trouble is I suspect most of them are dead.

RE: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

2011-02-26 by John Hammaren

Thanks Frank,

Yes, it is my first post. I hope to get pics up from your spectacular restoration (resurrection is a more apt term, I think) of Mr. Neel as soon as I can.

Thanks again, and I know this is the right group, since the spam is greatly outnumbered by the relevant posts. I hope to not be so verbose in the future. This is a common thing over at the Dotcom group, so it kind of rubs off.

Greeting to all.

John

Show quoted textHide quoted text

From: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of lsf5275@aol.com
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2011 6:22 PM
To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

Welcome to the group John! Is this your first post here?

John is the owner of the "Johnny Neel" Mellotron, #525

Frank

In a message dated 2/25/2011 4:30:43 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, hammaren@geoconcepts.com writes:

Well, as a programmer, that’s not entirely true. Whatever agreement was signed whether that person was an employee or outside consultant would dictate what remuneration was received. If the agreement stipulated that the employee or consultant received a royalty in whatever fashion was agreed, then that would be it. But, on the other hand the agreement would be between those two entities, not the end-user or consumer. In that case, whatever agreement or license agreement that was agreed to upon sale of such product would be in force between end user and manufacturer of product. I have not looked at whatever legalese came with my Triton for example, but since I have not read about any brouhahas regarding this, it is probably safe to assume that end users are granted a general use license for whatever purpose including performance. That’s not to say the programmer may not get a cut of total unit sales. What probably would not be included would be redistribution of said programs for the purpose of the end-user profiting from that work. Pretty much the same as if you cloned a Triton and sold it as a TritonGrande’ with all the sounds intact. But there is nothing to say he couldn’t profit from performances of his work if the end-user agreement stipulated it. Kind of hard to enforce this, but the way things are getting in this world, don’t count this out some day. Particularly since we are at the point where every, and I mean every device and person will have an IPV6 address in 20 or 30 years and whatever it is we will do will have some form of tracking associated with it. Look at Microsoft. Software as a service is a prime example – compose a doc and pay them a royalty. That’s their future.
It ain;t mine.
Cheers,
John
From: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of fdoddy@aol.com
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2011 2:44 PM
To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

He probably signed a "work for hire" agreement, and besides, it is not a performance, but instead,programming. In the US, there is no performance royalty on programming, that would make no sense.

fd

-----Original Message-----
From: mattias <Mattias.olsson5@comhem.se>
To: newmellotrongroup <newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Fri, Feb 25, 2011 12:46 pm
Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

How about the guy who programmed the synthbrass sound on the DX7 ?

Should he get paid or sued everytime the sound is heard on the radio ?

// Mattias

Den 2011-02-25 17.56, skrev "Mike Dickson" <mike.dickson@gmail.com>:

On 25/02/2011 13:01, feline1973 wrote:

Nobody knows the name of the people on the tapes and so PPL don't have this info so they ain't getting paid at present.

Well..we know some of them. Trouble is I suspect most of them are dead.

Re: samples and copyright

2011-02-26 by Charles

I want to know the names of the 8 people singing on the Mellotron choir tape "8 choir"....they need to be paid for every Strawbs & Genesis tune their voices appear on.

--- In newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com, lsf5275@... wrote:

Show quoted textHide quoted text

>
> Funny!
>  
>  
> In a message dated 2/25/2011 12:46:19 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
> Mattias.olsson5@... writes:
> 
> How about the guy who programmed  the synthbrass  sound  on the DX7 ?
> 
> Should he get paid or sued everytime the sound  is heard on the radio ?
> 
> //  Mattias
>

Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

2011-02-26 by john barrick

Too bad there isn't a Harmonicats tape set.

Show quoted textHide quoted text

On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 9:44 PM, Charles <charel196@yahoo.com> wrote:

I want to know the names of the 8 people singing on the Mellotron choir tape "8 choir"....they need to be paid for every Strawbs &; Genesis tune their voices appear on.

--- In newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com, lsf5275@... wrote:
>
> Funny!
>
>
> In a message dated 2/25/2011 12:46:19 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> Mattias.olsson5@... writes:
>
> How about the guy who programmed the synthbrass sound on the DX7 ?
>
> Should he get paid or sued everytime the sound is heard on the radio ?
>
> // Mattias
>

RE: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

2011-02-26 by Gary Brumm

No they don't.....they were already paid...........F$%K the union!

From: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Charles
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2011 7:44 PM
To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

I want to know the names of the 8 people singing on the Mellotron choir tape "8 choir"....they need to be paid for every Strawbs & Genesis tune their voices appear on.

--- In newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com<mailto:newmellotrongroup%40yahoogroups.com>, lsf5275@... wrote:

Show quoted textHide quoted text

>
> Funny!
>
>
> In a message dated 2/25/2011 12:46:19 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> Mattias.olsson5@<mailto:Mattias.olsson5@>... writes:
>
> How about the guy who programmed the synthbrass sound on the DX7 ?
>
> Should he get paid or sued everytime the sound is heard on the radio ?
>
> // Mattias
>

RE: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

2011-02-26 by Bruce Daily

Welcome to the group, John!
 
  Not only do we have good 'tron advice (musical and technical), but we also have excellent sarcasm, and some downright critical abuse (always friendly).  I think you will find us to be both brief and verbose, with the best of grammar, acronyms, and abreviations.
 
  Enjoy the ride!

  -Bruce D.
  #1221
 

--- On Fri, 2/25/11, John Hammaren <hammaren@geoconcepts.com> wrote:

Show quoted textHide quoted text

From: John Hammaren <hammaren@geoconcepts.com>
Subject: RE: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright
To: "newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com" <newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Friday, February 25, 2011, 6:47 PM

Thanks Frank,

Yes, it is my first post. I hope to get pics up from your spectacular restoration (resurrection is a more apt term, I think) of Mr. Neel as soon as I can.

Thanks again, and I know this is the right group, since the spam is greatly outnumbered by the relevant posts. I hope to not be so verbose in the future. This is a common thing over at the Dotcom group, so it kind of rubs off.

Greeting to all.

John

From: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of lsf5275@aol.com
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2011 6:22 PM
To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

Welcome to the group John! Is this your first post here?

John is the owner of the "Johnny Neel" Mellotron, #525

Frank

In a message dated 2/25/2011 4:30:43 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, hammaren@geoconcepts.com writes:

Well, as a programmer, that’s not entirely true. Whatever agreement was signed whether that person was an employee or outside consultant would dictate what remuneration was received. If the agreement stipulated that the employee or consultant received a royalty in whatever fashion was agreed, then that would be it. But, on the other hand the agreement would be between those two entities, not the end-user or consumer. In that case, whatever agreement or license agreement that was agreed to upon sale of such product would be in force between end user and manufacturer of product. I have not looked at whatever legalese came with my Triton for example, but since I have not read about any brouhahas regarding this, it is probably safe to assume that end users are granted a general use license for whatever purpose including performance. That’s not to say the programmer may not get a cut of total unit sales. What probably would not be included would be
 redistribution of said programs for the purpose of the end-user profiting from that work. Pretty much the same as if you cloned a Triton and sold it as a TritonGrande’ with all the sounds intact. But there is nothing to say he couldn’t profit from performances of his work if the end-user agreement stipulated it. Kind of hard to enforce this, but the way things are getting in this world, don’t count this out some day. Particularly since we are at the point where every, and I mean every device and person will have an IPV6 address in 20 or 30 years and whatever it is we will do will have some form of tracking associated with it. Look at Microsoft. Software as a service is a prime example – compose a doc and pay them a royalty. That’s their future.
It ain;t mine.
Cheers,
John

From: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of fdoddy@aol.com
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2011 2:44 PM
To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

He probably signed a "work for hire" agreement, and besides, it is not a performance, but instead,programming.  In the US, there is no performance royalty on programming, that would make no sense.

fd

-----Original Message-----
From: mattias <Mattias.olsson5@comhem.se>
To: newmellotrongroup <newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Fri, Feb 25, 2011 12:46 pm
Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

How about the guy who programmed  the synthbrass sound  on the DX7 ?

Should he get paid or sued everytime the sound is heard on the radio ?

// Mattias

Den 2011-02-25 17.56, skrev "Mike Dickson" <mike.dickson@gmail.com>:

   On 25/02/2011 13:01, feline1973 wrote: 

Nobody knows the name of the people on the tapes and so PPL don't have this info so they ain't getting paid at present.

 Well..we know some of them. Trouble is I suspect most of them are dead.

Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

2011-02-26 by lsf5275@aol.com

John,
 
Your posts here need not be brief, but they should be filled with  
misspellings and poor syntax. Then you'll fit right in. . As for spam, I get none 
from  this group. It may be because Clay loves Spam and keeps it all for  
himself.
 
 
In a message dated 2/25/2011 8:47:11 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
hammaren@geoconcepts.com writes:

 
 
 
 
Thanks  Frank, 
Yes, it is my  first post. I hope to get pics up from your spectacular 
restoration  (resurrection is a more apt term, I think) of Mr. Neel as soon as I 
 can. 
Thanks again,  and I know this is the right group, since the spam is 
greatly outnumbered by  the relevant posts. I hope to not be so verbose in the 
future. This is a  common thing over at the Dotcom group, so it kind of rubs  
off. 
Greeting to  all. 
John

Show quoted textHide quoted text

From: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com  
[mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of  lsf5275@aol.com
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2011 6:22  PM
To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re:  [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

Welcome to the  group John! Is this your first post here?

John is the  owner of the "Johnny Neel" Mellotron, #525

Frank

In a message  dated 2/25/2011 4:30:43 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, 
hammaren@geoconcepts.com  writes:

Well, as a  programmer, that’s not entirely true. Whatever agreement was 
signed whether  that person was an employee or outside consultant would 
dictate what  remuneration was received. If the agreement stipulated that the 
employee or  consultant received a royalty in whatever fashion was agreed, then 
that  would be it. But, on the other hand the agreement would be between 
those two  entities, not the end-user or consumer. In that case, whatever 
agreement or  license agreement that was agreed to upon sale of such product 
would be in  force between end user and manufacturer of product. I have not 
looked at  whatever legalese came with my Triton for example, but since I have 
not read  about any brouhahas regarding this, it is probably safe to assume 
that end  users are granted a general use license for whatever purpose 
including  performance. That’s not to say the programmer may not get a cut of 
total  unit sales. What probably would not be included would be redistribution 
of  said programs for the purpose of the end-user profiting from that work.  
Pretty much the same as if you cloned a Triton and sold it as a  TritonGrande
’ with all the sounds intact. But there is nothing to say he  couldn’t 
profit from performances of his work if the end-user agreement  stipulated it. 
Kind of hard to enforce this, but the way things are getting  in this world, 
don’t count this out some day. Particularly since we are at  the point 
where every, and I mean every device and person will have an IPV6  address in 20 
or 30 years and whatever it is we will do will have some form  of tracking 
associated with it. Look at Microsoft. Software as a service is  a prime 
example – compose a doc and pay them a royalty. That’s their  future. 
It ain;t  mine. 
Cheers, 
John 

From: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com  
[mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of  fdoddy@aol.com
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2011 2:44  PM
To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re:  [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

He probably signed a "work  for hire" agreement, and besides, it is not a 
performance, but  instead,programming.  In the US, there is no performance 
royalty on  programming, that would make no  sense.

fd

-----Original  Message-----
From: mattias <Mattias.olsson5@comhem.se>
To:  newmellotrongroup <newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Fri,  Feb 25, 2011 12:46 pm
Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and  copyright 

How about the  guy who programmed  the synthbrass sound  on the DX7  ?

Should he get paid or sued everytime the sound is heard on the  radio ?

// Mattias

Den 2011-02-25 17.56, skrev "Mike  Dickson" <_mike.dickson@gmail.com_ 
(mailto:mike.dickson@gmail.com) >:

On  25/02/2011 13:01, feline1973 wrote:  

Nobody  knows the name of the people on the tapes and so PPL don't have 
this info  so they ain't getting paid at  present.

Well..we know some of  them. Trouble is I suspect most of them are dead.

Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

2011-02-26 by lsf5275@aol.com

I'm pretty sure the lovely Lemon Sisters are in there somewhere, as well as 
 a few members of the King Family Singers.
 
 
In a message dated 2/25/2011 10:44:13 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
charel196@yahoo.com writes:

 
 
 
I want to know the names of the 8 people singing on the Mellotron choir  
tape "8 choir"....they need to be paid for every Strawbs & Genesis tune  their 
voices appear on.

--- In _newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com_ 
(mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com) ,  lsf5275@... wrote:

Show quoted textHide quoted text

>
> Funny!
> 
> 
> In a  message dated 2/25/2011 12:46:19 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, 
>  Mattias.olsson5@... writes:
> 
> How about the guy who programmed  the synthbrass sound on the DX7 ?
> 
> Should he get paid or sued  everytime the sound is heard on the radio ?
> 
> //  Mattias
>

RE: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

2011-02-26 by John Hammaren

I do violate every rule of the programmer, both coding wise (screw elegant code – how about we make the thing work), and writing (I dated an English instructor in college and I was beaten into submission!). I will attempt to throw a misspelling in here and there, and who knows – maybe even some bad grammar. J Just give me a chance.

John

Show quoted textHide quoted text

From: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of lsf5275@aol.com
Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2011 12:54 AM
To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

John,

Your posts here need not be brief, but they should be filled with misspellings and poor syntax. Then you'll fit right in. . As for spam, I get none from this group. It may be because Clay loves Spam and keeps it all for himself.

In a message dated 2/25/2011 8:47:11 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, hammaren@geoconcepts.com writes:

Thanks Frank,
Yes, it is my first post. I hope to get pics up from your spectacular restoration (resurrection is a more apt term, I think) of Mr. Neel as soon as I can.
Thanks again, and I know this is the right group, since the spam is greatly outnumbered by the relevant posts. I hope to not be so verbose in the future. This is a common thing over at the Dotcom group, so it kind of rubs off.
Greeting to all.
John
From: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of lsf5275@aol.com
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2011 6:22 PM
To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

Welcome to the group John! Is this your first post here?
John is the owner of the "Johnny Neel" Mellotron, #525
Frank
In a message dated 2/25/2011 4:30:43 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, hammaren@geoconcepts.com writes:

Well, as a programmer, that’s not entirely true. Whatever agreement was signed whether that person was an employee or outside consultant would dictate what remuneration was received. If the agreement stipulated that the employee or consultant received a royalty in whatever fashion was agreed, then that would be it. But, on the other hand the agreement would be between those two entities, not the end-user or consumer. In that case, whatever agreement or license agreement that was agreed to upon sale of such product would be in force between end user and manufacturer of product. I have not looked at whatever legalese came with my Triton for example, but since I have not read about any brouhahas regarding this, it is probably safe to assume that end users are granted a general use license for whatever purpose including performance. That’s not to say the programmer may not get a cut of total unit sales. What probably would not be included would be redistribution of said programs for the purpose of the end-user profiting from that work. Pretty much the same as if you cloned a Triton and sold it as a TritonGrande’ with all the sounds intact. But there is nothing to say he couldn’t profit from performances of his work if the end-user agreement stipulated it. Kind of hard to enforce this, but the way things are getting in this world, don’t count this out some day. Particularly since we are at the point where every, and I mean every device and person will have an IPV6 address in 20 or 30 years and whatever it is we will do will have some form of tracking associated with it. Look at Microsoft. Software as a service is a prime example – compose a doc and pay them a royalty. That’s their future.
It ain;t mine.
Cheers,
John
From: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of fdoddy@aol.com
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2011 2:44 PM
To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

He probably signed a "work for hire" agreement, and besides, it is not a performance, but instead,programming. In the US, there is no performance royalty on programming, that would make no sense.

fd

-----Original Message-----
From: mattias <Mattias.olsson5@comhem.se>
To: newmellotrongroup <newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Fri, Feb 25, 2011 12:46 pm
Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

How about the guy who programmed the synthbrass sound on the DX7 ?

Should he get paid or sued everytime the sound is heard on the radio ?

// Mattias

Den 2011-02-25 17.56, skrev "Mike Dickson" <mike.dickson@gmail.com>:

On 25/02/2011 13:01, feline1973 wrote:

Nobody knows the name of the people on the tapes and so PPL don't have this info so they ain't getting paid at present.

Well..we know some of them. Trouble is I suspect most of them are dead.

Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

2011-02-26 by mattias

How you think ?

Den 2011-02-26 12.59, skrev "John Hammaren" :

I do violate every rule of the programmer, both coding wise (screw elegant code \u2013 how about we make the thing work), and writing (I dated an English instructor in college and I was beaten into submission!). I will attempt to throw a misspelling in here and there, and who knows \u2013 maybe even some bad grammar. J Just give me a chance.

John

Show quoted textHide quoted text

From: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of lsf5275@aol.com
Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2011 12:54 AM
To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

John,

Your posts here need not be brief, but they should be filled with misspellings and poor syntax. Then you'll fit right in. . As for spam, I get none from this group. It may be because Clay loves Spam and keeps it all for himself.

In a message dated 2/25/2011 8:47:11 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, hammaren@geoconcepts.com writes:

Thanks Frank,
Yes, it is my first post. I hope to get pics up from your spectacular restoration (resurrection is a more apt term, I think) of Mr. Neel as soon as I can.
Thanks again, and I know this is the right group, since the spam is greatly outnumbered by the relevant posts. I hope to not be so verbose in the future. This is a common thing over at the Dotcom group, so it kind of rubs off.
Greeting to all.
John

From: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of lsf5275@aol.com
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2011 6:22 PM
To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

Welcome to the group John! Is this your first post here?

John is the owner of the "Johnny Neel" Mellotron, #525

Frank

In a message dated 2/25/2011 4:30:43 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, hammaren@geoconcepts.com writes:

Well, as a programmer, that\u2019s not entirely true. Whatever agreement was signed whether that person was an employee or outside consultant would dictate what remuneration was received. If the agreement stipulated that the employee or consultant received a royalty in whatever fashion was agreed, then that would be it. But, on the other hand the agreement would be between those two entities, not the end-user or consumer. In that case, whatever agreement or license agreement that was agreed to upon sale of such product would be in force between end user and manufacturer of product. I have not looked at whatever legalese came with my Triton for example, but since I have not read about any brouhahas regarding this, it is probably safe to assume that end users are granted a general use license for whatever purpose including performance. That\u2019s not to say the programmer may not get a cut of total unit sales. What probably would not be included would be redistribution of said programs for the purpose of the end-user profiting from that work. Pretty much the same as if you cloned a Triton and sold it as a TritonGrande\u2019 with all the sounds intact. But there is nothing to say he couldn\u2019t profit from performances of his work if the end-user agreement stipulated it. Kind of hard to enforce this, but the way things are getting in this world, don\u2019t count this out some day. Particularly since we are at the point where every, and I mean every device and person will have an IPV6 address in 20 or 30 years and whatever it is we will do will have some form of tracking associated with it. Look at Microsoft. Software as a service is a prime example \u2013 compose a doc and pay them a royalty. That\u2019s their future.
It ain;t mine.
Cheers,
John

From: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of fdoddy@aol.com
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2011 2:44 PM
To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

He probably signed a "work for hire" agreement, and besides, it is not a performance, but instead,programming. In the US, there is no performance royalty on programming, that would make no sense.

fd

-----Original Message-----
From: mattias
To: newmellotrongroup
Sent: Fri, Feb 25, 2011 12:46 pm
Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

How about the guy who programmed the synthbrass sound on the DX7 ?

Should he get paid or sued everytime the sound is heard on the radio ?

// Mattias

Den 2011-02-25 17.56, skrev "Mike Dickson" :

On 25/02/2011 13:01, feline1973 wrote:

Nobody knows the name of the people on the tapes and so PPL don't have this info so they ain't getting paid at present.

Well..we know some of them. Trouble is I suspect most of them are dead.

;

RE: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

2011-02-26 by John Hammaren

Too much, unfortunately. LOL

Show quoted textHide quoted text

From: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of mattias
Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2011 7:09 AM
To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

How you think ?

Den 2011-02-26 12.59, skrev "John Hammaren" <hammaren@geoconcepts.com>:

I do violate every rule of the programmer, both coding wise (screw elegant code - how about we make the thing work), and writing (I dated an English instructor in college and I was beaten into submission!). I will attempt to throw a misspelling in here and there, and who knows - maybe even some bad grammar. :) Just give me a chance.

John

From: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of lsf5275@aol.com
Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2011 12:54 AM
To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

John,

Your posts here need not be brief, but they should be filled with misspellings and poor syntax. Then you'll fit right in. . As for spam, I get none from this group. It may be because Clay loves Spam and keeps it all for himself.

In a message dated 2/25/2011 8:47:11 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, hammaren@geoconcepts.com writes:

Thanks Frank,
Yes, it is my first post. I hope to get pics up from your spectacular restoration (resurrection is a more apt term, I think) of Mr. Neel as soon as I can.
Thanks again, and I know this is the right group, since the spam is greatly outnumbered by the relevant posts. I hope to not be so verbose in the future. This is a common thing over at the Dotcom group, so it kind of rubs off.
Greeting to all.
John

From: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of lsf5275@aol.com
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2011 6:22 PM
To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

Welcome to the group John! Is this your first post here?

John is the owner of the "Johnny Neel" Mellotron, #525

Frank

In a message dated 2/25/2011 4:30:43 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, hammaren@geoconcepts.com writes:

Well, as a programmer, that's not entirely true. Whatever agreement was signed whether that person was an employee or outside consultant would dictate what remuneration was received. If the agreement stipulated that the employee or consultant received a royalty in whatever fashion was agreed, then that would be it. But, on the other hand the agreement would be between those two entities, not the end-user or consumer. In that case, whatever agreement or license agreement that was agreed to upon sale of such product would be in force between end user and manufacturer of product. I have not looked at whatever legalese came with my Triton for example, but since I have not read about any brouhahas regarding this, it is probably safe to assume that end users are granted a general use license for whatever purpose including performance. That's not to say the programmer may not get a cut of total unit sales. What probably would not be included would be redistribution of said programs for the purpose of the end-user profiting from that work. Pretty much the same as if you cloned a Triton and sold it as a TritonGrande' with all the sounds intact. But there is nothing to say he couldn't profit from performances of his work if the end-user agreement stipulated it. Kind of hard to enforce this, but the way things are getting in this world, don't count this out some day. Particularly since we are at the point where every, and I mean every device and person will have an IPV6 address in 20 or 30 years and whatever it is we will do will have some form of tracking associated with it. Look at Microsoft. Software as a service is a prime example - compose a doc and pay them a royalty. That's their future.
It ain;t mine.
Cheers,
John

From: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of fdoddy@aol.com
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2011 2:44 PM
To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

He probably signed a "work for hire" agreement, and besides, it is not a performance, but instead,programming.  In the US, there is no performance royalty on programming, that would make no sense.

fd

-----Original Message-----
From: mattias <Mattias.olsson5@comhem.se>
To: newmellotrongroup <newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Fri, Feb 25, 2011 12:46 pm
Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

How about the guy who programmed  the synthbrass sound  on the DX7 ?

Should he get paid or sued everytime the sound is heard on the radio ?

// Mattias

Den 2011-02-25 17.56, skrev "Mike Dickson" <mike.dickson@gmail.com>:

   On 25/02/2011 13:01, feline1973 wrote:

Nobody knows the name of the people on the tapes and so PPL don't have this info so they ain't getting paid at present.

 Well..we know some of them. Trouble is I suspect most of them are dead.

Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

2011-02-26 by Tony

John welcome!
You're going to fit right in!

Best,
Tony #510

Show quoted textHide quoted text

----- Original Message -----
From: John Hammaren
To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2011 6:59 AM
Subject: RE: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

I do violate every rule of the programmer, both coding wise (screw elegant code – how about we make the thing work), and writing (I dated an English instructor in college and I was beaten into submission!). I will attempt to throw a misspelling in here and there, and who knows – maybe even some bad grammar. J Just give me a chance.

John

From: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of lsf5275@aol.com
Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2011 12:54 AM
To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

John,

Your posts here need not be brief, but they should be filled with misspellings and poor syntax. Then you'll fit right in. . As for spam, I get none from this group. It may be because Clay loves Spam and keeps it all for himself.

In a message dated 2/25/2011 8:47:11 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, hammaren@geoconcepts.com writes:

Thanks Frank,

Yes, it is my first post. I hope to get pics up from your spectacular restoration (resurrection is a more apt term, I think) of Mr. Neel as soon as I can.

Thanks again, and I know this is the right group, since the spam is greatly outnumbered by the relevant posts. I hope to not be so verbose in the future. This is a common thing over at the Dotcom group, so it kind of rubs off.

Greeting to all.

John

From: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of lsf5275@aol.com
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2011 6:22 PM
To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

Welcome to the group John! Is this your first post here?

John is the owner of the "Johnny Neel" Mellotron, #525

Frank

In a message dated 2/25/2011 4:30:43 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, hammaren@geoconcepts.com writes:

Well, as a programmer, that’s not entirely true. Whatever agreement was signed whether that person was an employee or outside consultant would dictate what remuneration was received. If the agreement stipulated that the employee or consultant received a royalty in whatever fashion was agreed, then that would be it. But, on the other hand the agreement would be between those two entities, not the end-user or consumer. In that case, whatever agreement or license agreement that was agreed to upon sale of such product would be in force between end user and manufacturer of product. I have not looked at whatever legalese came with my Triton for example, but since I have not read about any brouhahas regarding this, it is probably safe to assume that end users are granted a general use license for whatever purpose including performance. That’s not to say the programmer may not get a cut of total unit sales. What probably would not be included would be redistribution of said programs for the purpose of the end-user profiting from that work. Pretty much the same as if you cloned a Triton and sold it as a TritonGrande’ with all the sounds intact. But there is nothing to say he couldn’t profit from performances of his work if the end-user agreement stipulated it. Kind of hard to enforce this, but the way things are getting in this world, don’t count this out some day. Particularly since we are at the point where every, and I mean every device and person will have an IPV6 address in 20 or 30 years and whatever it is we will do will have some form of tracking associated with it. Look at Microsoft. Software as a service is a prime example – compose a doc and pay them a royalty. That’s their future.

It ain;t mine.

Cheers,

John

From: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of fdoddy@aol.com
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2011 2:44 PM
To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

He probably signed a "work for hire" agreement, and besides, it is not a performance, but instead,programming. In the US, there is no performance royalty on programming, that would make no sense.

fd

-----Original Message-----
From: mattias <Mattias.olsson5@comhem.se>
To: newmellotrongroup <newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Fri, Feb 25, 2011 12:46 pm
Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

How about the guy who programmed the synthbrass sound on the DX7 ?

Should he get paid or sued everytime the sound is heard on the radio ?

// Mattias

Den 2011-02-25 17.56, skrev "Mike Dickson" <mike.dickson@gmail.com>:

On 25/02/2011 13:01, feline1973 wrote:

Nobody knows the name of the people on the tapes and so PPL don't have this info so they ain't getting paid at present.

Well..we know some of them. Trouble is I suspect most of them are dead.

RE: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

2011-02-26 by John Hammaren

Gee Tony, you’re #510, me #525. Gosh, we’re almost family! Mr. Neel and yours probably spoke to each other back in ’71 before they left for a life of abuse and foster families.

Show quoted textHide quoted text

From: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Tony
Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2011 8:09 AM
To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

John welcome!

You're going to fit right in!

Best,

Tony #510

----- Original Message -----
From: John Hammaren
To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2011 6:59 AM
Subject: RE: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

I do violate every rule of the programmer, both coding wise (screw elegant code – how about we make the thing work), and writing (I dated an English instructor in college and I was beaten into submission!). I will attempt to throw a misspelling in here and there, and who knows – maybe even some bad grammar. J Just give me a chance.
John
From: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of lsf5275@aol.com
Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2011 12:54 AM
To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

John,
Your posts here need not be brief, but they should be filled with misspellings and poor syntax. Then you'll fit right in. . As for spam, I get none from this group. It may be because Clay loves Spam and keeps it all for himself.
In a message dated 2/25/2011 8:47:11 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, hammaren@geoconcepts.com writes:

Thanks Frank,
Yes, it is my first post. I hope to get pics up from your spectacular restoration (resurrection is a more apt term, I think) of Mr. Neel as soon as I can.
Thanks again, and I know this is the right group, since the spam is greatly outnumbered by the relevant posts. I hope to not be so verbose in the future. This is a common thing over at the Dotcom group, so it kind of rubs off.
Greeting to all.
John
From: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of lsf5275@aol.com
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2011 6:22 PM
To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

Welcome to the group John! Is this your first post here?
John is the owner of the "Johnny Neel" Mellotron, #525
Frank
In a message dated 2/25/2011 4:30:43 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, hammaren@geoconcepts.com writes:

Well, as a programmer, that’s not entirely true. Whatever agreement was signed whether that person was an employee or outside consultant would dictate what remuneration was received. If the agreement stipulated that the employee or consultant received a royalty in whatever fashion was agreed, then that would be it. But, on the other hand the agreement would be between those two entities, not the end-user or consumer. In that case, whatever agreement or license agreement that was agreed to upon sale of such product would be in force between end user and manufacturer of product. I have not looked at whatever legalese came with my Triton for example, but since I have not read about any brouhahas regarding this, it is probably safe to assume that end users are granted a general use license for whatever purpose including performance. That’s not to say the programmer may not get a cut of total unit sales. What probably would not be included would be redistribution of said programs for the purpose of the end-user profiting from that work. Pretty much the same as if you cloned a Triton and sold it as a TritonGrande’ with all the sounds intact. But there is nothing to say he couldn’t profit from performances of his work if the end-user agreement stipulated it. Kind of hard to enforce this, but the way things are getting in this world, don’t count this out some day. Particularly since we are at the point where every, and I mean every device and person will have an IPV6 address in 20 or 30 years and whatever it is we will do will have some form of tracking associated with it. Look at Microsoft. Software as a service is a prime example – compose a doc and pay them a royalty. That’s their future.
It ain;t mine.
Cheers,
John
From: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of fdoddy@aol.com
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2011 2:44 PM
To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

He probably signed a "work for hire" agreement, and besides, it is not a performance, but instead,programming. In the US, there is no performance royalty on programming, that would make no sense.

fd

-----Original Message-----
From: mattias <Mattias.olsson5@comhem.se>
To: newmellotrongroup <newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Fri, Feb 25, 2011 12:46 pm
Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

How about the guy who programmed the synthbrass sound on the DX7 ?

Should he get paid or sued everytime the sound is heard on the radio ?

// Mattias

Den 2011-02-25 17.56, skrev "Mike Dickson" <mike.dickson@gmail.com>:

On 25/02/2011 13:01, feline1973 wrote:

Nobody knows the name of the people on the tapes and so PPL don't have this info so they ain't getting paid at present.

Well..we know some of them. Trouble is I suspect most of them are dead.

Re: samples and copyright

2011-02-26 by tron400

Welcome John!

Bernie
M400 #500 (formerly #497)


--- In newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com, John Hammaren <hammaren@...> wrote:

Show quoted textHide quoted text

>
> Gee Tony, youâre #510, me #525. Gosh, weâre almost family! Mr. Neel and yours probably spoke to each other back in â71 before they left for a life of abuse and foster families.
> 
> From: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Tony
> Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2011 8:09 AM
> To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright
> 
> 
> 
> ï»¿
> John welcome!
> You're going to fit right in!
> 
> Best,
> Tony #510
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: John Hammaren<mailto:hammaren@...>
> To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com<mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2011 6:59 AM
> Subject: RE: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright
> 
> 
> I do violate every rule of the programmer, both coding wise (screw elegant code â" how about we make the thing work), and writing (I dated an English instructor in college and I was beaten into submission!). I will attempt to throw a misspelling in here and there, and who knows â" maybe even some bad grammar. âº Just give me a chance.
> John
> From: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com<mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com> [mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of lsf5275@...
> Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2011 12:54 AM
> To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright
> 
> John,
> Your posts here need not be brief, but they should be filled with misspellings and poor syntax. Then you'll fit right in. [http://cdn-cf.aol.com/se/smi/2b00000243/08] . As for spam, I get none from this group. It may be because Clay loves Spam and keeps it all for himself.
> In a message dated 2/25/2011 8:47:11 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, hammaren@... writes:
> 
> Thanks Frank,
> Yes, it is my first post. I hope to get pics up from your spectacular restoration (resurrection is a more apt term, I think) of Mr. Neel as soon as I can.
> Thanks again, and I know this is the right group, since the spam is greatly outnumbered by the relevant posts. I hope to not be so verbose in the future. This is a common thing over at the Dotcom group, so it kind of rubs off.
> Greeting to all.
> John
> From: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of lsf5275@...
> Sent: Friday, February 25, 2011 6:22 PM
> To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright
> 
> Welcome to the group John! Is this your first post here?
> John is the owner of the "Johnny Neel" Mellotron, #525
> Frank
> In a message dated 2/25/2011 4:30:43 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, hammaren@... writes:
> 
> Well, as a programmer, thatâs not entirely true. Whatever agreement was signed whether that person was an employee or outside consultant would dictate what remuneration was received. If the agreement stipulated that the employee or consultant received a royalty in whatever fashion was agreed, then that would be it. But, on the other hand the agreement would be between those two entities, not the end-user or consumer. In that case, whatever agreement or license agreement that was agreed to upon sale of such product would be in force between end user and manufacturer of product. I have not looked at whatever legalese came with my Triton for example, but since I have not read about any brouhahas regarding this, it is probably safe to assume that end users are granted a general use license for whatever purpose including performance. Thatâs not to say the programmer may not get a cut of total unit sales. What probably would not be included would be redistribution of said programs for the purpose of the end-user profiting from that work. Pretty much the same as if you cloned a Triton and sold it as a TritonGrandeâ with all the sounds intact. But there is nothing to say he couldnât profit from performances of his work if the end-user agreement stipulated it. Kind of hard to enforce this, but the way things are getting in this world, donât count this out some day. Particularly since we are at the point where every, and I mean every device and person will have an IPV6 address in 20 or 30 years and whatever it is we will do will have some form of tracking associated with it. Look at Microsoft. Software as a service is a prime example â" compose a doc and pay them a royalty. Thatâs their future.
> It ain;t mine.
> Cheers,
> John
> From: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of fdoddy@...
> Sent: Friday, February 25, 2011 2:44 PM
> To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright
> 
> 
> He probably signed a "work for hire" agreement, and besides, it is not a performance, but instead,programming.  In the US, there is no performance royalty on programming, that would make no sense.
> 
> 
> fd
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mattias <Mattias.olsson5@...>
> To: newmellotrongroup <newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Fri, Feb 25, 2011 12:46 pm
> Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright
> 
> How about the guy who programmed  the synthbrass sound  on the DX7 ?
> 
> Should he get paid or sued everytime the sound is heard on the radio ?
> 
> // Mattias
> 
> 
> Den 2011-02-25 17.56, skrev "Mike Dickson" <mike.dickson@...<mailto:mike.dickson@...>>:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>    On 25/02/2011 13:01, feline1973 wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody knows the name of the people on the tapes and so PPL don't have this info so they ain't getting paid at present.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Well..we know some of them. Trouble is I suspect most of them are dead.
>

Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

2011-02-26 by fdoddy@aol.com

Thanks for the clarification John.  I was merely referring to a performance royalty (on synth programming) from a musical reference as it would relate to a musical performance. In my 30 plus years in music I have never encountered it nor had the option of pursuing it when I had the occasional gig as a programmer (synth that is) I understand your point completely from an intellectual property/software standpoint.

In my field, it is getting harder and harder to retain the right to profit from a performance over time, so my guess is entry into the coveted world of royalties is being squeezed everywhere.  At least Intellectual property/ownership rights are still intact!

fritz

Show quoted textHide quoted text

-----Original Message-----
From: lsf5275 <lsf5275@aol.com>
To: newmellotrongroup <newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Fri, Feb 25, 2011 6:22 pm
Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

Welcome to the group John! Is this your first post here?

John is the owner of the "Johnny Neel" Mellotron, #525

Frank

In a message dated 2/25/2011 4:30:43 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, hammaren@geoconcepts.com writes:

Well, as a   programmer, that’s not entirely true. Whatever agreement was signed whether   that person was an employee or outside consultant would dictate what   remuneration was received. If the agreement stipulated that the employee or   consultant received a royalty in whatever fashion was agreed, then that would   be it. But, on the other hand the agreement would be between those two   entities, not the end-user or consumer. In that case, whatever agreement or   license agreement that was agreed to upon sale of such product would be in   force between end user and manufacturer of product. I have not looked at   whatever legalese came with my Triton for example, but since I have not read   about any brouhahas regarding this, it is probably safe to assume that end   users are granted a general use license for whatever purpose including   performance. That’s not to say the programmer may not get a cut of total unit   sales. What probably would not be included would be redistribution of said   programs for the purpose of the end-user profiting from that work. Pretty much   the same as if you cloned a Triton and sold it as a TritonGrande’ with all the   sounds intact. But there is nothing to say he couldn’t profit from   performances of his work if the end-user agreement stipulated it. Kind of hard   to enforce this, but the way things are getting in this world, don’t count   this out some day. Particularly since we are at the point where every, and I   mean every device and person will have an IPV6 address in 20 or 30 years and   whatever it is we will do will have some form of tracking associated with it.   Look at Microsoft. Software as a service is a prime example – compose a doc   and pay them a royalty. That’s their future.

It ain;t   mine.

Cheers,

John

From: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com   [mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of   fdoddy@aol.com
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2011 2:44   PM
To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re:   [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

He probably signed a "work for   hire" agreement, and besides, it is not a performance, but   instead,programming.  In the US, there is no performance royalty on   programming, that would make no sense.

fd

-----Original   Message-----
From: mattias <Mattias.olsson5@comhem.se>
To:   newmellotrongroup <newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Fri, Feb   25, 2011 12:46 pm
Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and   copyright

How about the   guy who programmed  the synthbrass sound  on the DX7 ?

Should   he get paid or sued everytime the sound is heard on the radio ?

//   Mattias

Den 2011-02-25 17.56, skrev "Mike Dickson" <mike.dickson@gmail.com>:

   On     25/02/2011 13:01, feline1973 wrote: 

Nobody     knows the name of the people on the tapes and so PPL don't have this info so     they ain't getting paid at     present.

 Well..we know some of them.     Trouble is I suspect most of them are dead.

Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

2011-02-26 by Tony

Yes Frank I noticed that too!
Same batch I reckon, there was another very close to mine for sale awhile ago and he's a member now too.
Hope he pops up and says hey!
We're one big family anyway and as mentioned, sometimes at friendly odds, so pull the belts tight it can be a wild ride, lol.
All good fun!
Tony

Show quoted textHide quoted text

----- Original Message -----
From: John Hammaren
To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2011 8:13 AM
Subject: RE: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

Gee Tony, you’re #510, me #525. Gosh, we’re almost family! Mr. Neel and yours probably spoke to each other back in ’71 before they left for a life of abuse and foster families.

From: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Tony
Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2011 8:09 AM
To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

John welcome!

You're going to fit right in!

Best,

Tony #510

----- Original Message -----

From: John Hammaren

To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2011 6:59 AM

Subject: RE: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

I do violate every rule of the programmer, both coding wise (screw elegant code – how about we make the thing work), and writing (I dated an English instructor in college and I was beaten into submission!). I will attempt to throw a misspelling in here and there, and who knows – maybe even some bad grammar. J Just give me a chance.

John

From: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of lsf5275@aol.com
Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2011 12:54 AM
To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

John,

Your posts here need not be brief, but they should be filled with misspellings and poor syntax. Then you'll fit right in. . As for spam, I get none from this group. It may be because Clay loves Spam and keeps it all for himself.

In a message dated 2/25/2011 8:47:11 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, hammaren@geoconcepts.com writes:

Thanks Frank,

Yes, it is my first post. I hope to get pics up from your spectacular restoration (resurrection is a more apt term, I think) of Mr. Neel as soon as I can.

Thanks again, and I know this is the right group, since the spam is greatly outnumbered by the relevant posts. I hope to not be so verbose in the future. This is a common thing over at the Dotcom group, so it kind of rubs off.

Greeting to all.

John

From: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of lsf5275@aol.com
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2011 6:22 PM
To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

Welcome to the group John! Is this your first post here?

John is the owner of the "Johnny Neel" Mellotron, #525

Frank

In a message dated 2/25/2011 4:30:43 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, hammaren@geoconcepts.com writes:

Well, as a programmer, that’s not entirely true. Whatever agreement was signed whether that person was an employee or outside consultant would dictate what remuneration was received. If the agreement stipulated that the employee or consultant received a royalty in whatever fashion was agreed, then that would be it. But, on the other hand the agreement would be between those two entities, not the end-user or consumer. In that case, whatever agreement or license agreement that was agreed to upon sale of such product would be in force between end user and manufacturer of product. I have not looked at whatever legalese came with my Triton for example, but since I have not read about any brouhahas regarding this, it is probably safe to assume that end users are granted a general use license for whatever purpose including performance. That’s not to say the programmer may not get a cut of total unit sales. What probably would not be included would be redistribution of said programs for the purpose of the end-user profiting from that work. Pretty much the same as if you cloned a Triton and sold it as a TritonGrande’ with all the sounds intact. But there is nothing to say he couldn’t profit from performances of his work if the end-user agreement stipulated it. Kind of hard to enforce this, but the way things are getting in this world, don’t count this out some day. Particularly since we are at the point where every, and I mean every device and person will have an IPV6 address in 20 or 30 years and whatever it is we will do will have some form of tracking associated with it. Look at Microsoft. Software as a service is a prime example – compose a doc and pay them a royalty. That’s their future.

It ain;t mine.

Cheers,

John

From: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of fdoddy@aol.com
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2011 2:44 PM
To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

He probably signed a "work for hire" agreement, and besides, it is not a performance, but instead,programming. In the US, there is no performance royalty on programming, that would make no sense.

fd

-----Original Message-----
From: mattias <Mattias.olsson5@comhem.se>
To: newmellotrongroup <newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Fri, Feb 25, 2011 12:46 pm
Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

How about the guy who programmed the synthbrass sound on the DX7 ?

Should he get paid or sued everytime the sound is heard on the radio ?

// Mattias

Den 2011-02-25 17.56, skrev "Mike Dickson" <mike.dickson@gmail.com>:

On 25/02/2011 13:01, feline1973 wrote:

Nobody knows the name of the people on the tapes and so PPL don't have this info so they ain't getting paid at present.

Well..we know some of them. Trouble is I suspect most of them are dead.

Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

2011-02-26 by Vance Pomeroy

Welcome to the group John

On 2/26/2011 5:37 AM, tron400 wrote:

Show quoted textHide quoted text

Welcome John!

Bernie
M400 #500 (formerly #497)

--- In newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com, John Hammaren wrote:
>
> Gee Tony, youâ\u20ac\u2122re #510, me #525. Gosh, weâ\u20ac\u2122re almost family! Mr. Neel and yours probably spoke to each other back in â\u20ac\u212271 before they left for a life of abuse and foster families.
>
> From: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Tony
> Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2011 8:09 AM
> To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright
>
>
>
> ï»¿
> John welcome!
> You're going to fit right in!
>
> Best,
> Tony #510
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: John Hammaren
> To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.comnewmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2011 6:59 AM
> Subject: RE: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright
>
>
> I do violate every rule of the programmer, both coding wise (screw elegant code â\u20ac" how about we make the thing work), and writing (I dated an English instructor in college and I was beaten into submission!). I will attempt to throw a misspelling in here and there, and who knows â\u20ac" maybe even some bad grammar. â\u02dcº Just give me a chance.
> John
> From: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.comnewmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com> [mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of lsf5275@...
> Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2011 12:54 AM
> To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright
>
> John,
> Your posts here need not be brief, but they should be filled with misspellings and poor syntax. Then you'll fit right in. [http://cdn-cf.aol.com/se/smi/2b00000243/08] . As for spam, I get none from this group. It may be because Clay loves Spam and keeps it all for himself.
> In a message dated 2/25/2011 8:47:11 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, hammaren@... writes:
>
> Thanks Frank,
> Yes, it is my first post. I hope to get pics up from your spectacular restoration (resurrection is a more apt term, I think) of Mr. Neel as soon as I can.
> Thanks again, and I know this is the right group, since the spam is greatly outnumbered by the relevant posts. I hope to not be so verbose in the future. This is a common thing over at the Dotcom group, so it kind of rubs off.
> Greeting to all.
> John
> From: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of lsf5275@...
> Sent: Friday, February 25, 2011 6:22 PM
> To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright
>
> Welcome to the group John! Is this your first post here?
> John is the owner of the "Johnny Neel" Mellotron, #525
> Frank
> In a message dated 2/25/2011 4:30:43 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, hammaren@... writes:
>
> Well, as a programmer, thatâ\u20ac\u2122s not entirely true. Whatever agreement was signed whether that person was an employee or outside consultant would dictate what remuneration was received. If the agreement stipulated that the employee or consultant received a royalty in whatever fashion was agreed, then that would be it. But, on the other hand the agreement would be between those two entities, not the end-user or consumer. In that case, whatever agreement or license agreement that was agreed to upon sale of such product would be in force between end user and manufacturer of product. I have not looked at whatever legalese came with my Triton for example, but since I have not read about any brouhahas regarding this, it is probably safe to assume that end users are granted a general use license for whatever purpose including performance. Thatâ\u20ac\u2122s not to say the programmer may not get a cut of total unit sales. What probably would not be included would be redistribution of said programs for the purpose of the end-user profiting from that work. Pretty much the same as if you cloned a Triton and sold it as a TritonGrandeâ\u20ac\u2122 with all the sounds intact. But there is nothing to say he couldnâ\u20ac\u2122t profit from performances of his work if the end-user agreement stipulated it. Kind of hard to enforce this, but the way things are getting in this world, donâ\u20ac\u2122t count this out some day. Particularly since we are at the point where every, and I mean every device and person will have an IPV6 address in 20 or 30 years and whatever it is we will do will have some form of tracking associated with it. Look at Microsoft. Software as a service is a prime example â\u20ac" compose a doc and pay them a royalty. Thatâ\u20ac\u2122s their future.
> It ain;t mine.
> Cheers,
> John
> From: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of fdoddy@...
> Sent: Friday, February 25, 2011 2:44 PM
> To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright
>
>
> He probably signed a "work for hire" agreement, and besides, it is not a performance, but instead,programming. In the US, there is no performance royalty on programming, that would make no sense.
>
>
> fd
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mattias
> To: newmellotrongroup <newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Fri, Feb 25, 2011 12:46 pm
> Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright
>
> How about the guy who programmed the synthbrass sound on the DX7 ?
>
> Should he get paid or sued everytime the sound is heard on the radio ?
>
> // Mattias
>
>
> Den 2011-02-25 17.56, skrev "Mike Dickson" >:
>
>
>
>
>
> On 25/02/2011 13:01, feline1973 wrote:
>
>
>
> Nobody knows the name of the people on the tapes and so PPL don't have this info so they ain't getting paid at present.
>
>
>
>
> Well..we know some of them. Trouble is I suspect most of them are dead.
>

Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

2011-02-26 by lsf5275@aol.com

Tony, 525 belongs to John Hammaren. I just restored it for him. You meant  
John. 
 
By the way, I know we're right at the limit of the number of Franks allowed 
 in the group. Clay, how are we doing on Johns? Hammaren should be bringing 
us  close to the acceptable limit, right?
 
 
In a message dated 2/26/2011 9:58:20 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
atm655@verizon.net writes:

 
 
 
  
Yes Frank I noticed that  too!
Same batch I reckon, there was another  very close to mine for sale awhile 
ago and he's a member now too.
Hope he pops up and says  hey!
We're one big family anyway and as  mentioned, sometimes at friendly odds, 
so pull the belts tight it can be a  wild ride, lol.
All good fun!
Tony

Show quoted textHide quoted text

----- Original Message ----- 
From: _John Hammaren_ (mailto:hammaren@geoconcepts.com)  
To: _newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com_ 
(mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com)   
Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2011 8:13  AM
Subject: RE: [newmellotrongroup] Re:  samples and copyright

Gee Tony,  you’re #510, me #525. Gosh, we’re almost family! Mr. Neel and 
yours probably  spoke to each other back in ’71 before they left for a life 
of abuse and  foster families. 

From: _newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com_ 
(mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com)   [mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of  Tony
Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2011 8:09 AM
To:  _newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com_ 
(mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com) 
Subject:  Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and  copyright

John  welcome!

You're going to fit  right in!

Best,

Tony  #510

----- Original Message  ----- 

From: _John Hammaren_ (mailto:hammaren@geoconcepts.com)   

To: _newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com_ 
(mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com)   

Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2011 6:59  AM

Subject:  RE: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

I do  violate every rule of the programmer, both coding wise (screw elegant 
code  – how about we make the thing work), and writing (I dated an English  
instructor in college and I was beaten into submission!). I will attempt  
to throw a misspelling in here and there, and who knows – maybe even some  
bad grammar. J Just give me a  chance. 
John 

From: _newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com_ 
(mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com)   [mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of  
lsf5275@aol.com
Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2011 12:54  AM
To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re:  [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and  copyright

John,

Your posts  here need not be brief, but they should be filled with 
misspellings and  poor syntax. Then you'll fit right in. . As for spam, I  get none 
from this group. It may be because Clay loves Spam and keeps it  all for 
himself.

In a  message dated 2/25/2011 8:47:11 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
hammaren@geoconcepts.com writes:

Thanks  Frank, 
Yes, it  is my first post. I hope to get pics up from your spectacular  
restoration (resurrection is a more apt term, I think) of Mr. Neel as  soon as 
I can. 
Thanks  again, and I know this is the right group, since the spam is 
greatly  outnumbered by the relevant posts. I hope to not be so verbose in the  
future. This is a common thing over at the Dotcom group, so it kind of  rubs 
off. 
Greeting to  all. 
John 

From: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com  
[mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of  lsf5275@aol.com
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2011 6:22  PM
To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
Subject:  Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and  copyright

Welcome  to the group John! Is this your first post here?

John is  the owner of the "Johnny Neel" Mellotron, #525

Frank

In a  message dated 2/25/2011 4:30:43 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
hammaren@geoconcepts.com writes:

Well,  as a programmer, that’s not entirely true. Whatever agreement was  
signed whether that person was an employee or outside consultant would  
dictate what remuneration was received. If the agreement stipulated  that the 
employee or consultant received a royalty in whatever fashion  was agreed, then 
that would be it. But, on the other hand the  agreement would be between 
those two entities, not the end-user or  consumer. In that case, whatever 
agreement or license agreement that  was agreed to upon sale of such product 
would be in force between end  user and manufacturer of product. I have not 
looked at whatever  legalese came with my Triton for example, but since I have 
not read  about any brouhahas regarding this, it is probably safe to assume 
that  end users are granted a general use license for whatever purpose  
including performance. That’s not to say the programmer may not get a  cut of 
total unit sales. What probably would not be included would be  redistribution 
of said programs for the purpose of the end-user  profiting from that work. 
Pretty much the same as if you cloned a  Triton and sold it as a 
TritonGrande’ with all the sounds intact. But  there is nothing to say he couldn’t 
profit from performances of his  work if the end-user agreement stipulated it. 
Kind of hard to enforce  this, but the way things are getting in this 
world, don’t count this  out some day. Particularly since we are at the point 
where every, and  I mean every device and person will have an IPV6 address in 
20 or 30  years and whatever it is we will do will have some form of tracking 
 associated with it. Look at Microsoft. Software as a service is a  prime 
example – compose a doc and pay them a royalty. That’s their  future. 
It  ain;t mine. 
Cheers, 
John 

From:  newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com  
[mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of  fdoddy@aol.com
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2011 2:44  PM
To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
Subject:  Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and  copyright

He probably signed a  "work for hire" agreement, and besides, it is not a 
performance, but  instead,programming.  In the US, there is no performance 
royalty  on programming, that would make no  sense.

fd

-----Original  Message-----
From: mattias <Mattias.olsson5@comhem.se>
To:  newmellotrongroup <newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com>
Sent:  Fri, Feb 25, 2011 12:46 pm
Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re:  samples and copyright 

How  about the guy who programmed  the synthbrass sound  on the  DX7 ?

Should he get paid or sued everytime the sound is heard  on the radio ?

// Mattias

Den 2011-02-25 17.56,  skrev "Mike Dickson" <_mike.dickson@gmail.com_ 
(mailto:mike.dickson@gmail.com) >:

On  25/02/2011 13:01, feline1973 wrote:  

Nobody  knows the name of the people on the tapes and so PPL don't have 
this  info so they ain't getting paid at  present.

Well..we know some  of them. Trouble is I suspect most of them are  dead.

Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

2011-02-26 by lsf5275@aol.com

How does that work? Did you go down to the Mellotron wrecking yard and  
steal a numbering plate from a wreck then retitle it as #500?
 
 
In a message dated 2/26/2011 12:05:25 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
vance@juniperpacific.com writes:

M400  #500 (formerly #497)

Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

2011-02-26 by Tony

Opps thanks Frank, and apologies to John!
Regardless John, welcome to the gang!
I'm thinking the closest number to mine, on here is 512?
I was stoked my 4 voice Oberheim works perfectly.

Tony

Show quoted textHide quoted text

----- Original Message -----
From: lsf5275@aol.com
To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2011 1:56 PM
Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

Tony, 525 belongs to John Hammaren. I just restored it for him. You meant John.

By the way, I know we're right at the limit of the number of Franks allowed in the group. Clay, how are we doing on Johns? Hammaren should be bringing us close to the acceptable limit, right?

In a message dated 2/26/2011 9:58:20 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, atm655@verizon.net writes:

Yes Frank I noticed that too!
Same batch I reckon, there was another very close to mine for sale awhile ago and he's a member now too.
Hope he pops up and says hey!
We're one big family anyway and as mentioned, sometimes at friendly odds, so pull the belts tight it can be a wild ride, lol.
All good fun!
Tony
----- Original Message -----
From: John Hammaren
To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2011 8:13 AM
Subject: RE: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

Gee Tony, you’re #510, me #525. Gosh, we’re almost family! Mr. Neel and yours probably spoke to each other back in ’71 before they left for a life of abuse and foster families.

From: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Tony
Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2011 8:09 AM
To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

John welcome!

You're going to fit right in!

Best,

Tony #510

----- Original Message -----

From: John Hammaren

To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2011 6:59 AM

Subject: RE: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

I do violate every rule of the programmer, both coding wise (screw elegant code – how about we make the thing work), and writing (I dated an English instructor in college and I was beaten into submission!). I will attempt to throw a misspelling in here and there, and who knows – maybe even some bad grammar. J Just give me a chance.

John

From: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of lsf5275@aol.com
Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2011 12:54 AM
To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

John,

Your posts here need not be brief, but they should be filled with misspellings and poor syntax. Then you'll fit right in. . As for spam, I get none from this group. It may be because Clay loves Spam and keeps it all for himself.

In a message dated 2/25/2011 8:47:11 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, hammaren@geoconcepts.com writes:

Thanks Frank,

Yes, it is my first post. I hope to get pics up from your spectacular restoration (resurrection is a more apt term, I think) of Mr. Neel as soon as I can.

Thanks again, and I know this is the right group, since the spam is greatly outnumbered by the relevant posts. I hope to not be so verbose in the future. This is a common thing over at the Dotcom group, so it kind of rubs off.

Greeting to all.

John

From: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of lsf5275@aol.com
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2011 6:22 PM
To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

Welcome to the group John! Is this your first post here?

John is the owner of the "Johnny Neel" Mellotron, #525

Frank

In a message dated 2/25/2011 4:30:43 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, hammaren@geoconcepts.com writes:

Well, as a programmer, that’s not entirely true. Whatever agreement was signed whether that person was an employee or outside consultant would dictate what remuneration was received. If the agreement stipulated that the employee or consultant received a royalty in whatever fashion was agreed, then that would be it. But, on the other hand the agreement would be between those two entities, not the end-user or consumer. In that case, whatever agreement or license agreement that was agreed to upon sale of such product would be in force between end user and manufacturer of product. I have not looked at whatever legalese came with my Triton for example, but since I have not read about any brouhahas regarding this, it is probably safe to assume that end users are granted a general use license for whatever purpose including performance. That’s not to say the programmer may not get a cut of total unit sales. What probably would not be included would be redistribution of said programs for the purpose of the end-user profiting from that work. Pretty much the same as if you cloned a Triton and sold it as a TritonGrande’ with all the sounds intact. But there is nothing to say he couldn’t profit from performances of his work if the end-user agreement stipulated it. Kind of hard to enforce this, but the way things are getting in this world, don’t count this out some day. Particularly since we are at the point where every, and I mean every device and person will have an IPV6 address in 20 or 30 years and whatever it is we will do will have some form of tracking associated with it. Look at Microsoft. Software as a service is a prime example – compose a doc and pay them a royalty. That’s their future.

It ain;t mine.

Cheers,

John

From: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of fdoddy@aol.com
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2011 2:44 PM
To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

He probably signed a "work for hire" agreement, and besides, it is not a performance, but instead,programming. In the US, there is no performance royalty on programming, that would make no sense.

fd

-----Original Message-----
From: mattias <Mattias.olsson5@comhem.se>
To: newmellotrongroup <newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Fri, Feb 25, 2011 12:46 pm
Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

How about the guy who programmed the synthbrass sound on the DX7 ?

Should he get paid or sued everytime the sound is heard on the radio ?

// Mattias

Den 2011-02-25 17.56, skrev "Mike Dickson" <mike.dickson@gmail.com>:

On 25/02/2011 13:01, feline1973 wrote:

Nobody knows the name of the people on the tapes and so PPL don't have this info so they ain't getting paid at present.

Well..we know some of them. Trouble is I suspect most of them are dead.

Re: samples and copyright

2011-02-26 by feline1973

When I said "nobody knows them", 
I mean most of the people playing the mellotrons on the recordings won't know them, and the person at the record company filling out the track contributor details in the PPL Repertoire Database will probably just put "Joe Bloggs: Keyboards" rather than "Joe Bloggs: mellotron" and certainly won't go to the trouble of find out which mellotron tape frame was being used and thus who might have been the 2nd fiddle on the 3 Violins tape.

If the mellotron had been launched in the era when this legislation came into play (post 1997?) then maybe rather than the MU throwing a hissy fit about it being used at all, they might instead have gotten PPL to log the names of the session musicians on the mellotron tapes so that they all got 0.000000000068p each every time a tune with a mellotron on gets played on Spotify.


--- In newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com, Mike Dickson <mike.dickson@...> wrote:

Show quoted textHide quoted text

>
> On 25/02/2011 13:01, feline1973 wrote:
> >
> > Nobody knows the name of the people on the tapes and so PPL don't have 
> > this info so they ain't getting paid at present.
> >
> 
> Well..we know some of them. Trouble is I suspect most of them are dead.
> 
> -- 
> Mike Dickson, Edinburgh
>

Re: samples and copyright

2011-02-26 by feline1973

Or, in the case of the basoon tape frame, were probably dead at the time as well.

Show quoted textHide quoted text

> 
> 
>  Well..we know some of them. Trouble is I suspect most of them are dead.
>

Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

2011-02-26 by Bruce Daily

Do recorded wobblies and bent notes count differently? :-)

  -Bruce D.

--- On Sat, 2/26/11, feline1973 <feline1@feline1.co.uk> wrote:

From: feline1973 <feline1@feline1.co.uk>
Subject: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright
To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, February 26, 2011, 1:03 PM

Or, in the case of the basoon tape frame, were probably dead at the time as well.

Show quoted textHide quoted text

> 
> 
> Well..we know some of them. Trouble is I suspect most of them are dead.
>

RE: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

2011-02-27 by John Hammaren

Hi Fritz,

After I posted I realized my first sentence may have been a tad rude, so apologies. I guess this topic gets my ire up, since although I have the utmost respect for the work and creations of others, the current state of intellectual property law is a freaking mess IMHO. I’m not a lawyer, but it hardly takes one to realize this. Throw in the current software patent nonsense and we have a bigger mess. Pretty soon we will be able to copyright the timbre of our God given voices the way things are going. It’s pretty scary because it is ruining a lot of things, most of all music. The one thing I perhaps didn’t make clear was that software programming and patch programming are converging very quickly. I can foresee (if it hasn’t already happened at Korg and the rest of them) a sophisticated software tool that pretty much does the work. Where’s the creativity there? A machine makes it up and if the ‘programmer’ thinks it sounds good, well then, put it in the can. Big whoop.

That’s the reason I own a Mellotron, a String Ensemble, a Minimoog (okay a Voyager) and even a Marxophone (what the hell is that, you ask?). Nice analog instruments without a computer doing any heavy lifting. Oops, there I go again…..

Show quoted textHide quoted text

From: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of fdoddy@aol.com
Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2011 9:42 AM
To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

Thanks for the clarification John. I was merely referring to a performance royalty (on synth programming) from a musical reference as it would relate to a musical performance. In my 30 plus years in music I have never encountered it nor had the option of pursuing it when I had the occasional gig as a programmer (synth that is) I understand your point completely from an intellectual property/software standpoint.

In my field, it is getting harder and harder to retain the right to profit from a performance over time, so my guess is entry into the coveted world of royalties is being squeezed everywhere. At least Intellectual property/ownership rights are still intact!

fritz

-----Original Message-----
From: lsf5275 <lsf5275@aol.com>
To: newmellotrongroup <newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Fri, Feb 25, 2011 6:22 pm
Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

Welcome to the group John! Is this your first post here?

John is the owner of the "Johnny Neel" Mellotron, #525

Frank

In a message dated 2/25/2011 4:30:43 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, hammaren@geoconcepts.com writes:

Well, as a programmer, that’s not entirely true. Whatever agreement was signed whether that person was an employee or outside consultant would dictate what remuneration was received. If the agreement stipulated that the employee or consultant received a royalty in whatever fashion was agreed, then that would be it. But, on the other hand the agreement would be between those two entities, not the end-user or consumer. In that case, whatever agreement or license agreement that was agreed to upon sale of such product would be in force between end user and manufacturer of product. I have not looked at whatever legalese came with my Triton for example, but since I have not read about any brouhahas regarding this, it is probably safe to assume that end users are granted a general use license for whatever purpose including performance. That’s not to say the programmer may not get a cut of total unit sales. What probably would not be included would be redistribution of said programs for the purpose of the end-user profiting from that work. Pretty much the same as if you cloned a Triton and sold it as a TritonGrande’ with all the sounds intact. But there is nothing to say he couldn’t profit from performances of his work if the end-user agreement stipulated it. Kind of hard to enforce this, but the way things are getting in this world, don’t count this out some day. Particularly since we are at the point where every, and I mean every device and person will have an IPV6 address in 20 or 30 years and whatever it is we will do will have some form of tracking associated with it. Look at Microsoft. Software as a service is a prime example – compose a doc and pay them a royalty. That’s their future.
It ain;t mine.
Cheers,
John
From: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of fdoddy@aol.com
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2011 2:44 PM
To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

He probably signed a "work for hire" agreement, and besides, it is not a performance, but instead,programming. In the US, there is no performance royalty on programming, that would make no sense.

fd
-----Original Message-----
From: mattias <Mattias.olsson5@comhem.se>
To: newmellotrongroup <newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Fri, Feb 25, 2011 12:46 pm
Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

How about the guy who programmed the synthbrass sound on the DX7 ?

Should he get paid or sued everytime the sound is heard on the radio ?

// Mattias

Den 2011-02-25 17.56, skrev "Mike Dickson" <mike.dickson@gmail.com>:

On 25/02/2011 13:01, feline1973 wrote:

Nobody knows the name of the people on the tapes and so PPL don't have this info so they ain't getting paid at present.

Well..we know some of them. Trouble is I suspect most of them are dead.

Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

2011-02-27 by lsf5275@aol.com

Do you ever get dressed up like Captain Spaulding and play, "Hello, I Must  
Be Going," on the Marxophone? 
 
 
In a message dated 2/26/2011 8:59:24 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
hammaren@geoconcepts.com writes:

That’s the reason I own a Mellotron, a  String Ensemble, a Minimoog (okay a 
Voyager) and even a Marxophone

Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

2011-02-27 by Chris Dale

How about "Lydia The Tattood Lady?"

On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 1:02 AM, <lsf5275@aol.com> wrote:

Do you ever get dressed up like Captain Spaulding and play, "Hello, I Must Be Going,"; on the Marxophone?

In a message dated 2/26/2011 8:59:24 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, hammaren@geoconcepts.com writes:

That’s the reason I own a Mellotron, a String Ensemble, a Minimoog (okay a Voyager) and even a Marxophone

Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

2011-02-27 by Mike Dickson

On 27/02/2011 01:59, John Hammaren wrote:

Show quoted textHide quoted text

I guess this topic gets my ire up, since although I have the utmost respect for the work and creations of others, the current state of intellectual property law is a freaking mess IMHO.

As ever, the law is driven by those who can afford to drive it.

I\u2019m not a lawyer, but it hardly takes one to realize this.

I'm not a lawyer either, but I do have a Masters in Law and part of that took in the subject of copyright, designs and patents.

Throw in the current software patent nonsense and we have a bigger mess.

Interesting side note: you cannot patent software. It's specifically excluded from patent. You can copyright it, but since ideas cannot be copyrighted then it means algorithms cannot be copyrighted either. If you had the means you could make a functional close of (say) Microsoft Windows and Bill Gates could not touch you for it. Why? The source code would be different. The code is your work of 'art' and hence falls into the territory of copyright, not patent. Unless you have copied large parts of it verbatim then you will be okay.

Pretty soon we will be able to copyright the timbre of our God given voices the way things are going.

You can. One firm (in 1987) tried to copyright a single letter which was associated with their name. IBM tried the same thing with their abbreviated name and also failed. (Narrowly) This veers into the territory of trade marks, where a visual identifier is associated with name or product. This says 'IBM' whereas the same thing in copperplate script does not. If a visual aid works then why not an audio one? If someone has a very distinctive voice (I'm thinking in terms of scale like Diamanda Galas here) then why not? I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but I am saying that it's evidently possible.

My favourite ever sampling story has to be the one about David Bowie's track 'Lets Dance'. It was very popular back in the day and that was oput down to the drum timbres. The kick drum and snare from the opening sequence were sampled to shreds and were featured on dozens of other contemporary tunes, thanks to the Fairlight CMI. Bowie;s production team made litigious noises, but it all came to nothing.

Why? Because both were sampled from 'Moby Dick'.

-- 
Mike Dickson, Edinburgh

Free Music Project: http://www.mikedickson.org.uk/ 
Or http://www.last.fm/music/Mike+Dickson                  
Or http://soundcloud.com/mikedickson
Or http://www.planetmellotron.com/revd4.htm#mikedickson   
Or http://www.myspace.com/mellotronworks

Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

2011-02-27 by fdoddy@aol.com

HI John,

You weren't being rude at all!  I was not clear in my earlier post.  

I agree with your assessment, and I also think a lot of the mess has to do with the litigious nature of society, together with the "me too" effect of so many content creators trying to license music they can't afford, only to have some hungry musician try to rip it off....ugh! 

If people weren't so quick to sue or at least file a cease and desist letter so quickly, maybe the industry would chill out on the ownership grab.  It's all about intent and personally, I can smell it a mile away. I have had my work copied and even ripped off, but I never felt the need to lash out and sue.  It's kinda funny to me actually, sort of a backhanded compliment as well as just plain ol' laziness.

I'm also a fan of the stuff with no presets although I have to admit being really in love with NI's Reaktor.  It's very weird and analog-y.

Also, welcome aboard


fritz

Show quoted textHide quoted text

-----Original Message-----
From: John Hammaren <hammaren@geoconcepts.com>
To: 'newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com' <newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sat, Feb 26, 2011 8:59 pm
Subject: RE: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

Hi Fritz,

After I posted I realized my first sentence may have been a tad rude, so apologies. I guess this topic gets my ire up, since although I have the utmost respect for the work and creations of others, the current state of intellectual property law is a freaking mess IMHO. I’m not a lawyer, but it hardly takes one to realize this. Throw in the current software patent nonsense and we have a bigger mess. Pretty soon we will be able to copyright the timbre of our God given voices the way things are going. It’s pretty scary because it is ruining a lot of things, most of all music. The one thing I perhaps didn’t make clear was that software programming and patch programming are converging very quickly. I can foresee (if it hasn’t already happened at Korg and the rest of them) a sophisticated software tool that pretty much does the work. Where’s the creativity there? A machine makes it up and if the ‘programmer’ thinks it sounds good, well then, put it in the can. Big whoop.

That’s the reason I own a Mellotron, a String Ensemble, a Minimoog (okay a Voyager) and even a Marxophone (what the hell is that, you ask?). Nice analog instruments without a computer doing any heavy lifting. Oops, there I go again…..

From: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of fdoddy@aol.com
Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2011 9:42 AM
To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

Thanks for the clarification John.  I was merely referring to a performance royalty (on synth programming) from a musical reference as it would relate to a musical performance. In my 30 plus years in music I have never encountered it nor had the option of pursuing it when I had the occasional gig as a programmer (synth that is) I understand your point completely from an intellectual property/software standpoint.

In my field, it is getting harder and harder to retain the right to profit from a performance over time, so my guess is entry into the coveted world of royalties is being squeezed everywhere.  At least Intellectual property/ownership rights are still intact!

fritz

-----Original Message-----
From: lsf5275 <lsf5275@aol.com>
To: newmellotrongroup <newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Fri, Feb 25, 2011 6:22 pm
Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

Welcome to the group John! Is this your first post here?

John is the owner of the "Johnny Neel" Mellotron, #525

Frank

In a message dated 2/25/2011 4:30:43 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, hammaren@geoconcepts.com writes:

Well, as a programmer, that’s not entirely true. Whatever agreement was signed whether that person was an employee or outside consultant would dictate what remuneration was received. If the agreement stipulated that the employee or consultant received a royalty in whatever fashion was agreed, then that would be it. But, on the other hand the agreement would be between those two entities, not the end-user or consumer. In that case, whatever agreement or license agreement that was agreed to upon sale of such product would be in force between end user and manufacturer of product. I have not looked at whatever legalese came with my Triton for example, but since I have not read about any brouhahas regarding this, it is probably safe to assume that end users are granted a general use license for whatever purpose including performance. That’s not to say the programmer may not get a cut of total unit sales. What probably would not be included would be redistribution of said programs for the purpose of the end-user profiting from that work. Pretty much the same as if you cloned a Triton and sold it as a TritonGrande’ with all the sounds intact. But there is nothing to say he couldn’t profit from performances of his work if the end-user agreement stipulated it. Kind of hard to enforce this, but the way things are getting in this world, don’t count this out some day. Particularly since we are at the point where every, and I mean every device and person will have an IPV6 address in 20 or 30 years and whatever it is we will do will have some form of tracking associated with it. Look at Microsoft. Software as a service is a prime example – compose a doc and pay them a royalty. That’s their future.

It ain;t mine.

Cheers,

John

From: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of fdoddy@aol.com
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2011 2:44 PM
To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

He probably signed a "work for hire" agreement, and besides, it is not a performance, but instead,programming.  In the US, there is no performance royalty on programming, that would make no sense.

fd

-----Original Message-----
From: mattias <Mattias.olsson5@comhem.se>
To: newmellotrongroup <newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Fri, Feb 25, 2011 12:46 pm
Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

How about the guy who programmed  the synthbrass sound  on the DX7 ?

Should he get paid or sued everytime the sound is heard on the radio ?

// Mattias

Den 2011-02-25 17.56, skrev "Mike Dickson" <mike.dickson@gmail.com>:

   On 25/02/2011 13:01, feline1973 wrote: 

Nobody knows the name of the people on the tapes and so PPL don't have this info so they ain't getting paid at present.

 Well..we know some of them. Trouble is I suspect most of them are dead.

Re: samples and copyright

2011-02-27 by tron400

Frank, several frame parts have a scratched-out 497 with 500 next to them. I wonder if 497 is in existence somewhere.

Bernie

--- In newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com, lsf5275@... wrote:

Show quoted textHide quoted text

>
> How does that work? Did you go down to the Mellotron wrecking yard and  
> steal a numbering plate from a wreck then retitle it as #500?
>  
>  
> In a message dated 2/26/2011 12:05:25 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
> vance@... writes:
> 
> M400  #500 (formerly #497)
>

Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

2011-02-27 by fdoddy@aol.com

There have been successful lawsuits here concerning the "sound alike" nature of a singer's voice, the most notable of them coming from Bette Midler's camp.  She won! The precedent set here is, again, intent.  That intention is to willfully trick the public into thinking they're listening to the real Bette Midler, or whoever they're trying to sound like.  Knowing the industry the way I do, I'm sure there were scads of forensic evidence in the Midler case.  Stupid advertising agencies!!  Again, laziness rears its ugly head.

I have never studied any law and I absolutely hate myself for knowing the little that I do.


fritz

Show quoted textHide quoted text

-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Dickson <mike.dickson@gmail.com>
To: newmellotrongroup <newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sun, Feb 27, 2011 7:24 am
Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright


  
    
                  
        On 27/02/2011 01:59, John Hammaren wrote:
    
    
    
      
        
          
            
              
I guess this topic gets my ire up,                  since although I have the utmost respect for the work                  and creations of others, the current state of                  intellectual property law is a freaking mess IMHO. 
            
          
        
      
    
    
    As ever, the law is driven by those who can afford to drive it. 
    
    
      
        
          
            
              
I’m not a lawyer, but it hardly                  takes one to realize this. 
            
          
        
      
    
    
    I'm not a lawyer either, but I do have a Masters in Law and part of    that took in the subject of copyright, designs and patents. 
    
    
      
        
          
            
              
Throw in the current software                  patent nonsense and we have a bigger mess. 
            
          
        
      
    
    
    Interesting side note: you cannot patent software. It's specifically    excluded from patent. You can copyright it, but since ideas cannot    be copyrighted then it means algorithms cannot be copyrighted    either. If you had the means you could make a functional close of    (say) Microsoft Windows and Bill Gates could not touch you for it.    Why? The source code would be different. The code is your work of    'art' and hence falls into the territory of copyright, not patent.    Unless you have copied large parts of it verbatim then you    will be okay.
    
    
      
        
          
            
              
Pretty soon we will be able to                  copyright the timbre of our God given voices the way                  things are going. 
            
          
        
      
    
    
    You can. One firm (in 1987) tried to copyright a single letter which    was associated with their name. IBM tried the same thing with their    abbreviated name and also failed. (Narrowly) This veers into the    territory of trade marks, where a visual identifier is associated    with name or product. This    says 'IBM' whereas the same thing in copperplate script does not. If    a visual aid works then why not an audio one? If someone has a very    distinctive voice (I'm thinking in terms of scale like Diamanda Galas    here) then why not? I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but I am    saying that it's evidently possible. 
    
    My favourite ever sampling story has to be the one about David    Bowie's track 'Lets Dance'. It was very popular back in the day and    that was oput down to the drum timbres. The kick drum and snare from    the opening sequence were sampled to shreds and were    featured on dozens of other contemporary tunes, thanks to the    Fairlight CMI. Bowie;s production team made litigious noises, but it    all came to nothing. 
    
    Why? Because both were sampled from 'Moby Dick'. 
    
    
    
-- 

Mike Dickson, Edinburgh



Free Music Project: http://www.mikedickson.org.uk/ 

Or http://www.last.fm/music/Mike+Dickson                  

Or http://soundcloud.com/mikedickson

Or http://www.planetmellotron.com/revd4.htm#mikedickson   

Or http://www.myspace.com/mellotronworks

Re: samples and copyright

2011-02-27 by ClayE

The drum beat and timbres from "When The Levee Breaks" (LZ-IV) Has been sampled and used a few times.  Maybe hundreds of times.  The magic of that drum sound is the recording method and the space it was recorded in.

  
--- In newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com, Mike Dickson <mike.dickson@...> wrote:

Show quoted textHide quoted text

>
> On 27/02/2011 01:59, John Hammaren wrote:
> 
> 
> > I guess this topic gets my ire up, since although I have the utmost 
> > respect for the work and creations of others, the current state of 
> > intellectual property law is a freaking mess IMHO.
> >
> 
> As ever, the law is driven by those who can afford to drive it.
> 
> > Iâm not a lawyer, but it hardly takes one to realize this.
> >
> 
> I'm not a lawyer either, but I do have a Masters in Law and part of that 
> took in the subject of copyright, designs and patents.
> 
> > Throw in the current software patent nonsense and we have a bigger mess.
> >
> 
> Interesting side note: you cannot patent software. It's specifically 
> excluded from patent. You can copyright it, but since /ideas /cannot be 
> copyrighted then it means algorithms cannot be copyrighted either. If 
> you had the means you could make a functional close of (say) Microsoft 
> Windows and Bill Gates could not touch you for it. Why? The source code 
> would be different. The code is your work of 'art' and hence falls into 
> the territory of copyright, not patent. Unless you have copied large 
> parts of it /verbatim/ then you will be okay.
> 
> > Pretty soon we will be able to copyright the timbre of our God given 
> > voices the way things are going.
> >
> 
> You can. One firm (in 1987) tried to copyright a single /letter /which 
> was associated with their name. IBM tried the same thing with their 
> abbreviated name and also failed. (Narrowly) This veers into the 
> territory of trade marks, where a visual identifier is associated with 
> name or product. This 
> <http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/51/IBM_logo.svg/800px-IBM_logo.svg.png> 
> says 'IBM' whereas the same thing in copperplate script does not. If a 
> visual aid works then why not an audio one? If someone has a very 
> distinctive voice (I'm thinking in terms of scale like Diamanda Galas 
> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAFbYN_8e7g> here) then why not? I'm not 
> saying it's right or wrong, but I am saying that it's evidently possible.
> 
> My favourite ever sampling story has to be the one about David Bowie's 
> track 'Lets Dance'. It was very popular back in the day and that was 
> oput down to the drum timbres. The kick drum and snare from the opening 
> sequence were sampled /to shreds/ and were featured on dozens of other 
> contemporary tunes, thanks to the Fairlight CMI. Bowie;s production team 
> made litigious noises, but it all came to nothing.
> 
> Why? Because both were sampled from 'Moby Dick'.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Mike Dickson, Edinburgh
> 
> Free Music Project: http://www.mikedickson.org.uk/
> Or http://www.last.fm/music/Mike+Dickson
> Or http://soundcloud.com/mikedickson
> Or http://www.planetmellotron.com/revd4.htm#mikedickson
> Or http://www.myspace.com/mellotronworks
>

Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

2011-02-27 by Mike Dickson

And the other of course was Tom Waits. Waits didn't (and wouldn't) sanction one of his tunes for an advertisement, so someone essentially impersonated him. Waits won.

Mike

Show quoted textHide quoted text

On 27 February 2011 14:38, <fdoddy@aol.com> wrote:

There have been successful lawsuits here concerning the "sound alike" nature of a singer's voice, the most notable of them coming from Bette Midler's camp. She won! The precedent set here is, again, intent. That intention is to willfully trick the public into thinking they're listening to the real Bette Midler, or whoever they're trying to sound like. Knowing the industry the way I do, I'm sure there were scads of forensic evidence in the Midler case. Stupid advertising agencies!! Again, laziness rears its ugly head.

Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

2011-02-27 by lsf5275@aol.com

My guess is that your tron was assembled from two. Someone just did what  
you said and scratched out the 497.
 
 
In a message dated 2/27/2011 9:27:12 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
tron400@yahoo.com writes:

 
 
 
Frank, several frame parts have a scratched-out 497 with 500 next to them.  
I wonder if 497 is in existence somewhere.

Bernie

--- In _newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com_ 
(mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com) ,  lsf5275@... wrote:

Show quoted textHide quoted text

>
> How does that work? Did you go down to the  Mellotron wrecking yard and 
> steal a numbering plate from a wreck then  retitle it as #500?
> 
> 
> In a message dated 2/26/2011  12:05:25 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, 
> vance@... writes:
>  
> M400 #500 (formerly #497)
>

Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

2011-02-27 by john barrick

If I recall correctly, this was noted about Bernie's tron in one of Ken Leonard's Money Pit installments.

Show quoted textHide quoted text

On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 10:57 AM, <lsf5275@aol.com> wrote:

My guess is that your tron was assembled from two. Someone just did what you said and scratched out the 497.

In a message dated 2/27/2011 9:27:12 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, tron400@yahoo.com writes:

Frank, several frame parts have a scratched-out 497 with 500 next to them. I wonder if 497 is in existence somewhere.

Bernie

--- In newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com, lsf5275@... wrote:
>
> How does that work? Did you go down to the Mellotron wrecking yard and
> steal a numbering plate from a wreck then retitle it as #500?
>
>
> In a message dated 2/26/2011 12:05:25 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> vance@... writes:
>
> M400 #500 (formerly #497)
>

RE: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

2011-02-27 by John Wright

Welcome John. Nice to meet you.

John

#911

Show quoted textHide quoted text

From: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of tron400
Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2011 8:38 AM
To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

Welcome John!

Bernie
M400 #500 (formerly #497)

--- In newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com, John Hammaren <hammaren@...> wrote:
>
> Gee Tony, youâ€™re #510, me #525. Gosh, weâ€™re almost family! Mr. Neel and yours probably spoke to each other back in â€™71 before they left for a life of abuse and foster families.
>
> From: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Tony
> Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2011 8:09 AM
> To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright
>
>
>
> ï»¿
> John welcome!
> You're going to fit right in!
>
> Best,
> Tony #510
>
> ----- Original Message -----

Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

2011-02-27 by john barrick

Good to have you here, John.

john barrick

#1407

Show quoted textHide quoted text

On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 12:57 PM, John Wright <john.wright@consona.com> wrote:

Welcome John. Nice to meet you.

John

#911

From: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of tron400
Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2011 8:38 AM
To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

Welcome John!

Bernie
M400 #500 (formerly #497)

--- In newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com, John Hammaren wrote:
>
> Gee Tony, youâ€™re #510, me #525. Gosh, weâ€™re almost family! Mr. Neel and yours probably spoke to each other back in â€™71 before they left for a life of abuse and foster families.
>
> From: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Tony
> Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2011 8:09 AM
> To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright
>
>
>
> ï»¿
> John welcome!
> You're going to fit right in!
>
> Best,
> Tony #510
>
> ----- Original Message -----

Re: samples and copyright

2011-02-27 by tron400

There may even be photos.

Bernie

--- In newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com, john barrick <barrickjohn262@...> wrote:

Show quoted textHide quoted text

>
> If I recall correctly, this was noted about Bernie's tron in one of Ken
> Leonard's Money Pit installments.
> 
> On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 10:57 AM, <lsf5275@...> wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> >  My guess is that your tron was assembled from two. Someone just did what
> > you said and scratched out the 497.
> >
> >  In a message dated 2/27/2011 9:27:12 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> > tron400@... writes:
> >
> >
> >
> > Frank, several frame parts have a scratched-out 497 with 500 next to them.
> > I wonder if 497 is in existence somewhere.
> >
> > Bernie
> >
> > --- In newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com, lsf5275@ wrote:
> > >
> > > How does that work? Did you go down to the Mellotron wrecking yard and
> > > steal a numbering plate from a wreck then retitle it as #500?
> > >
> > >
> > > In a message dated 2/26/2011 12:05:25 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> > > vance@ writes:
> > >
> > > M400 #500 (formerly #497)
> > >
> >
> >   
> >
>

Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

2011-02-28 by john barrick

There are.

On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 4:44 PM, tron400 <tron400@yahoo.com> wrote:

There may even be photos.

Bernie

--- In newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com, john barrick wrote:
>
> If I recall correctly, this was noted about Bernie's tron in one of Ken
> Leonard's Money Pit installments.
>
> On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 10:57 AM, wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > My guess is that your tron was assembled from two. Someone just did what
> > you said and scratched out the 497.
> >
> > In a message dated 2/27/2011 9:27:12 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> > tron400@... writes:
> >
> >
> >
> > Frank, several frame parts have a scratched-out 497 with 500 next to them.
> > I wonder if 497 is in existence somewhere.
> >
> > Bernie
> >
> > --- In newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com, lsf5275@ wrote:
> > >
> > >; How does that work? Did you go down to the Mellotron wrecking yard and
> > > steal a numbering plate from a wreck then retitle it as #500?
> > >
> > >
> > > In a message dated 2/26/2011 12:05:25 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> > > vance@ writes:
> > >
> > > M400 #500 (formerly #497)
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>

RE: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

2011-02-28 by Hessel Herder

The interesting thing is that advertising agencies will have a composer sign a contract in which they hold the composer liable for any third party claim ( warranted or unwarranted ),

while at the same time the agency and their client have the final say about the musical direction and “closeness” of a track, with which composer will have to deal ( with the risk of the agency

taking you off the gig , and asking another composer, if you don’t comply or find another solution). Very tricky business.

This link is amusing, where Sigur Ros has a go at all the on-air soundalikes of his work

http://www.sigur-ros.co.uk/media/homage-or-fromage.php

Van: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com] Namens fdoddy@aol.com
Verzonden: zondag 27 februari 2011 15:39
Aan: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
Onderwerp: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

There have been successful lawsuits here concerning the "sound alike" nature of a singer's voice, the most notable of them coming from Bette Midler's camp. She won! The precedent set here is, again, intent. That intention is to willfully trick the public into thinking they're listening to the real Bette Midler, or whoever they're trying to sound like. Knowing the industry the way I do, I'm sure there were scads of forensic evidence in the Midler case. Stupid advertising agencies!! Again, laziness rears its ugly head.

I have never studied any law and I absolutely hate myself for knowing the little that I do.

fritz

Show quoted textHide quoted text

-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Dickson <mike.dickson@gmail.com>
To: newmellotrongroup <newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sun, Feb 27, 2011 7:24 am
Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

On 27/02/2011 01:59, John Hammaren wrote:

I guess this topic gets my ire up, since although I have the utmost respect for the work and creations of others, the current state of intellectual property law is a freaking mess IMHO. 

As ever, the law is driven by those who can afford to drive it. 

I’m not a lawyer, but it hardly takes one to realize this. 

I'm not a lawyer either, but I do have a Masters in Law and part of that took in the subject of copyright, designs and patents. 

Throw in the current software patent nonsense and we have a bigger mess. 

Interesting side note: you cannot patent software. It's specifically excluded from patent. You can copyright it, but since ideas cannot be copyrighted then it means algorithms cannot be copyrighted either. If you had the means you could make a functional close of (say) Microsoft Windows and Bill Gates could not touch you for it. Why? The source code would be different. The code is your work of 'art' and hence falls into the territory of copyright, not patent. Unless you have copied large parts of it verbatim then you will be okay.

Pretty soon we will be able to copyright the timbre of our God given voices the way things are going. 

You can. One firm (in 1987) tried to copyright a single letter which was associated with their name. IBM tried the same thing with their abbreviated name and also failed. (Narrowly) This veers into the territory of trade marks, where a visual identifier is associated with name or product. This <http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/51/IBM_logo.svg/800px-IBM_logo.svg.png>  says 'IBM' whereas the same thing in copperplate script does not. If a visual aid works then why not an audio one? If someone has a very distinctive voice (I'm thinking in terms of scale like Diamanda Galas <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAFbYN_8e7g>  here) then why not? I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but I am saying that it's evidently possible. 

My favourite ever sampling story has to be the one about David Bowie's track 'Lets Dance'. It was very popular back in the day and that was oput down to the drum timbres. The kick drum and snare from the opening sequence were sampled to shreds and were featured on dozens of other contemporary tunes, thanks to the Fairlight CMI. Bowie;s production team made litigious noises, but it all came to nothing. 

Why? Because both were sampled from 'Moby Dick'. 

-- 

Mike Dickson, Edinburgh

Free Music Project: http://www.mikedickson.org.uk/ 

Or http://www.last.fm/music/Mike+Dickson                  

Or http://soundcloud.com/mikedickson

Or http://www.planetmellotron.com/revd4.htm#mikedickson   

Or http://www.myspace.com/mellotronworks

Re: samples and copyright

2011-02-28 by ClayE

My experience with advertising agency people over the years has left me with the feeling that they are mostly sleazy dirt-bags.  Maybe I shouldn't generalize.  It might just be the Toronto area agencies that are corrupt...and Fritz.
 


--- In newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com, "Hessel Herder" <hessel@...> wrote:

Show quoted textHide quoted text

>
> The interesting  thing is that advertising agencies will have a composer sign a contract in which  they hold  the composer liable for any third party claim ( warranted or unwarranted ),
> 
> while at the same time the agency and their client  have the final say about the musical direction and âclosenessâ of a track, with which composer will have to deal  ( with the risk of the agency 
> 
> taking you off the gig , and asking another composer, if you donât comply  or find another solution). Very tricky business.
> 
>  
> 
> This link is amusing, where Sigur Ros has a go at all the on-air soundalikes of his work
> 
>  
> 
> http://www.sigur-ros.co.uk/media/homage-or-fromage.php
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Van: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com] Namens fdoddy@...
> Verzonden: zondag 27 februari 2011 15:39
> Aan: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
> Onderwerp: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright
> 
>  
> 
>   
> 
> There have been successful lawsuits here concerning the "sound alike" nature of a singer's voice, the most notable of them coming from Bette Midler's camp.  She won! The precedent set here is, again, intent.  That intention is to willfully trick the public into thinking they're listening to the real Bette Midler, or whoever they're trying to sound like.  Knowing the industry the way I do, I'm sure there were scads of forensic evidence in the Midler case.  Stupid advertising agencies!!  Again, laziness rears its ugly head.
> 
> I have never studied any law and I absolutely hate myself for knowing the little that I do.
> 
> 
> fritz
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Dickson <mike.dickson@...>
> To: newmellotrongroup <newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sun, Feb 27, 2011 7:24 am
> Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright
> 
>   
> 
> On 27/02/2011 01:59, John Hammaren wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess this topic gets my ire up, since although I have the utmost respect for the work and creations of others, the current state of intellectual property law is a freaking mess IMHO. 
> 
> 
> As ever, the law is driven by those who can afford to drive it. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iâm not a lawyer, but it hardly takes one to realize this. 
> 
> 
> I'm not a lawyer either, but I do have a Masters in Law and part of that took in the subject of copyright, designs and patents. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Throw in the current software patent nonsense and we have a bigger mess. 
> 
> 
> Interesting side note: you cannot patent software. It's specifically excluded from patent. You can copyright it, but since ideas cannot be copyrighted then it means algorithms cannot be copyrighted either. If you had the means you could make a functional close of (say) Microsoft Windows and Bill Gates could not touch you for it. Why? The source code would be different. The code is your work of 'art' and hence falls into the territory of copyright, not patent. Unless you have copied large parts of it verbatim then you will be okay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty soon we will be able to copyright the timbre of our God given voices the way things are going. 
> 
> 
> You can. One firm (in 1987) tried to copyright a single letter which was associated with their name. IBM tried the same thing with their abbreviated name and also failed. (Narrowly) This veers into the territory of trade marks, where a visual identifier is associated with name or product. This <http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/51/IBM_logo.svg/800px-IBM_logo.svg.png>  says 'IBM' whereas the same thing in copperplate script does not. If a visual aid works then why not an audio one? If someone has a very distinctive voice (I'm thinking in terms of scale like Diamanda Galas <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAFbYN_8e7g>  here) then why not? I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but I am saying that it's evidently possible. 
> 
> My favourite ever sampling story has to be the one about David Bowie's track 'Lets Dance'. It was very popular back in the day and that was oput down to the drum timbres. The kick drum and snare from the opening sequence were sampled to shreds and were featured on dozens of other contemporary tunes, thanks to the Fairlight CMI. Bowie;s production team made litigious noises, but it all came to nothing. 
> 
> Why? Because both were sampled from 'Moby Dick'. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> 
>  
> Mike Dickson, Edinburgh
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
>  
> Free Music Project: http://www.mikedickson.org.uk/ 
> 
> 
>  
> Or http://www.last.fm/music/Mike+Dickson                  
> 
> 
>  
> Or http://soundcloud.com/mikedickson
> 
> 
>  
> Or http://www.planetmellotron.com/revd4.htm#mikedickson   
> 
> 
>  
> Or http://www.myspace.com/mellotronworks
>

Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

2011-02-28 by lsf5275@aol.com

Yes, don't forget Fritz. 
 
 
In a message dated 2/28/2011 9:57:21 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
ecclesreinson@rogers.com writes:

 
 
 
My experience with advertising agency people over the years has left me  
with the feeling that they are mostly sleazy dirt-bags. Maybe I shouldn't  
generalize. It might just be the Toronto area agencies that are corrupt...and  
Fritz.


--- In _newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com_ 
(mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com) ,  "Hessel Herder" <hessel@...> wrote:
>
> The interesting  thing is that advertising agencies will have a composer 
sign a contract in  which they hold the composer liable for any third party 
claim ( warranted or  unwarranted ),
> 
> while at the same time the agency and their  client have the final say 
about the musical direction and â€œclosenessâ€ of a  track, with which 
composer will have to deal ( with the risk of the agency  
> 
> taking you off the gig , and asking another composer, if you  donâ€™t 
comply or find another solution). Very tricky business.
>  
> 
> 
> This link is amusing, where Sigur Ros has a go at  all the on-air 
soundalikes of his work
> 
> 
> 
> _http://www.sigur-ros.co.uk/media/homage-or-fromage.php_ 
(http://www.sigur-ros.co.uk/media/homage-or-fromage.php) 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> Van: _newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com_ 
(mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com)   [mailto:_newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com_ 
(mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com) ]  Namens fdoddy@...
> Verzonden: zondag 27 februari 2011 15:39
>  Aan: _newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com_ 
(mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com) 
>  Onderwerp: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> There have been successful lawsuits here  concerning the "sound alike" 
nature of a singer's voice, the most notable of  them coming from Bette 
Midler's camp. She won! The precedent set here is,  again, intent. That intention 
is to willfully trick the public into thinking  they're listening to the 
real Bette Midler, or whoever they're trying to sound  like. Knowing the 
industry the way I do, I'm sure there were scads of forensic  evidence in the 
Midler case. Stupid advertising agencies!! Again, laziness  rears its ugly head.
> 
> I have never studied any law and I  absolutely hate myself for knowing 
the little that I do.
> 
>  
> fritz
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike  Dickson <mike.dickson@...>
> To: newmellotrongroup <_newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com_ 
(mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com) >
>  Sent: Sun, Feb 27, 2011 7:24 am
> Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re:  samples and copyright
> 
> 
> 
> On 27/02/2011 01:59,  John Hammaren wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess this topic  gets my ire up, since although I have the utmost 
respect for the work and  creations of others, the current state of intellectual 
property law is a  freaking mess IMHO. 
> 
> 
> As ever, the law is driven by  those who can afford to drive it. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Iâ€™m not a lawyer, but it hardly takes one to realize this. 
> 
>  
> I'm not a lawyer either, but I do have a Masters in Law and part of  that 
took in the subject of copyright, designs and patents. 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> Throw in the current software patent nonsense and  we have a bigger mess. 
> 
> 
> Interesting side note: you  cannot patent software. It's specifically 
excluded from patent. You can  copyright it, but since ideas cannot be 
copyrighted then it means algorithms  cannot be copyrighted either. If you had the 
means you could make a functional  close of (say) Microsoft Windows and Bill 
Gates could not touch you for it.  Why? The source code would be different. 
The code is your work of 'art' and  hence falls into the territory of 
copyright, not patent. Unless you have  copied large parts of it verbatim then you 
will be okay.
> 
>  
> 
> 
> Pretty soon we will be able to copyright the timbre  of our God given 
voices the way things are going. 
> 
> 
>  You can. One firm (in 1987) tried to copyright a single letter which was 
 associated with their name. IBM tried the same thing with their 
abbreviated  name and also failed. (Narrowly) This veers into the territory of trade 
marks,  where a visual identifier is associated with name or product. This 
<_http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/51/IBM_logo.svg/800px-I
BM_logo.svg.png_ 
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/51/IBM_logo.svg/800px-IBM_logo.svg.png) >  says 'IBM' whereas the same thing in 
copperplate script does not. If a visual  aid works then why not an audio 
one? If someone has a very distinctive voice  (I'm thinking in terms of scale 
like Diamanda Galas <_http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAFbYN_8e7g_ 
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAFbYN_8e7g) >  here) then why not? I'm not saying 
it's right or wrong, but I am saying that  it's evidently possible. 
> 
> My favourite ever sampling story  has to be the one about David Bowie's 
track 'Lets Dance'. It was very popular  back in the day and that was oput 
down to the drum timbres. The kick drum and  snare from the opening sequence 
were sampled to shreds and were featured on  dozens of other contemporary 
tunes, thanks to the Fairlight CMI. Bowie;s  production team made litigious 
noises, but it all came to nothing. 
>  
> Why? Because both were sampled from 'Moby Dick'. 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> 
> 
>  Mike Dickson, Edinburgh
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> Free Music Project: _http://www.mikedickson.org.uk/_ 
(http://www.mikedickson.org.uk/)   
> 
> 
> 
> Or _http://www.last.fm/music/Mike+Dickson_ 
(http://www.last.fm/music/Mike+Dickson)   
> 
> 
> 
> Or _http://soundcloud.com/mikedickson_ 
(http://soundcloud.com/mikedickson) 
>  
> 
> 
> Or _http://www.planetmellotron.com/revd4.htm#mikedickson_ 
(http://www.planetmellotron.com/revd4.htm#mikedickson)   
> 
> 
> 
> Or _http://www.myspace.com/mellotronworks_ 
(http://www.myspace.com/mellotronworks) 
>

Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright

2011-02-28 by fdoddy@aol.com

HAH!
 

 


 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: ClayE <ecclesreinson@rogers.com>
To: newmellotrongroup <newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Mon, Feb 28, 2011 9:57 am
Subject: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright


  
    
                  
My experience with advertising agency people over the years has left me with the feeling that they are mostly sleazy dirt-bags.  Maybe I shouldn't generalize.  It might just be the Toronto area agencies that are corrupt...and Fritz.
 

--- In newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com, "Hessel Herder" <hessel@...> wrote:

Show quoted textHide quoted text

>
> The interesting  thing is that advertising agencies will have a composer sign a contract in which  they hold  the composer liable for any third party claim ( warranted or unwarranted ),
> 
> while at the same time the agency and their client  have the final say about the musical direction and âclosenessâ of a track, with which composer will have to deal  ( with the risk of the agency 
> 
> taking you off the gig , and asking another composer, if you donât comply  or find another solution). Very tricky business.
> 
>  
> 
> This link is amusing, where Sigur Ros has a go at all the on-air soundalikes of his work
> 
>  
> 
> http://www.sigur-ros.co.uk/media/homage-or-fromage.php
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Van: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com] Namens fdoddy@...
> Verzonden: zondag 27 februari 2011 15:39
> Aan: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
> Onderwerp: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright
> 
>  
> 
>   
> 
> There have been successful lawsuits here concerning the "sound alike" nature of a singer's voice, the most notable of them coming from Bette Midler's camp.  She won! The precedent set here is, again, intent.  That intention is to willfully trick the public into thinking they're listening to the real Bette Midler, or whoever they're trying to sound like.  Knowing the industry the way I do, I'm sure there were scads of forensic evidence in the Midler case.  Stupid advertising agencies!!  Again, laziness rears its ugly head.
> 
> I have never studied any law and I absolutely hate myself for knowing the little that I do.
> 
> 
> fritz
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Dickson <mike.dickson@...>
> To: newmellotrongroup <newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sun, Feb 27, 2011 7:24 am
> Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: samples and copyright
> 
>   
> 
> On 27/02/2011 01:59, John Hammaren wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess this topic gets my ire up, since although I have the utmost respect for the work and creations of others, the current state of intellectual property law is a freaking mess IMHO. 
> 
> 
> As ever, the law is driven by those who can afford to drive it. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iâm not a lawyer, but it hardly takes one to realize this. 
> 
> 
> I'm not a lawyer either, but I do have a Masters in Law and part of that took in the subject of copyright, designs and patents. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Throw in the current software patent nonsense and we have a bigger mess. 
> 
> 
> Interesting side note: you cannot patent software. It's specifically excluded from patent. You can copyright it, but since ideas cannot be copyrighted then it means algorithms cannot be copyrighted either. If you had the means you could make a functional close of (say) Microsoft Windows and Bill Gates could not touch you for it. Why? The source code would be different. The code is your work of 'art' and hence falls into the territory of copyright, not patent. Unless you have copied large parts of it verbatim then you will be okay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty soon we will be able to copyright the timbre of our God given voices the way things are going. 
> 
> 
> You can. One firm (in 1987) tried to copyright a single letter which was associated with their name. IBM tried the same thing with their abbreviated name and also failed. (Narrowly) This veers into the territory of trade marks, where a visual identifier is associated with name or product. This <http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/51/IBM_logo.svg/800px-IBM_logo.svg.png>  says 'IBM' whereas the same thing in copperplate script does not. If a visual aid works then why not an audio one? If someone has a very distinctive voice (I'm thinking in terms of scale like Diamanda Galas <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAFbYN_8e7g>  here) then why not? I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but I am saying that it's evidently possible. 
> 
> My favourite ever sampling story has to be the one about David Bowie's track 'Lets Dance'. It was very popular back in the day and that was oput down to the drum timbres. The kick drum and snare from the opening sequence were sampled to shreds and were featured on dozens of other contemporary tunes, thanks to the Fairlight CMI. Bowie;s production team made litigious noises, but it all came to nothing. 
> 
> Why? Because both were sampled from 'Moby Dick'. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> 
>  
> Mike Dickson, Edinburgh
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
>  
> Free Music Project: http://www.mikedickson.org.uk/ 
> 
> 
>  
> Or http://www.last.fm/music/Mike+Dickson                  
> 
> 
>  
> Or http://soundcloud.com/mikedickson
> 
> 
>  
> Or http://www.planetmellotron.com/revd4.htm#mikedickson   
> 
> 
>  
> Or http://www.myspace.com/mellotronworks
>