@Cheo : thanks for this ;) Well I guess I'm gonna get used to be involved in music projects now <3 I love this forum!!!
@Vojeet : you make a very good point here! It's been years I "study" legal rights for my visual works, but the mains points in my works are that, first, the laws actually don't really care about VJ'ing, and, secondly, I never sell my videos, expect I create it all, I just sell my "technical and scenic performance" when I do a set :)
found on wikipedia (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remix#Copy ... plications) :
"Because remixes may borrow heavily from an existing piece of music (possibly more than one), the issue of intellectual property becomes a concern. The most important question is whether a remixer is free to redistribute his or her work, or whether the remix falls under the category of a derivative work according to, for example, United States copyright law. Of note are open questions concerning the legality of visual works, like the art form of collage, which can be plagued with licensing issues.
There are two obvious extremes with regard to derivative works. If the song is substantively dissimilar in form (for example, it might only borrow a motif which is modified, and be completely different in all other respects), then it may not necessarily be a derivative work (depending on how heavily modified the melody and chord progressions were). On the other hand, if the remixer only changes a few things (for example, the instrument and tempo), then it is clearly a derivative work and subject to the copyrights of the original work's copyright holder.
The Creative Commons non-profit group created the ccMixter website to provide remixers with creative material licensed for remixers to use with permission. A number of netlabels have similarly used liberal licensing to facilitate remixing."
In this special case (tv shows or/and adds RMX), several notions are included:
1. if it's designed as a "critic", it comes to "caricature and illustration" rights, means that you are allowed (in France, you have got to see in your countries too), to imitate, reproduce, deform, any person's art if it's relevant in the making of your artwork. If it's illustration, your only obligation is to give a list of all the references.
Means: you can't take someone's artwork making the audience think its yours, even and furthermore if you modifiate it a little bit, EXCEPT if the subject of your art is aimed on this, for example for an art about "elephants", your can use various elephants artworks, and list somewhere all the references. If your artwork is aimed on "The Love Song" of "Baboo" (example, for showing how it changed the world), you can use some parts of The Love Song to explain your point.
2. Depends how it's done but for most of the TV parts we can use,
- if it's old, the "law righter owners" may not be very concerned about it (it's not the same with any commercial/well known actual artists)
- if some sentences in movies or shows are used, I don't think any of people who said it can say anything for short extracts
3.This "RMX mix" for web promo of the label, not for selling only. As I'm gonna do the banners for the forum, I can derivate the final mix or tracks in several videos, with the name of the label, the adress of the website, a short description of the RMX project and/or of the artist involved in the part I mix... And everyone to spread it's favorite on his website :)
"And now ladies and gentleman/advertising music/a mixed shout/sounds ... Mockradar - esoteric eclectic electronics projects / image of a TV show used in the mix/ brief description of the artist(s)/ RMX project released on MockRadar.com / etc..."
.
.
.
.
.
well, long post
<coffeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee>
<working on MR banners>