Karaoke Forums

I read somewhere that it's ok to take the original recording, take out the lead vocals, put in the lyrics and save it in CD+G format where you are making your own karaoke discs.

What kind of license do you need to do that? Wouldn't that be covered under the same license as a club's jukebox or no?

OK, so I suppose this is not something that should be done???

1) Proper license fees ad up dramatically.

2) It's a lot of work

3) See number one

4) See number two

This part alone hardly ever works well. Vocal eliminators are notoriously crappy.

I agree with Bazza..........also, more than likely, anything you do like such, is illegal, and to make it legal is very complicated........so......ask yourself questions like this........will anyone call you on it?....can you live with yourself, knowing you're doing something illegal, though no one will come after you?.....are you really taking money out of someone's pocket?.....stuff like that.....

If you buy the song... and pay BMI / ASCAP / SEASAC fees... how is this taking money from someone's pocket? It's perfectly legal, so I see no problem sleeping at night, do you?

It's simply doing exactly what the karaoke music producers do... which BTW I hear some of them did not create their product legally, so some of the karaoke music you buy is really illegal since it has been re-sold without authorization.

At least by creating your own and paying applicable live performance fees, it's closer to being legal than the products sold by most karaoke music producers.

It's not perfectly legal.
In fact, it's not even close to legal.
ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC fees paid by the venue only cover the public performance of the music at that venue.
The removal of (or attempted removal of) the vocals creates a derivitive work of the copyright holder's property. This is a violation of copyright law when done without authorization.
The addition of graphics (lyrics) is also a violation of copyright law.
Fixing your completed project to a cd or hard drive is yet another violation of copyright law when done without authorization.
Giving a copy of your finished work to a friend, or distributing it in any manner is also a violation of copyright law.
When performing your finished product at a karaoke show remember that ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC are working as agents of the copyright owners. As such they wouldn't recognize unauthorized works as being covered under their licensing.
So, in the end, nothing about it is legal.
That said, I have never heard of a singer getting in trouble over making their own version in the manner you described. The greatest liability comes from the unauthorized distribution of the unauthorized work because that is where the most damage is done to the owner of the copyright. So if you are inclined to engage in such behaviour, keep it to yourself.

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

Well, the guy making his own karaoke tracks is in essence a travelling venue where the fees he pays follows him. At least they can’t claim he wasn’t going out of his way to pay the fees for public performance.



It’s doesn’t remove the vocals. It simply lowers the volume.

If that's illegal, then all these DJs that alter music by remixing it at clubs are also doing something illegal and nobody ever sues them for altering a copyright holder's finished work.



Did I mention anything about distributing this??? No, I did not. My interest would be simply as a singer. Don't claim I'm saying something that I'm not saying, alright? Thanks!

There’s quite a few people doing this using MTU software and MTU says it’s not only legal, but it’s the only way to legally do karaoke. Have you read their legal explanation of why they take that position?

By posting on their website that it’s OK and selling software to accomplish this, if it were a problem legally they would be wide open to lawsuits and nobody has ever touched them in all the years they’ve been facilitating this Not one lawsuit to stop them....

Any reply to any of this?

Actually vocal eliminators do nothing with volume, they search for like frequencies on each channel & and cancels them out making them no longer audible. Since vocals are often times panned dead center, these would be the frequencies that are cut first. Drawback is often it will take any instrument that is panned in the center as well - bass guitar, kick, snare drums, some keyboard, guitar solos sometimes, plus others on occasion. If vocals are even slightly off in each channel, the chances of getting a good elimination gets worse. Also any kind of monaural recordings will not work in the least.

What dj's do in clubs are called mash-up's. Mixing two separate tracks into one - not illegal as they are not altering the original works, they are playing both the original tracks at the same time and uses their skills to beat match & mix sections together, it's not a changed product.

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

To the guy standing out there hearing it... none of the tracks are being played as they were presented by the publisher so no matter how you slice it, they are changing what the artist and the publisher intended for the listener to hear.

I've seen, or heard rather, the MTU software produce some very decent sounding tracks where the volume of the lead vocals is lowered considerably with no harm to the music itself.

And, there's alot of folks doing this... more all the time... and I've never heard of any legal challenges, have any of you?

And, there are even companies that provide the music itself with no vocals that comes from the original studio recordings where the original studio guy provides a mix without any vocals...all one would have to do is take the MTU software and put in lyrics and make a CD+G track out of it. I think they call is accompaniment tracks.

And what fees has this "travelling venue" guy paid? And to whom? ACAP, BMI, and SESAC do not accept payments from just anyone. Several KJs in this forum have posted something more or less to that effect.

If you are a venue... they'll accept your money.

I doubt they'll care if you are a venue that moves around frequently.

Bottom line is, if a fella makes sure he is paying fees for public performance... if something did happen legally, he could point to paying these fees and claim he went out of his way to make sure applicable fees were being paid to make sure he was doing the right thing by the publisher.

BMI / ASCAP / SESAC's policies that discriminate against DJs and/or KJs should not prevent someone from doing the right thing, so one may need to consider himself a "venue" that travels.

Besides, a guy's garage could be considered a venue if he frequently has friends over and does public performances.... and then he happens to take it on the road. I know when you play a club, they are responsible for covering these fees... but everyone knows there are some clubs out there that don't, so the smart thing to do legally is to pay 'em yo self so you know where you stand

If they guy were sued by a publisher, paying the fees would go a long way to proving he was not attempting to damage them and was in good faith doing what he knew to do to makes sure the publisher's royalties were being attended to.

I don't recall the legal term for "good faith effort", but that's what this would be.

Again, they aren't altering the original source. Apples to oranges as far as taking a track and digitally manipulating the original track. They are playing them live leaving the original sources in tact.


Yes, these are legitamate tracks you actually have to buy. They are already made as instrumentals.

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

Good point.
So what you are saying is;
Pay the mechanical license fee to make a derivitive work,
pay the original artisits for their part in your derivitive work,
pay the sync license fees to add lyrics graphics,
pay the royalty fees for each copy you create,
and make sure the venue
(ven·ue
/ˈvenˌyo͞o/ Noun
1.The place where something happens, esp. an organized event such as a concert, conference, or sports event.
2.The county or district within which a criminal or civil case must be heard. )
you sing at has paid their performance rights fees,
and that way you will know that all royalties have been attended to.

_________________
KNOW THYSELF

The "alphabets" WILL NOT licence a "travelling venue", a KJ, A DJ or anything short of a club,bar,restaurant. Many have tried. The fees they charge are based in part on the number of seats and amount of income generated. It is easy to contact them and verify this info.

It always surprises me when someone tries to say they pay those fees themselves and has even caused a couple of venues locally that believed them to be closed and chained shut...but still we hear of those that claim to have "mobile licencing"

Couldn't agree more. What IS that all about? The above is why all fees are the responsibility of the venue, not the KJ.

The only way a KJ or DJ could get away with selling that load to a venue is if the owners never even bothered to look at the artist/org information in the first place. The KJ may have lied, but the venues get the fines because they didn't do their own business homework- their own fault.

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

" Disc based and loving it..."

All I can tell you is that there are alot of folks using the MTU software to produce their own tracks for singing purposes and nobody is doing anything to them or to MTU.

Karafun sure got in trouble for their attempt at a karaoke editor. Here's a link explaining why they no longer offer this software.
http://www.karafun.com/karaokeeditor/?currency=USD

Then just do it and be done. Why argue? You obviously are going to do it regardless.

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

Maybe not a post to end all posts.......but it sure as he!! should end this one.........