# Remix Copyright?



## EmpressCiela (Sep 26, 2017)

Quick question: Would anyone happen to know what the copyright rules are for making remixes of an artist's music for non-commercial purposes?


----------



## RealWriterX (Sep 28, 2017)

According to a quick search, but lacking any solid evidence, it seems that making Remixes, even for non-commercial purposes can trigger publishers. If you obtain permission from the author(s) to remix the song (and explain that it's for non-commercial purposes) you would feel a lot safer/better than otherwise.

I mean, on the surface you would think that there should be no issue, since you are gaining no monetary benefit from it, but it seems that publishers see things differently.


----------



## EmpressCiela (Nov 2, 2017)

RealWriterX said:


> According to a quick search, but lacking any solid evidence, it seems that making Remixes, even for non-commercial purposes can trigger publishers. If you obtain permission from the author(s) to remix the song (and explain that it's for non-commercial purposes) you would feel a lot safer/better than otherwise.
> 
> I mean, on the surface you would think that there should be no issue, since you are gaining no monetary benefit from it, but it seems that publishers see things differently.


Well that's rather disheartening...thanks for researching that though. I couldn't find any articles on it that were reliable enough


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Nov 2, 2017)

There is a very grey legal area with that aspect.

 Although you would not be "making money directly" from the work, any snarky attorney could say it was used to increase personal gains.  Basically using them to increase notoriety.  It's actually less painful to pay a known specific dollar amount of what was gained, than be subject to a vague assumption of how much was earned. 

Then it gets real messy.


----------



## EmpressCiela (Nov 2, 2017)

-..Legacy..- said:


> There is a very grey legal area with that aspect.
> 
> Although you would not be "making money directly" from the work, any snarky attorney could say it was used to increase personal gains.  Basically using them to increase notoriety.  It's actually less painful to pay a known specific dollar amount of what was gained, than be subject to a vague assumption of how much was earned.
> 
> Then it gets real messy.


True. The remix I did make though wasn't even for any monetary gain or to make myself known. I just did it for fun. I didn't release it because (as I found out) record labels and those that handle the legal side of music are comprised 90% of snowflakes who don't care to understand the appeal of simply just making music in the first place


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Nov 2, 2017)

Pretty much.  I went to school for law but got bored after a year, but I figured I would tell you how I would go after it.  

Personal use doesn't count for any of this discussion though.  This only refers to public release/performance.


----------



## EmpressCiela (Nov 2, 2017)

-..Legacy..- said:


> Personal use doesn't count for any of this discussion though. This only refers to public release/performance.


Seems I'd just have to worry about the public release aspect then. I am definitely NOT at the skill level to consider public performance. Going by all that though, would I need to pay royalties just to release it to friends?


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Nov 2, 2017)

AkuroZinnui said:


> Seems I'd just have to worry about the public release aspect then. I am definitely NOT at the skill level to consider public performance. Going by all that though, would I need to pay royalties just to release it to friends?



Any competent attorney could say it's still technically a public release at that point by producing a tangible, distributable product.  

Personally, you should ask the OC of the track if you could remix, then release it back to them.  Give them an unlimited use clause, as long as they credit you.  If they like the remix, you get the off-chance that they release it to a completely new set of ears.  Then the end user can backtrack your work by name, and you get more publicity.  That's what I would consider the safest path, and everyone wins.


----------



## EmpressCiela (Nov 2, 2017)

-..Legacy..- said:


> Any competent attorney could say it's still technically a public release at that point by producing a tangible, distributable product.
> 
> Personally, you should ask the OC of the track if you could remix, then release it back to them.  Give them an unlimited use clause, as long as they credit you.  If they like the remix, you get the off-chance that they release it to a completely new set of ears.  Then the end user can backtrack your work by name, and you get more publicity.  That's what I would consider the safest path, and everyone wins.


Sounds nice, though admittedly it'd be difficult to get my version to the original creator of the track I remixed. Damn attorneys...


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Nov 2, 2017)

If they have a dedicated legal team, I would steer clear honestly.  That tells me they are experienced with this situation, and willing to maintain retainers to resolve them quickly.  

Honestly, I would "assume" the first thing you would get, would be a "Cease and Desist" letter.  It would spell out future steps they would take. 

Find a CW layer that has a free consult. Ask them what your options are.


----------



## EmpressCiela (Nov 2, 2017)

A CW Lawyer?


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Nov 2, 2017)

Copyright lawyer.  Attorneys usually only practice a few areas.  Divorce, Criminal law, Contract law, Property law, etc.  

Copyright law is a very specialized field.  It's usually more corporate oriented for industry, and falls under intellectual property law.


----------



## EmpressCiela (Nov 2, 2017)

Ah ok. I'm sure there's a few here in Vegas


----------



## EmpressCiela (Nov 2, 2017)

Thanks for all your help, btw ^w^


----------

