Firefly Secret Mixter Remixes!
skip
Home » Forums » Help » cover song and remix etiquette

cover song and remix etiquette

Adisa McKenzie
.
permalink   Mon, Nov 8, 2010 @ 12:18 PM
cover song and remix etiquette for, for profit music? I noticed that I get listed as a feature when people remix my stuff vocals. I really like to be listed as a feature because I use -Google alerts- to notify me when my name shows up in searches (btw: do you do that?)from people posting songs off this site and other reasons. but that does not work for me as a vocalist as I use tons of samples in my mixes. often times horns from one person and keys from someone else and so on. I can’t have adisa featuring: joe on sax, jane on drum and so on. in addition to that, If I do a cover (there are a few I really want to do from this site) it would seem logical to place credits in the liner notes in both situations. I am sitting on some work because I am unclear as to how to use the license in these two particular situations. I think auto-clarity is supposed to be a quality of using these license options so I hoped someone here can help me. I am withholding some of my understanding on this topic to be as brief as I can. but please assume I am new you need to hold my hand in this.
Admiral Bob
admin
.
permalink   Mon, Nov 8, 2010 @ 4:14 PM
Here is how to give attribution on a Creative Commons work:

http://wiki.creativecommons...

Also see:

http://www.wikihow.com/Attr...
 
.
permalink   Adisa McKenzie Tue, Nov 9, 2010 @ 12:32 PM
Thanks for answering. I think I get this so far. How does this effect things like MOG, Rhapsody, Itunes pandora and the like? these examples seem to apply to display text on a website, mp3 data and liner notes. I have even heard a pod caster announce a song and author but not other source credits(perhaps there where none… but I did think “am I supposed to do that?”). am I missing something or am I accurate in stating that it is difficult to attribute in the above situations ? ..IE Itunes and other streaming services…

I’m just trying to get it all straight.
 
.
permalink   Admiral Bob Tue, Nov 9, 2010 @ 12:52 PM
See http://wiki.creativecommons...

the section entitled “You Are Using Creative Commons-Licensed Or ‘Podsafe’ Content” talks about this.

now keep in mind IANAL, but the rules for podcasting are fairly similar: attribute in the way the author prefers to attribute, keep intact the copyright notice given in the work, mention the title of the work, and the website where you can find the person.

This isn’t a lot more to offer listeners in a podcast than the norm: it is just a few brief mentions of attribution in exchange for free use of the media item.

I don’t think it is necessary to describe the entire attribution tree of a work in a podcast. The podcaster would have to say where he got your song, but not describe how you constructed it.

If you’re the podcaster (and again, I’m not a lawyer, so don’t rely on this), it might be sufficient for you to describe where your work is from (i.e. CCMixter), and how your listeners can see the sample contributors… in other words, as long as it is done in good faith as a way to share the credit for a work and promote your sources, you might get away with “attributing yourself” on CCMixter as a way to give everyone credit.

Again, not a lawyer!
 
.
permalink   Adisa McKenzie Tue, Nov 9, 2010 @ 1:10 PM
That is interesting feedback. What is your (anyone) take on the above itunes and pandora issue. Based on what you are saying, I know you are not a lawyer, the title and the artist who released it will be credited and that is just the best that can be expected with respect to sources. on a side note, that is actually why I like doing “pells” because I can just list the artist since i am the source. Anyway, any thoughts?.. about the itunes, Pandora issues.
 
.
permalink   Snowflake Tue, Nov 9, 2010 @ 8:21 PM
i’ve included and been included on tracks that end up on an album in iTunes - i’ve always asked specifically for permission and have always been asked for permission, usually with some type of simple rev-share agreement above a certain dollar figure (so the artist that masters, prints, etc. recoups their costs first before splitting). i think getting additional permission for any works that will be sold is important, and because the tracks on iTunes are actually sold i think that would apply. (vs. an album on Jamendo that is downloadable for free for example).

i probably go over the top, but i’d rather err on over Attribution than under (i’m not a lawyer either). so, i include the name of everyone in the remix tree in the song title, if the song is going where one doesn’t have access to remix history.

see an example of the protocol here (view in iTunes store): itms://itunes.apple.com/us/album/peace-winter/id340995280

so: Song Title (Mixter Producer Name mix)[feat. all the contributors]

also, in our ccM podcasts, most of the podcasters introduce the songs by stating the producing Mixter and everyone in the source tree (listen to SackJo22’s Mixin’ Kitchen for examples).

i feel we should try to establish a culture of going out of our way to Attribute, everyone, whenever and however possible.

any thoughts on that?
 
.
permalink   Adisa McKenzie Wed, Nov 10, 2010 @ 3:49 PM
Well, the legal text uses the term “reasonable” you use the term “going out of our way”
they are simply not the same to me. However, the phrase “establish a culture”, This changes the discussion from “what am I legally required to do” to “How can I really engage the process” it is actually brilliant. Add what Admiral Bob said “So if it is not possible in the medium you are using for you to share the currency of credit, then it may be necessary for you to share the currency of currency! :)” - So if I a want to omit or deviate, or restrict or in anyway try to squeeze a mile out of the inch I was given with respect to the free use of parts, I should make a cash offer. I can dig it. in fact I just made that arrangement in reverse here from this file

So, what about covers? Is it - “song title [written by snowflake]” or what?
 
.
permalink   Admiral Bob Wed, Nov 10, 2010 @ 6:12 AM
To echo some of snowflake’s thoughts, there’s something from fourstones’ memoir that always rang true to me: attribution is currency.

The idea that a musician would voluntarily give away attribution was very, very confusing to many
participating in that forum thread. Don’t forget we are talking about musicians who had each put hours
of music into the Commons, hardly neophytes to the sharing economy. But mess with attribution and a
line had been crossed. As it was later pointed out to me (at the lefty-Commie conference, no less) this attitude is not unlike academic publishing where credit is currency.


So if it is not possible in the medium you are using for you to share the currency of credit, then it may be necessary for you to share the currency of currency! :)

Personally, I think there’s always a creative way to share credit. Open source software is now powering half the cell phones out there now, but it isn’t practical to distribute the source code on the phone.

You’ll just have to get creative and make sure that you’re giving credit where credit is due (or cash! ;-)
 
.
permalink   malcolm56 Thu, Sep 13, 2012 @ 11:27 AM
Quote: Admiral BobTo echo some of snowflake’s thoughts, there’s something from fourstones’ memoir that always rang true to me: attribution is currency.

The idea that a musician would voluntarily give away attribution was very, very confusing to many
participating in that forum thread. Don’t forget we are talking about musicians who had each put hours
of music into the Commons, hardly neophytes to the sharing economy. But mess with attribution and a
line had been crossed. As it was later pointed out to me (at the lefty-Commie conference, no less) this attitude is not unlike academic publishing where credit is currency.

So if it is not possible in the medium you are using for you to share the currency of credit, then it may be necessary for you to share the currency of currency! :)

Personally, I think there’s always a creative way to share credit. Open source software is now powering half the cell phones out there now, but it isn’t practical to distribute the source code on the phone.

You’ll just have to get creative and make sure that you’re giving credit where credit is due (or cash! ;-)


I think sharing music online must be stopped. Don’t flame me about this please but artists are just not getting paid with this.
 
.
permalink   Admiral Bob Thu, Sep 13, 2012 @ 11:52 AM
You do know what site you are on, I trust?

Everyone you’re reading in this forum are the artists who made the music you hear on this site. If an artist has shared music here, they’ve done so consciously, well aware of any implications concerning “getting paid.”
 
.
permalink   spinmeister Tue, Nov 9, 2010 @ 6:33 PM
not sure if this adds anything to the conversation?