Hi All
I know that no one can give a definite yes or no and you can only give a best guess opinion but I have made a backing track for a Christmas Song that includes part of "its a wonderful life" the movie at the intro and outro,the rest is original.
Its a wonderful life lost copyright but came back in under copyright law to a certain extent due to a legal change in the law brought about by a court case .It appears to be under copyright under certain circumstances as far as I can see.
So that been said just wondering what you think unprofessionally of course.
I didnt want to put the song on USER SHOWCASE because of the non original parts and am only putting the song up for a limited time just to get opinion.
Thanks Hugh
https://soundcloud.com/user-219964721/evertime-a-bell-ringshugh-mcdonagh-2018

We are all affected by the issues of copyright, in one way or another. We have been, for years. It's just that things have heated up in recent years.
Information and facts are not easy for artists and other interested parties to come by. I think lawyers and legislators see this turf as their own, and would like to keep it that way. Enter the big "computer companies,' such as Google, Apple, IBM, Microsoft, and you have a mess.
I'm thrilled that composers can copyright Band-in-a-Box productions. In the Band-in-a-Box concept may lie one of the ultimate solutions to the dilemmas. I'm thinking of a Band-in-a-Box/Artificial Intelligence marriage, if it hasn't already occurred.
Which brings me to the point. Understanding copyright requires two early steps. First, understand music on the academic, even scientific, level. Two, make a list of all the competing interests, so that you will not just understand the pressures, but maybe come up with your own workarounds, Just as important, stay legal.
Hugh, have you considered getting some children together and knocking off your own version of those first minutes?

The Christmas Song is protected, simple as that unless it was written over 95 years ago. Let Google be your friend:

This one is sort of a condensed version:

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/04/copywritten-so-dont-copy-me/557420/

This one is the legal version:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_States

Then there are brand new developments:

http://www.copyright.com/blog/copyright-legislation-in-2018-4-pending-bills-to-know-about/

You can see why this isn't an easy thing to answer on a forum like this but your question is simple. Unless the Christmas Song can be traced back to over 75-100 years ago, it's fully protected regardless. I'm not an attorney and don't play one on TV. This is tricky stuff but I think the current law is pre 1972 songs are protected for 70 years after the death of the author. If that's not exactly right I do know one thing, it's still a long time.

My personal comment is concerning people who say songs should be public domain after 25 years or whatever. No, intellectual property belongs to the author and his family. It is and should be part of his estate and can be passed down to his heirs just like a house or anything else of value imho.

Bob

Thanks Ed
Very thoughtful insights ,its tricky to say the least.
I have actually thought about getting a young child and recording my own version but was not as easy as I thought .Its only one child from the movie that I made a rap off!A friend of mine said he thought it sounds like "Chucky" from Childs play lol Still I think ur right the way to go is just do a newer version .Anyway Happy Christmas Ed

Yes, the law seems to keep extending copyright, mainly for the benefit of corporations such as Disney (who actually used PD songs in their early productions so they wouldn't have to pay royalties) and are really more into extending copyright to preserve the Mouse as their own more than anything (to wit, the Sonny Bono law that extended copyright an additional twenty years).

Public Domain is where creativity and musical derivation flourishes. So I don't understand why we have a system based on the death of a composer rather than a specific period. If you write a song (presumably a hit that others would like to work with) at age 18 and live to be 100, your song remains in in copyright I believe it is now 90 years after death for a period total of 172 years (9 generations hence or until the year 2190 if done today). Contrast that with a patent for 17 years renewable once). Imagine where our technology would be if people could sit on their patents for 150 years just waiting for the highest bidder to buy them out. Think where classical music would be if just now it was entering the public domain.

The law is the law, and I respect that, but it is really designed for the rich to preserve their riches, not for the regular musician in the creation and variation of music. I'm all for the composer and his family making a buck, but my great grandchildren won't keep getting my retirement pay just because I earned while alive. No, they get a one-time payout (my inheritance). And most songs, I'd guess 99 point something percent, fall into obscurity never to be heard or re-experienced again for the sake of a few people's cash cows. Derivative work is why we have much of the wonderful music we have today, because copyright was not previously for essentially an eternity.

My $0.02 worth. You don't have to agree and please, no flames, just disagree.

This discussion may be timely and overdue. For one, I appreciate hearing the ideas of others on this topic.
Copyright of printed material dates back to the Gutenberg, only it was not called copyright. Authors obtained license from Royalty for a number of reasons, the main one being that they did not want to go to the great expense of producing a book only to have competitors jump in, cherry pick the winners, copy and sell them. In other words, publishers wanted some assurance.

Eternal copyright? I don't know about that. There was a rumor once that Microsoft and Google had this plan that would allow them to own all intellectual property ever created. Didn't hear much more about it. Maybe they figured the big money is in Mind Control.

One point of Public Domain I have heard is that work still has rights, but those rights are owned by the public. I have a book by a well known publisher in which someone transcribed and slapped a copyright on "Amazing Grace."

John I agree. The patents that I was a part of have are in the 17 year renewable once category. Think of the outrage that would occur if the pharmaceuticals had the same patent protection that music. There would be no generics for decades. YMMV

If the audio in question is covered by a copyright, you should obtain a license for that audio use.

Doing otherwise is an infraction of the law.

That's as simple or complicated as it gets. It doesn't matter if you use 1 second of the audio. It's covered by a copyright.

There was a big issue with musicians using samples some time back and all libraries that I have music in, require that you either have license or own 100% of the music. And if you use sampled music, you must disclose that upfront.

Overdue?? You don't know about Forum Search? There are so many huge multi page threads about copyright it's hard to follow all of them. Just put "Copyright" in the search box and you're be reading for days.

Bob

Please forgive my ignorance, jazzmammal.
GuitarHacker, your remarks concern one of the areas, or territories, of interest to this discussion, directly or indirectly, which is hip hop and rap. The program considered one of the genre leaders was Sony Acid Studio, with its vast selection of rhythmic loops. Those loops could be laid up on a time line, with all that implies, to be continued. The vocalist, or poet, or a little of both, was free to chime in with great success. It didn't seem to matter the backings all sounded about alike, and had the mechanical feel of artificial intelligence about them.
One of the unspoken questions to BiaB, "How do you guys manage to avoid the "mechanical" sound so often found in computer generated?" I know, don't ask, don't tell.

Easy. Avoid the use of midi. Well, kind of....

I use real tracks rather than straight midi. Nothing wrong with midi if you take the time to use good samples and edit the velocity and know how to "humanize" the midi data. Or... better yet, play the part on a touch sensitive keyboard and the human factor is built in to the part.

Probably the biggest thing is to use good samples in a good synth that were recorded well and with multi-layers, vs using a General Midi Synth or even things like Coyote or TTS. The GM synths just don't emulate very many instruments well.

Sound fonts and SFZ are a step up but still not far enough in my humble opinion. The better synths and samples are going to cost you some money....again IMHO.

Also, if you place at least one real, live played instrument track into the mix, you immediately add a non-perfect track. That's midi's problem. It's often too perfect. All the velocities and volumes and tempo are dead on the beat and mostly the same if it's generated by a computer. Yeah, I know....edit & quantize. But it's better to actually play the part on a touch sensitive keyboard because you get that human aspect. Humans don't play perfectly so the notes are not all the same volume and not lined up on the beat exactly which is exactly what you really want.

Also, use "all out" editing. In other words, don't let all the parts play all the time. Bring them in to the correct level and then take them out.... pull the faders down to zero* (* an analog reference not a digital one. Digital zero is up.)

It's a learning and experimenting process to see what works and what doesn't.

Hi Herb,
Yeah agree 100% with you.The piece I posted however wasnt a song but a fraction from the movie its a wonderful life which its hard to tell what part is copyrighted or what part isnt.The movie went out of copyright and then through a loophole of sorts it came back into some kind of copyright but not inclusive as a proper copyright ,Thanks for reply

This where the plaintiffs, (and the mash-up producers,) enter, stage left. Plainly, if you could copyright one bar, that would throw a wrench into the composing field. Hey, if one bar, why not one note? Still, the point is valid, especially as far as recorded material goes, audio or visual. Regarding the snippet in question, those producers might be as much interested in protecting that little gem's integrity as anything. You know, some people make a mockery of other people's work.
Our great intellectual history was established centuries prior to the printing press. One might argue, progress hasn't kept pace with content.

Yep... if that one note is a sample.... it can be a copyright issue. If someone else created it, they own the rights unless it has gone PD. Even if it's only a single note or sound.

To the OP.... before you proceed, you can always go to the source... THE HARRY FOX AGENCY ( they're on line ) and ask them about this piece of audio you want to use. They will tell you if it needs a license or it's PD. They will be honest with you. You can then proceed knowing you have to get the license or are good without it since it would be PD.

Harry Fox agency is the greatest. First place I
saw special you tube licenses was HFA.