Red Army Choir, Finnish rock group sing "Sweet Home Alabama" -- in English
Speaking of copyright infringements (re: Yoko & XVIVO vs. "Expelled"), is the following a copyright infringement?
You can see them perform here. They're good.
Back in the days of the Soviet Union, the Soviet Red Army had an official choir composed of male soldiers and musicians. It still exists. The Red Army Choir performs throughout Russia to this day. Now consider the Finnish rock band called The Leningrad Cowboys. A little while ago, they held a concert in Russia, in which -- to the screaming applause of Russkie teenagers -- they got the Red Army Choir to join them on stage for a performance of "Sweet Home Alabama." In English.
You can see them perform here. They're good.
Labels: Yoko Ono lawsuit
posted by Larry Fafarman | 5/07/2008 07:51:00 PM
7 Comments:
My understanding is yes -- the owner of the copyright of the song is owed a certain amount of money for each person present (I had that when "Happy Birthday" is sung in public, the owner of the copyright is owed 5 cents per person present). I'm no lawyer and I don't know the circumstances under which the rights need to be paid and when not, but my guess is yes based on the tidbit I learned a long time ago.
No Larry, this is not copyright infringement.
If they started with Hey Leningrad we are going to play a song we just wrote, (thus claiming the material was their creation), that would be an infringement.
I am unsure if they are required to pay royalties for the performance, as they are performing the music rather then playing a recording of LS, but I would suspect they do; and likely did in purchasing the music, but I am not familiar with the ins and outs of the music industry
Now not getting permission to use imagine in expelled, that was a copyright infringement, as they did not obtain the broadcast rights.
There is a difference between performing music, broadcasting, and using material in a film. If that band recorded the song, they have to pay royalties, heck even if they only use a small passage from the song, the must pay.
And while the band only has to pay a royalty, the movie was required to obtain permission because it is associating the music with a message, just the same as if they were selling soap, cars, or making a documentary.
If all they were doing was broadcasting the music, then they would just have to pay a royalty like a radio station, as they are using the material in a fixed media format (film) they must obtain permission, give full credit, and pay for the privilege( if required), not doing so is copyright infringement.
Hope that makes things clear for you.
Anonymous II --
First you say,
>>>>> No Larry, this is not copyright infringement. <<<<
Then you contradict yourself:
>>>>> I am unsure if they are required to pay royalties for the performance <<<<<
If they did not pay royalties which they are required to pay, that's copyright infringement.
>>>>> Hope that makes things clear for you. <<<<<
No, it does not. You forgot about fair-use issues.
Anyway, I posted the Red Army Choir video more for its entertainment value than because of any connection to the Yoko v. Expelled lawsuit.
Larry,
Anonymous II makes it clear that copyright infringement is different than having to pay royalties; there is a difference between them (the difference being attribution -- if the group starts with "we are going to play a song we just wrote" and then sing someone else's song = copyright infringement; if they acknowledge the song belonging to someone else, then it is not, but royalties must be paid).
Also, Anonymous II points out that different laws apply to different media, where fair use allows limited distribution of written media, it does not for music or broadcast media.
Too bad you can't read, it's all in his/her post.
>>>>> Anonymous II makes it clear that copyright infringement is different than having to pay royalties; there is a difference between them <<<<<<
I didn't say that there isn't a difference -- all I said was that failure to pay required royalties is a copyright infringement.
>>>>> Also, Anonymous II points out that different laws apply to different media, where fair use allows limited distribution of written media, it does not for music or broadcast media. <<<<<
There is just one fair use law, 17 USC §107, for all media. This same law is applied to written work and music. However, other laws may give greater protection to certain kinds of media -- e.g., 17 USC §106a gives special protection to particular kinds of visual art.
>>>>> Too bad you can't read, it's all in his/her post. <<<<<
I can read perfectly well, bozo.
< Anonymous II >
Did I miss the coronation? How could that happen?
>I didn't say that there isn't a difference -- all I said was that failure to pay required royalties is a copyright infringement.<
> I can read perfectly well, bozo. <
You just proved that you can't, dimwit.
Post a Comment
<< Home