KARAOKE SCENE MAGAZINE ONLINE! - Are HD Karaoke tracks Considered Video's? Public Forums Karaoke Discussions Karaoke Legalities & Piracy, etc... Karaoke Scene's Karaoke Forums Home | Contact Us | Site Map  

Karaoke Forums

Karaoke Scene Karaoke Forums

Karaoke Scene

   
  * Login
  * Register

  * FAQ
  * Search

Custom Search

Social Networks


wordpress-hosting

Offsite Links


It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 1:42 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Feb 01, 2018 11:28 am 
Offline
Advanced Poster
Advanced Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2017 8:10 am
Posts: 313
Images: 6
Been Liked: 52 times
Are HD Karaoke tracks Considered Video's?

I know that playing music video's a a gig require special licensing.

My question is because these new karaoke songs produced in HD (with the cool looking backgrounds) give me this impression they are relative to music video's, would you consider them as such?

Video Licensing:
http://connectmusic.ca/licensing/exhibi ... cence.aspx


Last edited by cousinvinnie on Thu Feb 01, 2018 11:34 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Personal album Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 01, 2018 11:31 am 
Offline
Extreme Poster
Extreme Poster
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 5:13 pm
Posts: 3801
Images: 1
Location: Florida
Been Liked: 1612 times
cousinvinnie wrote:
Are HD Karaoke tracks Considered Video's?

I know that playing music video's a a gig require special licensing.

My question is because these new karaoke songs produced in HD (with the cool looking backgrounds) give me this impression they are relative to music video's, would you consider them as such?

Yes, they are videos because the music is imbedded in the file.


Top
 Profile Personal album Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 01, 2018 11:36 am 
Offline
Advanced Poster
Advanced Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2017 8:10 am
Posts: 313
Images: 6
Been Liked: 52 times
Questioning because of this license:
Video Licensing:
Quote:
Summary:

This licence allows you to copy music videos using encryption and compression into computer hard drives for the purpose of diplay at events within Canada.

Some terms of this license include:

This licence is valid for one year

CONNECT Music Licensing and the record companies are not obligated to provide you with source music videos.
Videos copied are for events within Canada only.
You are responsible for music video delivery expenses to and from the record companies.
You are accountable for any loss or damage to the music video(s). Please use cost disclaimer from TV.
Costs to copy music videos are your responsibility.
Music videos may be used for the intended purpose of the record company only.
CONNECT Music Licensing may at any time recall any music videos as directed by the record company.
You are required to transfer videos from CONNECT Music Licensing approved sources.
The digital video supplier is required to copy music videos at equal or higher quality as intended by the record company.
The video compilations that are created may not contain any commercial messages nor may the music be edited or altered in any way.
You will be required to submit a list of desired videos to CONNECT Music Licensing prior to creating video compilations for record company approval.
The music videos copied must meet or exceed the quality intended by the record companies.
Monthly reports should be provided to CONNECT Music Licensing displaying information on subscribers, manufacturers and revenue details. This should be e-mailed to CONNECT Music Licensing.
You are responsible to obtain any performing rights society, publishers, or other licenses necessary outside of this agreement.
You may not sell music video compilations. These compilations are for LEASE only and are subject to recall at the end of the agreement or at CONNECT Music Licensing's discretion.
Fees:

The licence fee is the greater of $650.00 or determined by the number of events held in the venue, the average ticket price of the event, the average attendance at the event and the number of music videos used at each event.



Source:
http://connectmusic.ca/licensing/exhibi ... cence.aspx


Top
 Profile Personal album Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 01, 2018 1:55 pm 
Offline
Extreme Plus Poster
Extreme Plus Poster
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 6:24 pm
Posts: 5105
Location: Phoenix Az
Been Liked: 1279 times
yes, mp4 is considered video.

_________________
Paradigm Karaoke, The New Standard.......Shift Happens


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 01, 2018 2:06 pm 
Offline
Super Extreme Poster
Super Extreme Poster
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2001 3:57 pm
Posts: 22974
Songs: 35
Images: 3
Location: Tacoma, WA
Been Liked: 2125 times
As are all video files lol

_________________
LIKE Lonman on Facebook - Lonman Productions Karaoke & my main site via my profile!
Image


Top
 Profile Personal album Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 01, 2018 2:29 pm 
Offline
Super Plus Poster
Super Plus Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2011 11:21 pm
Posts: 1609
Location: Earth
Been Liked: 307 times
All karaoke is considered to be video productions.

_________________
KNOW THYSELF


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 01, 2018 2:43 pm 
Offline
Advanced Poster
Advanced Poster
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:18 am
Posts: 407
Been Liked: 242 times
Quote:
All karaoke is considered to be video productions.


Unfortunately this is true (ABKCO v Stellar), but it shouldn't be. That was the lawsuit that greatly contributed to the demise of karaoke, at least the demise to its current state. It's what unwittingly let to massive piracy not only by some producers but by end users as well. I only wish I knew then what I know now. I would have appealed this all the way to the Supreme Court.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 01, 2018 4:20 pm 
Offline
Super Extreme Poster
Super Extreme Poster
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2001 3:57 pm
Posts: 22974
Songs: 35
Images: 3
Location: Tacoma, WA
Been Liked: 2125 times
earthling12357 wrote:
All karaoke is considered to be video productions.

Yes and no. Karaoke without video is not, that would be simply an instrumental - printed lyric sheets or a lyric site on a phone/tablet doesn't constitute as a video production.

_________________
LIKE Lonman on Facebook - Lonman Productions Karaoke & my main site via my profile!
Image


Top
 Profile Personal album Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 01, 2018 4:21 pm 
Offline
Super Extreme Poster
Super Extreme Poster
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2001 3:57 pm
Posts: 22974
Songs: 35
Images: 3
Location: Tacoma, WA
Been Liked: 2125 times
Bastiat wrote:
Quote:
All karaoke is considered to be video productions.


Unfortunately this is true (ABKCO v Stellar), but it shouldn't be. That was the lawsuit that greatly contributed to the demise of karaoke, at least the demise to its current state. It's what unwittingly let to massive piracy not only by some producers but by end users as well. I only wish I knew then what I know now. I would have appealed this all the way to the Supreme Court.
I think that case greatly contributed to the 'no fly list' over time as well - at least IMO.

_________________
LIKE Lonman on Facebook - Lonman Productions Karaoke & my main site via my profile!
Image


Top
 Profile Personal album Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:06 pm 
Offline
Advanced Poster
Advanced Poster
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:18 am
Posts: 407
Been Liked: 242 times
Quote:
I think that case greatly contributed to the 'no fly list' over time as well - at least IMO.


I never really thought of it in those terms, but how so? There have always been artists that despise karaoke and didn't want their songs being sung in public thinking that the general public will butcher their songs. Well often times that's true, but some of the worst butcher jobs I've ever heard were done by "bands".

There's nothing that says fingernails on a chalkboard more than a band full of Portuguese immigrants with very heavy accents doing "Get Down On It" by Kool and the Gang. :mrgreen: Still can't get that one out of my head 25 years later.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 02, 2018 2:27 am 
Offline
Super Extreme Poster
Super Extreme Poster
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2001 3:57 pm
Posts: 22974
Songs: 35
Images: 3
Location: Tacoma, WA
Been Liked: 2125 times
It may or may not have, it just seems that after that decision - lots of artists started to pull songs from manus, coincidence? Maybe??
And yes i've heard cover bands doing songs that sounded nothing like the original - even though that was their intent lol

_________________
LIKE Lonman on Facebook - Lonman Productions Karaoke & my main site via my profile!
Image


Top
 Profile Personal album Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 02, 2018 8:36 am 
Offline
Super Poster
Super Poster

Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2014 8:41 am
Posts: 682
Been Liked: 259 times
Bastiat wrote:
Quote:
I think that case greatly contributed to the 'no fly list' over time as well - at least IMO.


I never really thought of it in those terms, but how so? There have always been artists that despise karaoke and didn't want their songs being sung in public thinking that the general public will butcher their songs. Well often times that's true, but some of the worst butcher jobs I've ever heard were done by "bands".

There's nothing that says fingernails on a chalkboard more than a band full of Portuguese immigrants with very heavy accents doing "Get Down On It" by Kool and the Gang. :mrgreen: Still can't get that one out of my head 25 years later.


Considering the fact that most artists are very insecure, I think their aversion to Karaoke is more likely because they know someone out there will perform their song better than they did.

With the sheer number of different voices, life experiences, and emotions, the odds are that someone, somewhere will sing a song better than the original artist.

I can think of very few songs where the original artist is untouchable in this regard.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 02, 2018 8:44 am 
Offline
Extreme Plus Poster
Extreme Plus Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 11:31 am
Posts: 5346
Location: Watebrury, CT
Been Liked: 396 times
I have heard remakes whose arrangements put the original artist to shame. I feel Michael Bolton's (Sitting on) The Dock of the Bay was way better than Otis Redding's, not that the original wasn't good,the remake was better.

_________________
The Line Array Experiment is over. Nothing to see here. Move along.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 02, 2018 10:39 am 
Offline
Advanced Poster
Advanced Poster
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:18 am
Posts: 407
Been Liked: 242 times
Quote:
Considering the fact that most artists are very insecure, I think their aversion to Karaoke is more likely because they know someone out there will perform their song better than they did.


That's a point worth considering and I'm sure it's possible that there may be an artist or two who might be thinking in those terms but I think the major concern is mostly because the songwriters/artists view karaoke as devaluing their works. This is especially true for songwriters who won't license their songs for karaoke.

For example, a few years back before he passed away Paul Leka (who wrote many songs in the 70s such as Green Tambourine and Na Na Hey Hey Kiss Him Goodbye) was telling us why he didn't license his tracks for karaoke and he used the Carly Simon song "Anticipation" as an example. He said that every time someone hears that song they think of Heinz ketchup, and I have to say that I agree with him. He pointed out that no one else would ever use that song in any other venue for that reason. Paul was not a performing artists but a songwriter, an arranger, record producer and pianist so he obviously wasn't concerned with someone outperforming him. I think there is a similar concern with songs becoming karaoke "anthems" (think "I Will Survive") having the same negative effect on their works much like the song "Anticipation". Whether or not there's any truth to that remains to be seen but I think it plays a major role as to why some songs can't be licensed for karaoke.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 02, 2018 10:50 am 
Offline
Advanced Poster
Advanced Poster
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:18 am
Posts: 407
Been Liked: 242 times
Quote:
have heard remakes whose arrangements put the original artist to shame.


I agree with that (not the Michael Bolton part, things like that are just too subjective), but it doesn't really have much bearing on licensing a karaoke track. Anyone can record their own arrangement of any song that's been released to the public as long as they don't include a graphic display of the lyrics. So in that sense there's no way an artist can prevent another artist from recording their songs.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 04, 2018 11:20 am 
Offline
Super Duper Poster
Super Duper Poster

Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2010 11:16 pm
Posts: 2027
Location: HIgh River, AB
Been Liked: 268 times
Given the current state of things, it will probably NEVER happen, but here's what i think SHOULD happen.

If someone wants to make a karaoke track, with the lyrics attached to the music etc. You pay for all the royalties that you are supposed to, but when you create that karaoke track, it is called a 'karaoke work" with a set of master rights that belong EXCLUSIVELY to the company that produced it. Exactly the same way that when you record a song, it is considered a new work, with master rights..

This way once the licensing is paid for.. SONY, EMI etc have absolutely NO SAY AT ALL, in how it gets sold, distributed, played etc..

would take a change in the law so like i said, probably never gonna happen

-james


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2018 1:45 am 
Offline
Advanced Poster
Advanced Poster
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:18 am
Posts: 407
Been Liked: 242 times
jclaydon wrote:
If someone wants to make a karaoke track, with the lyrics attached to the music etc. You pay for all the royalties that you are supposed to, but when you create that karaoke track, it is called a 'karaoke work" with a set of master rights that belong EXCLUSIVELY to the company that produced it. Exactly the same way that when you record a song, it is considered a new work, with master rights..


You know James, it pretty much already works that way now, except there's no definition in the copyright code as something being a "karaoke work", but then again, believe it or not there's no definition in the code for a "musical work" either. If you're interested, the section in the copyright code (Title 17) that has the definitions is section 101. There's definitions for audio/visual works, phonorecords, literary works, but nowhere could I find a definition for "musical works". Which begs the question ... "Was that an oversight, or was it by design?"

In any event, if you make a sound recording formatted for a karaoke performance (i.e. sans a lead vocal) you can get a federal registration for that work. A graphic display of the lyrics is not included in the copyright, but it doesn't really need to be anyway seeing that there is little if any use of infringing on just the graphics display of the lyrics.

The problem doesn't really lie with the law. In my opinion the current law is just fine, it's just the way that it's been interpreted that has got us in this mess. There's nothing in the code that would suggest that a sound recording that includes a graphic display of the lyrics (not a background video) is anything other than a phonorecord which entitles it to a Section 115 compulsory license. The publishers have made the argument that such sound recordings are audio/visual works which the code clearly and I do mean clearly say that they aren't a/v works, but by default would define them as phonorecords.


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:19 pm 
Offline
Super Duper Poster
Super Duper Poster

Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2010 11:16 pm
Posts: 2027
Location: HIgh River, AB
Been Liked: 268 times
Bastiat wrote:
jclaydon wrote:
If someone wants to make a karaoke track, with the lyrics attached to the music etc. You pay for all the royalties that you are supposed to, but when you create that karaoke track, it is called a 'karaoke work" with a set of master rights that belong EXCLUSIVELY to the company that produced it. Exactly the same way that when you record a song, it is considered a new work, with master rights..


You know James, it pretty much already works that way now, except there's no definition in the copyright code as something being a "karaoke work", but then again, believe it or not there's no definition in the code for a "musical work" either. If you're interested, the section in the copyright code (Title 17) that has the definitions is section 101. There's definitions for audio/visual works, phonorecords, literary works, but nowhere could I find a definition for "musical works". Which begs the question ... "Was that an oversight, or was it by design?"

.



My point was, that after you make the karaoke track, you still need to compensate the publisher for each copy sold and if you want to sell the tracks online, that seems to require a completely separate license to sell it to the public, and I personally don't think it should be that way. If a karaoke track had 'master rights' and you wanted to sell your karaoke tracks world wide, you wouldn't NEED the pubishers permission and all this territory bs would be completely moot.

-James


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2018 5:36 pm 
Offline
Advanced Poster
Advanced Poster
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:18 am
Posts: 407
Been Liked: 242 times
Okay, I get you now. When you said "master rights", I was thinking you literally meant "master rights" of which is commonly referred to the rights to the composition and the recording, but obviously you meant something a bit different.

So if these "master rights" allowed the rights holder to do anything he/she pleases with the song, how would you deal a with master rights holder who wanted to use the song as an anthem for something contrary to the composers beliefs, or would you not deal with it at all. Let's say for example that the rights holder with the "master rights" decides to use this song in an abortion clinic's PSA and the composer is a devout Christian who is anti-abortion, how do you square that scenario?


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2018 10:28 pm 
Offline
Super Duper Poster
Super Duper Poster

Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2010 11:16 pm
Posts: 2027
Location: HIgh River, AB
Been Liked: 268 times
Bastiat wrote:
Okay, I get you now. When you said "master rights", I was thinking you literally meant "master rights" of which is commonly referred to the rights to the composition and the recording, but obviously you meant something a bit different.

So if these "master rights" allowed the rights holder to do anything he/she pleases with the song, how would you deal a with master rights holder who wanted to use the song as an anthem for something contrary to the composers beliefs, or would you not deal with it at all. Let's say for example that the rights holder with the "master rights" decides to use this song in an abortion clinic's PSA and the composer is a devout Christian who is anti-abortion, how do you square that scenario?


Ya i knew it wasn't the right term, but since there is no definition to what i'm talking about, it's the closest thing i could think of.

As for someone wanting to use the track, i guess it would depend on what format it's in. I mean it would be kind of hard to separate the audio from the lyrics if it was an mp4 video.

that being said, since the copyright holder has all the control, they would be perfectly welcome to say no. i mean there's nothing stoping the person who wants to use the song from paying the compulsory for the 'orignal' song from the original publisher.

Unless somehow the law meant that there was automatically a compulsory for the music portion, in which case i guess it's like everyone else, they can't do anything about it.

If i were the rights holder, and i disagreed about something, i prolly wouldn't sue over it, but then i just hate conflict in general, so that's just a personal thing.

-James


Top
 Profile Singer's Showcase Profile 
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 139 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group

Privacy Policy | Anti-Spam Policy | Acceptable Use Policy Copyright © Karaoke Scene Magazine
design & hosting by Cross Web Tech