Music Copyright Law and Guitar Tablature.

[Canaanabolaanan]

I'm a guitar player who discovered the benefits of online tablature. More than one of the communities I'd visit for tabs has been shutdown due to hosting these tabs, which allegedly infringe upon the original works of the authors and/or their overlord publishing companies.

Let's say I created a tab that I wanted to legally share with the world.

1. Who's permission do I need to get to host it on my website without infringing upon any rights? For a major band? Indie band? Video game? Classical tune in the public domain?
2. What copyright law is it that prevents me from sharing how to play a song on guitar?
3. Why do sites like youtube seem to get away with full-on guitar tutorials that seem to do the same thing?
4. And why do some tab sites exist seemingly untouched, and let's assume their host server is in the Netherlands?

 

[Zigner]

Sorry, this site is for US law only.

 

[FlyingRon]

Making tabs is copying (or perhaps a derivative work). You need permission from the music owner. It's similar to lyrics sites which have been hit hard over the years when they don't have the proper agreements. If you look up tablature on wikipedia you'll find a section on the legal issues.

You can probably claim fair use if you are explaining how to play certain riffs or styles in a song but to give the whole song's info is certainly right out.

 

[quincy]

... 4. And why do some tab sites exist seemingly untouched, and let's assume their host server is in the Netherlands?

"Fair use" is an affirmative defense to copyright infringement under U.S. copyright laws.

What country are you posting from, Canaanabolaanan?

 

[Canaanabolaanan]

Hmm. I guess it takes a while for comments to get cleared of moderation. So don't link to wikipedia is the lesson here. That kind of sucks though, 'cause I typed up a decent sized response.

So I'm from the US. I looked into that Wiki legal section, and the "fair use" site MuSATO seems like something I'd be interested in (oh yeah, I also linked to that forum), but it doesn't seem like that argument has really taken off. The site doesn't seem active or thriving. So I'm wondering if fair use actually works. Since the MPA has such a nebulous stranglehold on the tabbing community with its "derivative works" language, I'm wondering what would be a legal way around this. Could I edit the tab so that it's not a faithful version of the song, but stresses a didactic approach by using extra repeats, slower tempos, related exercises interspersed into the tab, etc, etc?

How do youtube tutorials skirt derivative works? Would images of the tab (devoid of MIDI/audio) be legal? I'm guessing no as OLGA was shut down, which was just ASCII.

I guess this is related to the way the "happy birthday" song can't be legally sung in public without paying royalties, as discussed by Steven Colbert on Thursday (March 6th, 2014 - for future reference), whereas in private, like tabs, would be ... unpreventable, if not legal.

But yeah, if you could offer any legal work-arounds for this issue, I would be most grateful. Many thanks.

 

[FlyingRon]

Fair use, as pointed out by Quincy, won't prevent you from being sued. It may be a defense. You can not base what is permissible on what other people have gotten away with. Again, I gave you an example of what would be legitimate fair use and what wouldn't. There's no "shenanigans" of videoing the tab or whatever that's going to make illegal copying legal.

If you make a video playing the entire song, they have the right to either deny you outright or request royalties. Some publishers have a blanket agreement with YouTube, some do not. You don't know until your song goes poof on the site. As for your own site, you don't have anywhere near the legal budget Google does.

 

[bishopsgait]

Lipstick on a pig!

Don't be fooled by free legal lip service. Registered copyrights and breached contracts originally signed in good faith add up to nothing if you don't have a substantial pile of money to afford access to the legal system. "What is permissible" varies greatly from who is permitted.

Fair use, as pointed out by Quincy, won't prevent you from being sued. It may be a defense. You can not base what is permissible on what other people have gotten away with. Again, I gave you an example of what would be legitimate fair use and what wouldn't. There's no "shenanigans" of videoing the tab or whatever that's going to make illegal copying legal.

If you make a video playing the entire song, they have the right to either deny you outright or request royalties. Some publishers have a blanket agreement with YouTube, some do not. You don't know until your song goes poof on the site. As for your own site, you don't have anywhere near the legal budget Google does.

 

[quincy]

Don't be fooled by free legal lip service. Registered copyrights and breached contracts originally signed in good faith add up to nothing if you don't have a substantial pile of money to afford access to the legal system. "What is permissible" varies greatly from who is permitted.

You had a bad experience with a registered copyright or a breached contract, did you, bishopsgait?

It helps to have money, certainly, when you find one of your copyrighted works infringed or a contract breached. And it helps to have more money than the other guy, when you are the infringer of a copyrighted work or you decide to breach a contract. It is sad, but often true, that it is the one with the most money who "wins."

With copyrighted works infringed online, however, the copyright holder DOES have inexpensive recourse. The copyright holder can file a DMCA takedown notice. This, at least, removes the infringed material from its place online. Again, though, if the infringer wants to dispute the notice and file a counter notice, then the copyright holder may be forced into the position of having to sue the infringer. And lawsuits can be, and generally are, costly.

It would be nice if everyone just played nicely with another's belongings, but I don't see that happening any time soon.

As to the "happy birthday song" that Canaanabolaanan mentioned (you know, you could have picked an easier user name, C. ), we discussed the case back in June of last year when it was in the courts. See https://forum.freeadvice.com/copyrights-trademarks-39/happy-birthday-you-597622.html.

 

[Canaanabolaanan]

My crazy name is one way I can ensure it's available Thanks for the feedback, guys. Looks like I'm screwed if I don't have the cash.

What about youtube covers though, that cover the whole song? Are those technically infringement as well then?

 

[quincy]

My crazy name is one way I can ensure it's available Thanks for the feedback, guys. Looks like I'm screwed if I don't have the cash.

What about youtube covers though, that cover the whole song? Are those technically infringement as well then?

Ha. Yes. I think it is safe to say that you are the only Canaanabolaanan on the internet.

YouTube licenses the music from the music publishers, so much of what you see on YouTube is licensed music with royalties paid to the copyright holders. However some cover song videos on YouTube are distributed by YouTube's affiliates (ie, Maker Studios, Fullscreen). These affiliates were, up until recently, uploading some unlicensed works.

Publishing videos using unlicensed music infringes on the rights of the copyright holders.

Last year, the National Music Publisher's Association filed copyright infringement suits against these affiliates, with one suit settling with Maker last year and with one settling with Fullscreen this January. The settlement agreements include monetary compensation to cover past infringement. The affiliates will now delete all unlicensed music and the music in videos should now be licensed under YouTube's direct licensing agreement with the music publishers, to better ensure royalties are paid.

As an additional note, YouTube now has a "content identification" copyright scanning system in place that will flag unlicensed works for the copyright holders.

 

[FlyingRon]

I actually met with a Google VP responsible for YouTube. They're scanning of submissions is quite impressive. They are looking for pilfered music and video. I uploaded a video of me flying a jet pack with the James Bond theme in the background. This was detected but fortunately for one of the publishers Google has a deal with so it just got a "go here to buy this music" link superimposed over my video.

If you're talking about YouTube, I'd say go ahead and take a chance at uploading it. The worst that will likely happen is it will disappear.

If you're talking about setting up your own site...well... as I said... you do not have the legal resources google has.