COVID-19 & Us Universe Secret Mixter
skip
Home » Forums » Help » attribution when remixing a remix

attribution when remixing a remix

spinmeister
.
permalink   Sat, Sep 20, 2008 @ 12:59 PM
just a quick question - and if it’s already been answered somewhere else, I have to apologize.

Situation:

- original song A is remixed into remix B

- and then somebody remixes B into remix C from parts which are clearly derivatives of A (or even just purely from A).

- somebody makes a video D featuring remix B

Should C give attribution to A and B, or just to B?

Should D attribute both A and B, or just B?

The specific example in question is:

A: A Minor Theory’s Wait— stems here

B: Maxwell’s Wait Liquid Mix

C: SilivaO’s Wait/Espero

D: JobobArikan’ video: Wait

Disclaimer: I’m half of “a minor theory” and the question isn’t meant in a legal technical sort of way - but more in a common courtesy, good ccM behavior sort of way.
radiotimes
.
permalink   Sat, Sep 20, 2008 @ 11:04 PM
I don’t know the answer to this but if you had carried on you’d have one hell of a mathematical equation going on there!!:o)

Got to go just been sent out of the class for talking!!
 
.
permalink   spinmeister Sun, Sep 21, 2008 @ 10:20 AM
the worst thing is that this is actually a “set theory” question :-)
Subliminal
.
permalink   Sat, Sep 20, 2008 @ 11:49 PM
If C and D attribute B, do they not also attribute A implicitly through B? Probably not, but otherwise it might get a bit of a drag. Especially when A has also used sample 0 from Freesound, which also ended up in one way or another in C and D.

Well, that didn’t do my headache any good…
 
.
permalink   spinmeister Sun, Sep 21, 2008 @ 10:41 AM
sorry for causing a headache. :-)
essesq
.
permalink   Sun, Sep 21, 2008 @ 12:38 AM
If the issue is “good behavior” then I say if any work clearly contains sounds that come from a particular piece of work then that work must be attributed. So here I make a distinction between using samples contained in an original source or the stuff that is “inspired by” that source. In it’s simplest form that might mean the distinction between notes sung as lyrics in the original, but echoed as part of new accompaniment in a new work.

Forgive a broken thought process here but the opinion I was about to express suddenly made no sense to me… which is worthy of note in and of itself. I was going to say that the notes as sung by the original vocalist must be attributed but the notes that are echoed by a new performer/composer need not be on the second generation remix that they find their way onto. I now believe that I was mistaken. Where it is less likely that a clearly “borrowed” work will be recognized, the need to attribute grows, it does not diminish. My final opinion on this subject is that anything used should be attributed. The final test must be a “but for” one as we say in the legal profession. If your work, or the one you are using, would not be there “but for” the use of another, attribute it. If your work did not depend on it, you don’t need to.

I had a question in my mind a while back regarding the use of lyrics from a work, if they are re-read or re-sung by another. Does the original sound file have to be placed in one’s list of samples used, even if technically the sound file was not used, if you are crediting the author of the written words in your notes? Ok this isn’t doing my headache any good either :-).
 
.
permalink   essesq Sun, Sep 21, 2008 @ 12:39 AM
Oh yea, forgot to say, if that’s your idea of a quick question, I’d hate to see a long one :-).
 
.
permalink   spinmeister Sun, Sep 21, 2008 @ 10:08 AM
the irony is, that my question taking a little more lengthy set-up indeed took only a very short answer (see the VS post below), but if I would have asked the more literally short question “What is the meaning of life”, the answers might be considerably longer (except for Douglas Adams fans of course). :-)
fourstones
admin
.
permalink   Sun, Sep 21, 2008 @ 6:06 AM
The way we do things here (“attribute what you use” and no deeper) is the way cleared by CC lawyers.
 
.
permalink   spinmeister Sun, Sep 21, 2008 @ 10:04 AM
Thanks VS!
 
.
permalink   Subliminal Mon, Sep 22, 2008 @ 8:33 AM
So in a way I was on the right track. Or not?
 
.
permalink   fourstones Mon, Sep 22, 2008 @ 9:44 AM
er, maybe… Your example was a little complicated so I don’t want to commit. You attribute your sources, not your sources’ sources.
 
.
permalink   spinmeister Sun, Oct 12, 2008 @ 6:13 PM
Quote: fourstonesThe way we do things here (“attribute what you use” and no deeper) is the way cleared by CC lawyers.

count me confused
spinmeister
.
permalink   Mon, Oct 13, 2008 @ 3:34 PM
To make attribution a little more “survivable”, I’ve added my sources to the “featuring” field in the song properties. At least that way it will travel with the mp3 file properties when downloaded from ccM and/or uploaded to iPods, myspace or other places, since ccM currently adds whatever is in the “featuring” property to the “song title” property of the mp3 file.

Would it make sense to have at least the immediate remix sources listed in the mp3 comment field? It would at least make first generation attribution travel better with mp3 files.
 
.
permalink   fourstones Tue, Oct 14, 2008 @ 12:46 AM
I don’t think an incomplete, inconsistant and potentially legally confusing feature (remember it’s the remixer that owns the copyright not the author of the sources) gains enough of a win for effort in developement and support. The ‘featuring’ feature for tag friendly formats is about as far I think is worth going considering many music posting sites (like his one) will strip and rewrite id3 tags.

Regarding the cc forum post I’ve asked your question in a way that hopefully leads to a less ambiguous response.
 
.
permalink   spinmeister Tue, Oct 14, 2008 @ 2:02 AM
Quote: fourstonesit’s the remixer that owns the copyright not the author of the sources
From my understanding of what I’ve read in various places, I’m pretty sure that the first part of your sentence is correct.

But I’m less sure about the second part i.e. the author of the source may very well also have a copyright interest embedded in the remix. For example, there are mechanical and publishing copyrights buried in a remix. If a remix uses exactly the same melody and lyrics as the original), the argument could be made, that the author of the remix has no publishing copyright, but only mechanical copyright (i.e. nothing added or modified in relation to the original song/publishing copyright). Therefore it would seem to me, that the publishing copyright of the remix would still be cleanly that of the original publishing copyright holder of the source.

Also, copyright is only the beginning of the question - licensing is really what we are talking about here. Interestingly enough, the BY license specifically says in 4.a (Restrictions) “You may not sublicense the Work.”

So I would read that as: a remixer can grant a license to the stuff they own, but not to the stuff the original source author owns. So if I remix a remix, and use stuff that originated in the grandparent source, I may need 2 sets of licenses, the license from the parent source(s) and the license(s) from the grandparent source(s). e.g. if I use a section from teru’s remix, which has some of Brad in it, I need to get a license from teru AND from Brad. If I use teru’s full remix in my video, I need licenses from teru AND all of his sources.

Or allow me to ask another question: If I use an NC, source, why does my remix automatically have to be NC as well? If I was the sole copyright holder to my remix, couldn’t I very well choose to eliminate NC from my remix?

Of course, I’m not a lawyer, so this is not advice, but my current understanding of licensing principles and the CC language pertaining to sublicensing of BY.

And allow me to clarify, as I’ve posted in another thread, I don’t think the duty of attribution lies with ccM. The duty lies with the remixer. ccM at it’s sole digression just makes it easier to attribute the stuff hosted by ccMixter. So the idea of using the comment field for such a purpose was only in the spirit of making it easier - not in the spirit of it being a legal necessity. The legal necessity is borne by the remixer and whoever else publishes or otherwise uses the remix (video makers, podcast makers, etc.).

And I also think, ccM can’t automatically determine, if grandparent sources need to be attributed (e.g. if I just use a section of teru’s remix, which does NOT have any parts of Brad in it, then I should NOT need to attribute Brad; but if some of Brad’s parts are in my remix, then I should ALSO attribute him, too - via the usual ccM attribution tools).

So again, I’m not advocating CCM changes. I believe however that remixers have a higher duty to attribution than what I think you are saying.

I’m looking forward to more definite advice in the CreativeCommons.org forums in response to your question for clarification.

(edited for clarity)