Karaoke Forums

I have couple questions:

1. If a karaoke manufacturer wanted to create a karaoke version of a popular new song...and they wanted to be able to sue for copyright infringement if someone makes an unauthorized copy of their karaoke version of that song....What licenses and approvals MUST they obtain BEFORE registering that song for a copyright??

2. If a karaoke manufacturer has released a CDG of 9 karaoke songs (for example "Pop Hits Monthly Urban Jan 2012") and they have one copyright registered for that full CDG....are they fully able to sue for copyright infringement if someone makes an unauthorized copy of their karaoke version of that song. Does the copyright registration alone suffice?

Thank you!

The technical answer to your question is "none." But that's not a useful piece of information. To be able to sue effectively for copyright infringement, they would need to obtain the following licenses: (1) mechanical license (covering the sound recording only), also known as a "Harry Fox License" after the company that administers virtually all of them, and set at a rate fixed by the Copyright Royalty Board, a unit of the Copyright Office, (2) lyric reprint license (covering the right to display the lyrics onscreen, or to reprint them in a lyric sheet), and (2) synchronization license (covering the right to synchronize the display of the lyrics to the music). Those licenses do not have to be obtained before registering the copyright in the new work, but if they are not obtained before the suit, the karaoke manufacturer would likely face a defense of unclean hands if suing for copyright infringement.



Generally speaking, a registration for a collection of works, which would include a group of karaoke songs on a single CD, is sufficient to meet the registration requirement for pursuing an infringement of only one of the tracks on the CD.

Thanks Super Poster!!!!

Is there any "official" place to find this answer as well? (licenses required for a karaoke manufacturer to copy and lyric a musical work)

For example, is there a copyright law that spells this out that I can reference?

Uh, he's HarringtonLaw. super poster is just a forum status as to how many posts one has made.

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

Thanks Super Extreme Poster! ... I mean Lonman!!

On behalf of Lonman: "You're welcome, newbie! We mean Rex!"
Welcome to the forum, Rex & happy posting!

_________________
To be fortunate enough to derive an income from a source as fulfilling as karaoke music has got to be as close to heaven as we can get here on earth!

Sure. For starters, read Title 17 of the United States Code, which is the whole body of statutory copyright law (except for the criminal copyright infringement provisions, some of which are in title 18). Google for a link.

However, considering that copyright attorneys devote years to understanding the fine points of copyright law, that might not be entirely helpful. The Copyright Office (www.copyright.gov) has a lot of good information in its Circulars (there on the website) that are written in mostly plain English, which might prove more helpful. I think they have one on music copyright, but that will be incomplete as to karaoke.

The consensus position of the courts is that karaoke accompaniment tracks, at least the ones that cause lyrics to be displayed synchronously with the music, are what are referred to in the Copyright Act as "audiovisual works." The rules in the Copyright Act for audiovisual works are different from the rules for plain sound recordings.

For anyone who is interested in this information because they are involved (or about to be involved) in a lawsuit, I really do recommend speaking with an attorney who is experienced in these matters. There are different levels of specialization. As a rule, you're better off with an "intellectual property" attorney than with a generalist who may handle many types of cases; you're better off with a copyright (or, in the cases filed by Sound Choice and Piracy Recovery, a trademark) attorney than an IP generalist; and you're better off still with a specialist in copyright or trademark litigation; and even better with a specialist in copyright or trademark litigation involving music. That is not to say that a less specialized attorney won't do a good job, however. As a matter of policy, my clients (SC and PR) always recommend that defendants in their cases consult with the best legal counsel they can obtain.

I've noticed that just about all open-ended 3/4" wrenches look almost exactly alike.........how do they get away with that?..

They could be made of different materials, shapes slightly different among other things. Also wrenches would come under the Patent Acts of their respective countries, not Copyright. Counterfeits can and have been deadly. For example a number of commercial aircraft have crashed due to counterfeit parts including things such as screws.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Thank you!

I've been reviewing the Warner/Chappell Music, Inc. et al. v. Stellar Records, Inc. et al., 2012 CV 00512 (M. D. Tenn) case and have found that several of the songs that the music publisher is disputing are already under a fully registered and received copyright by Stellar Records.

For example:
In the case, one of the songs Warner is disputing is a song entitled "Someone Like You" by the original artist Adele. This song is on Stellar Records "May 2011 Pop Hits Monthly -Pop" CDG (this CDG also contains 8 other songs by different artists/publishers)
Stellar Records appears to have a valid copyright (SR 690-806) for this specific CDG.

If the music publisher (Warner in this case) did not provide permission/license to Stellar is the copyright invalid?

Assuming Warner's allegations are true, why would Stellar copyright a song (or group of songs) for which they did not have permission/license?
Seems foolish..

You're really reaching........

The shape of a wrench is almost completely functional, and the purely functional (as opposed to design) aspects of an object are not capable of protection as trade dress.

Paint that wrench bright pink, and you would have something that might be protectable trade dress.

You're really reaching......

Or, that wrench is dressed to kill.

Cuey, you mean like these?

http://ts3.mm.bing.net/th?id=I4591681418494798&pid=1.1

Oops I didn't see the "r".

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

I was thinking Pink and Purple metal flake, and permission for use would be limited to those who repair Peugots (sp?) and Smart cars ( I've actually seen one owned by a podiatrist painted to resemble a big toe- nail fungus and all.......)

_________________
"No Contests, No Divas, Just A Good Time!"

" Disc based and loving it..."

A music instrumental, like any other intellectual property, is copyrighted automatically at the time of creation by the creator of the work. There is no registration required to enjoy this protection. It is a good idea to register your copyright, however, in the event you should ever need to go to court to prove you are the legal copyright owner of the instrumental.

Here's a thought/question for the legal people and the legal wanna bes?

Has anyone ever tried to argue that audio visual works should be granted the same copyright protection as a musical work?

For example, if I wanted wanted to record and distrubute my own version of "Someone Like You" by Adele, all I have to do is pay the appropriate licensing fees, and that recording is now considered a new work, which is automatically protected and given all the same rights as the original song.

So why can't they do the same thing for an Audio Visual work. Unless i am mistaken, that seems to be the way it works in the UK because as far as I know companies like Zoom own the master rights to all of their karaoke tracks.

Jclayton,
The problem is that U.S. law states karaoke tracks are an audio-visual work and the laws currently protect them separately. The Manufacturer's have been arguing this point for over 10 years since Stellar was first sued. Also the reason overseas disc's have been limited and downloads are not currently legal in the U.S.A

Athena

_________________
"Integrity is choosing your thoughts, words and actions based on your principles and values rather than for your personal gain."
Unknown
"if a man has integrity, nothing else matters, If a man has no integrity, nothing else matters."
Lee McGuffey

The position of the courts is that karaoke accompaniment tracks, at least the ones that cause lyrics to be displayed synchronously with the music, are what are referred to in the Copyright Act as "audiovisual works." The rules in the Copyright Act for audiovisual works are different from the rules for plain sound recordings. This has been made abundantly clear in the three lawsuits below:

Leadsinger, Inc. v. BMG Music Publishing
Abkco Music, Inc. v. Stellar Records, Inc.
Zomba Enterprises, Inc. v. Panorama Records, Inc.

The Ninth Circuit is neither the first nor the only federal appellate court to find that karaoke machines can infringe copyrights. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals reached this conclusion in 1996 in Abkco Music, Inc. v. Stellar Records, Inc., holding that karaoke creates audiovisual works because it “consist[s] of a series of related images—the lyrics—together with accompanying sounds—the music.” Our own Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held last year in Zomba Enterprises, Inc. v. Panorama Records, Inc. that a karaoke company’s use of copyrighted musical compositions was not a fair use and, instead, constituted a copyright infringement. The court affirmed a judgment of nearly $900,000 in damages and attorney’s fees.