# Music and Audio



## Dragoneer (Jan 22, 2009)

In an effort to solicit feedback on the AUP changes, as well as better answer questions, we have created this forum for each individual clause of the AUP. We will modify and/or improve AUP clarity based on suggestions and feedback.
 
- - - - - - - -

*Music and Audio*
Users may post music provided the following criteria are met:
 

As a Music Submission - Users may not upload original copyright renditions of audio. Covers and karaoke-style submissions are permitted tracks provided full credit is given to the original performing artists.
Samples and Remixes- Remixes are permitted, but significant work must be done to distinguish it from the original copyright material. 

Mashups - Mash-ups are only permitted when one half of the mash-up contains user-created material.

As Part of a Flash Submission - Music may accompany Flash files as a part of Fair Use. The music must compliment the content of the Flash, not merely used as a means to upload full tracks.


----------



## Vontagon (Jan 22, 2009)

Dragoneer said:


> Samples and Remixes- Remixes are permitted, but significant work must be done to distinguish it from the original copyright material.



How much work is significant enough to distinguish it off the track it was previously based off of? At this current point in time it seems a little foggy on what exactly constitutes as proper remixes, under the guidelines. Also, if you are remixing a title, shouldn't you also be giving credit for the original track to the creator? It makes sense, since you have that rule specified for covers.


----------



## Dragoneer (Jan 22, 2009)

Vontagon said:


> How much work is significant enough to distinguish it off the track it was previously based off of? At this current point in time it seems a little foggy on what exactly constitutes as proper remixes, under the guidelines.


Frankly, that's hard to say. A remix should be a unique version that carries the spirit of the original but with a new feel. I'd probably say if a majority of the song is indistinguishable from the original it would probably be in violation. Simply adding a drumbeat would not be enough, etc. It would need to be a song completely with elements of the originating track.

Fox Amoore would probably be able to shed more light on the subject since he's the FA Music Admin.



Vontagon said:


> Also, if you are remixing a title, shouldn't you also be giving credit for the original track to the creator? It makes sense, since you have that rule specified for covers.


This is a flawless example of the kind of feedback needed.


----------



## Takun (Jan 22, 2009)

This all seems extremely fair.


----------



## Vontagon (Jan 22, 2009)

Dragoneer said:


> Frankly, that's hard to say. A remix should be a unique version that carries the spirit of the original but with a new feel. I'd probably say if a majority of the song is indistinguishable from the original it would probably be in violation. Simply adding a drumbeat would not be enough, etc. It would need to be a song completely with elements of the originating track.



I'm sorry, I totally didn't understand the last sentence. It might be the late hour or simply a grammatical error that I can't decipher. But I think I get the idea. The aim is to ensure that someone just doesn't overlay a drum loops, voice clips or something similar that doesn't change the track enough to be labeled as a remix? While you have "half" of a mashup track being the bare minimum allowed for it to be labeled as such, there's a similarly-solid guideline lacking for remixes. Just as you can have requirements, there's also got to be a way to check and enforce them.

I'd love to hear Fox Amoore's clarification on this one bit, cause from what I know, people could abuse anything that's not concrete. Of course, the probability of that actually happening as opposed to most *normal* people creating music that's generally acceptable, is pretty slim, but it's just principle and clarification that matters.

On a side note I was curious about, are these rules intended to be enforced on all old submissions (ones made before this time) as well?


----------



## dmfalk (Jan 22, 2009)

I would strike the separate entry for mashups and simply include it with the remixes clause. For one thing, as written, the requirement for a mashup turns it into a remix, and no longer a mashup. Allowing mashups under the same criteria as remixes, above, would still make mashups as mashups by definition, providing a sufficiently reasonable effort on the mixer's part. This would keep artists like Allan on FA from having to remove their mashups.

d.m.f.


----------



## Charem (Jan 22, 2009)

I don't have too many problems with this, but I am curious if this policy makes it so remastering a song isn't allowed.

Remastering is where you keep the same feel of a song, but basically update or enhances its instruments.  I do this quite often to older songs, which very much deserve updates from the blips and bloops they are originally.  I still make the songs from scratch though.

Are those allowed?


----------



## Aden (Jan 22, 2009)

AUP seems fair.

Wish there were a better policy for filesize limits, though. A flat 10MB _for everything_ seems odd. What happens if an artist wants to submit a long (say...16-minute) song? I only wonder because, when I start submitting some finished music, it's likely going to be long because that's the kind of song I write. I realize my case is a rarity, but I'd rather let people hear the music I make at a higher quality than 64kbps mp3.

No idea how anything else could be implemented, though.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jan 22, 2009)

Is there a limit to non music / audio submissions?

I think we see most of the music part covered, however, I noticed for example an Audio meme or people submitting "listen to me talk" How would that fit in the AUP?


----------



## Hanazawa (Jan 23, 2009)

Arshes Nei said:


> Is there a limit to non music / audio submissions?
> 
> I think we see most of the music part covered, however, I noticed for example an Audio meme or people submitting "listen to me talk" How would that fit in the AUP?



I've been saying for a while that there needs to be a separate submission category for "spoken word" submissions as opposed to music submissions. although I just noticed in the dropdown there's now a selection for Podcasts? I don't think it's possible to upload something into it though...


----------



## Fox Amoore (Jan 23, 2009)

Vontagon said:


> I'm sorry, I totally didn't understand the last sentence. It might be the late hour or simply a grammatical error that I can't decipher. But I think I get the idea. The aim is to ensure that someone just doesn't overlay a drum loops, voice clips or something similar that doesn't change the track enough to be labeled as a remix? While you have "half" of a mashup track being the bare minimum allowed for it to be labeled as such, there's a similarly-solid guideline lacking for remixes. Just as you can have requirements, there's also got to be a way to check and enforce them.
> 
> I'd love to hear Fox Amoore's clarification on this one bit, cause from what I know, people could abuse anything that's not concrete. Of course, the probability of that actually happening as opposed to most *normal* people creating music that's generally acceptable, is pretty slim, but it's just principle and clarification that matters.
> 
> On a side note I was curious about, are these rules intended to be enforced on all old submissions (ones made before this time) as well?



Generally speaking, the uploaded submission must show a certain degree of work done by the user, so that it's easily distinguishable from the original song that's being "remixed". It's a little tricky giving a percentage or fraction as a guideline, since each submission would most likely differ, as well as the fact it's probably different from each user's opinion. If it's simply a case of changing the EQ's of a copyrighted song then submitting it, then that wouldn't be permitted. If however it involves adding a completely new rhythm, bassline, guitar or even doing it from scratch, then it's likely to stay. Providing, the user gives full credit to the original author and is not known to be using FA as a means of selling it without that artist or label's permission. Ideally, remixes shouldn't really be downloadable either.


----------



## Toksyuryel (Jan 24, 2009)

As a music artist this one affects me personally, so I'll just go through this list one-by-one and try to offer fixes that better match up with what I believe to be the spirit of the rules.



Dragoneer said:


> As a Music Submission - Users may not upload original copyright renditions of audio. Covers and karaoke-style submissions are permitted tracks provided full credit is given to the original performing artists.


The wording needs to be more specific. I presume your intent was to block uploads of copyrighted material that the uploader neither owns nor has permission to upload. However, the current wording would block the upload even when the user owns the copyright, or has permission from the copyright-holder to upload it (commissions where the author retains the copyright for example). Only public domain pieces would be acceptable with this wording. Suggested fix: "Users may only upload audio for which they own the copyright or have verifiable permission from the owner of the copyright. If it is a public domain piece, uploader must be the original author of the track. Covers and Karaoke are permitted provided full attribution of the original performance is given." Rationale for the public domain restriction: there is no need for everyone and their mother to upload the same piece of free music, and this was the best way I could think of to prevent that.


Dragoneer said:


> Samples and Remixes- Remixes are permitted, but significant work must be done to distinguish it from the original copyright material.


This is a bit vague but there is probably nothing that can be done to fix that; this will be one of those rules that will have to be set more on precedent than on its wording. I trust this will not be abused.


Dragoneer said:


> Mashups - Mash-ups are only permitted when one half of the mash-up contains user-created material.


This rule bans mashups by the definition of a mashup. The "user-created material" of a mashup is the mashup itself- the selection of which music to use, what parts to use, and how to order them. The music itself is not what the mashup artist creates, and fair use laws account for where the line is to be drawn between mashup and copyvio. A simple "Mashups must adequately comply with the fair use provisions of copyright law." should be all that is required; the actual fair use provisions can be applied and used to determine what is acceptable and what is not, there is no need to duplicate them here.


Dragoneer said:


> As Part of a Flash Submission - Music may accompany Flash files as a part of Fair Use. The music must compliment the content of the Flash, not merely used as a means to upload full tracks.


This rule is fine as-written, but the wording feels a little rushed and unprofessional. Try this: "Flash Submissions - Music which is not owned by the uploader and has not been granted verifiable permission to use may only be used in a flash submission to the extent afforded by the fair use provisions of copyright law." The corollary to this rule is covered by fair use provisions and thus does not need to be mentioned here.

Closing thoughts: I believe the problems people are having with these policies is that they aren't written as policies- they are written as guidelines. Policies are the actual rules and they need to be as specific as possible in order to avoid collateral damage. Guidelines on the other paw simply compliment and help explain the policies- these can be worded more loosely because their words are not law. Splitting the policy into a strictly-worded and highly-specific policy document with an accompanying guideline document that explains the spirit of the rules in the policy document should help alleviate almost all problems people have with the new policy. I think that we all agree with your intent with these new rules, we are just concerned about the loose and unprofessional wording that causes too much collateral damage and seems to be miles away from the spirit of the new rules.

Thank you for taking the time to read my post.


----------



## Vontagon (Jan 24, 2009)

Fox Amoore said:


> Generally speaking, the uploaded submission must show a certain degree of work done by the user, so that it's easily distinguishable from the original song that's being "remixed". It's a little tricky giving a percentage or fraction as a guideline, since each submission would most likely differ, as well as the fact it's probably different from each user's opinion. If it's simply a case of changing the EQ's of a copyrighted song then submitting it, then that wouldn't be permitted. If however it involves adding a completely new rhythm, bassline, guitar or even doing it from scratch, then it's likely to stay. Providing, the user gives full credit to the original author and is not known to be using FA as a means of selling it without that artist or label's permission. Ideally, remixes shouldn't really be downloadable either.



Makes sense. I just wanted to see if greater clarification could be gotten on that part in particular, since I like remixes a fair bit. Thanks!


----------



## TheComet (Jan 26, 2009)

Seems pretty solid right now aside from what has been mentioned.

The only concern I have is where sliced samples come into play.


Mostly concerning drumline and percussion instruments, is it alright for cases where individual instruments are sliced out of a drum loop or song and used within a song? (even the RIAA is kinda vague on this) I hear this in tons of songs of various genres, whether it's the recognizable instruments used in "Amen Brother" (a la Amen Break), or vintage drums out of a band recording.
Same idea for vocal snippits, is it okay to submit songs that make heavy use of movie/song snippets?


----------



## Alex Cross (Mar 2, 2009)

I like the AUP just the way it is, but it needs more refining of course.

The problem that kept appearing is that I see a lot of people take copyrighted material and then dub their own voice over it and call it a submission. Karaoke is a bit different in that the instruments and backup vocals are typically redone (see MySpace Karaoke for example).

I think that it should be clear that music submissions must be original work, but the only thing that doesn't have to be original is the karaoke tracks, which the submission author must give credit for.


----------



## Hanazawa (Mar 2, 2009)

Are you talking about someone just taking the original MP3 and singing over it without even stripping the original vocals first?

I just ask because I use official off-vocal releases that are literally the studio cut minus the vocal track, which is different from a "karaoke" track which uses things like midi instruments, slightly altered arrangements, etc.
Fox Amoore has stated that what I do is allowed, but I could see a problem with just singing over the original vox track... (it takes about five minutes to strip this out of an MP3 with a decent editing software anyway)



Alex Cross said:


> The problem that kept appearing is that I see a lot of people take copyrighted material and then dub their own voice over it and call it a submission. Karaoke is a bit different in that the instruments and backup vocals are typically redone (see MySpace Karaoke for example).


----------



## Alex Cross (Mar 2, 2009)

Hanazawa said:


> Are you talking about someone just taking the original MP3 and singing over it without even stripping the original vocals first?



Yes.

There's a guy named Octavius who did a series of Pink Floyd "cover" songs that sounded oddly like the original tracks, but the only difference is that he sang over the original vocals. He submitted a good chunk of these kinds of submissions and I didn't know if I should be obligated to report him from doing that or if it was kosher.


----------



## Hanazawa (Mar 2, 2009)

I'd say PM Fox Amoore directly in that case. I'm going to guess it's not allowed but he's the music admin and can give you the direct answer.


----------

