Karaoke Forums

I am interested in knowing if karaoke companies have a copyright of their own on the karaoke tracks they produce?

More specifically, does Sound Choice have a copyright on any/part/all of the tracks they have produced. If yes, would you mind calling out the appropriate copyright code information? I am interested in reading up on how the copyrighting of a derivative works is done.

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

Some one earlier stated that what you are describing might fall into a category of a "new work" or "derivative work", but in order for that to come into play it would have to be substantially different, and of course that is counter to the way karaoke works. People what it as close to the original as possible.

The short answer to your question is, of course, "yes."

To take you through the steps is a bit more complicated. To start, you'll find a lot of important definitions in 17 U.S.C. § 101.

A karaoke track--consisting of an audiovisual work (akin to a movie) comprising visual images synchronized to a sound recording--is a derivative work of the underlying musical composition. The term "derivative work" is defined in § 101 as follows:



One of the exclusive rights of the owner of copyright in a musical composition is the right to prepare derivative works. (17 U.S.C. § 106(2).) As a result of that "exclusive right," if the original work is still the subject of a valid copyright, the owner's permission is required in order to make a karaoke track. Note that because it is up to the owner to enforce his own copyright, that permission can be obtained at any point, before or after the making of the track.

Derivative works are separately copyrightable from the original work (17 U.S.C. § 103(b)):



The copyright in a derivative work is vested in the author of the derivative work, not in the author of the original material (17 U.S.C. § 201(a)):



However, note the words "in a work protected under this title." It may not be immediately obvious how those words apply to derivative works, but it relates to permission. If permission to make the derivative work was needed and not obtained, there is no copyright protection, and the karaoke producer does not have an enforceable copyright (17 U.S.C. §103(a)):



However, there is some question as to whether a defendant in a copyright suit, such as someone who's being sued by a karaoke producer for piracy, could raise § 103(a) as a defense, because the term "used unlawfully" implicates rights that the defendant does not own (those rights are owned, of course, by the music publisher). Where I come down on that is that I believe a defendant in a copyright action by a karaoke producer could only raise that defense by affirmatively showing that the karaoke producer had been adjudged liable for infringement and not subsequently licensed by the music publisher. This is particularly true in view of the (rebuttable) presumption of validity afforded to registered works, as long as they were registered within five years after first publication (17 U.S.C. § 410):



Hope this helps.

I think it is about time copyright and trademark laws change. They should favor the consumer not the publishers. With something we bought and paid for, we should be able to do whatever we want. Karaoke mfrs should get their piece from the PRO fees just like the regular music producers do, and then we should be able to shift away all the Karaoke we buy.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

Sure, except...

The Congress shall have Power ... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries ... .

-- U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, cl. 8.

Sorry, you all...looks like you have to get in line for a constitutional amendment to get with the times, behind gun control and same sex marriage...