Using Acapellas NON-PROFITABLE/NON-MONETIZED as a remix?

[Caine123]

hi guys, yeah another legal question, i always thought using acapellas for promotion officially (or remix) is totally fine as long as you dont make money from it?

e.g. i make a beat and then i throw in an acapella from ICE-T or whoever i think fits, upload it on youtube and declare it as a remix/promo, is this illegal officially?

thx

[vurt]

nope. you cant do that either.

any prerecorded audio, is not legal to use in your public tracks, unless you have the permission of the copyright holder.

[Caine123]

oh man, ok, i was always thinking this was not a problem as i see so many michael jackson, lady gaga and whoever else remixes on youtube,

[vurt]

oh man, ok, i was always thinking this was not a problem as i see so many michael jackson, lady gaga and whoever else remixes on youtube,

theres a thread in everything else about covers on youtube.
someone mentioned there, rather than a takedown, they just get ads put on, but the money goes to the copyright holder.
it will probably be different depending on who owns the copyright, whether it will be the above or a takedown though, as some artists are a little harsher about it.

[osiris]

You can buy many (famous) acapellas from Beatport, but it specifically states you can't make any money from them. (so you can't use them to promote something)

[Caine123]

You can buy many (famous) acapellas from Beatport, but it specifically states you can't make any money from them. (so you can't use them to promote something)

oh i need to check this, i wanted to make some music and put acapellas on them but not monetize, just promote as youtube video.

[Scrubbing Monkeys]

Using an actual recording is tricky. Back in the day it cost a great deal of money to record something and it was considered property like a book. It will be difficult in my opinion to use old recordings in video because that requires a sync license that most older publishers aren't ser up to deal with. You tube is managed by an algorithm .....not common sense

[BertKoor]

This is a step up from doing a cover of someone elses song or using short (percussion) samples.

"Promotion" doesn't mean anything to me or the lawyer representing whoevers recording you're using. If you put it on Youtube, it's "publishing", which strictly speaking might get you into legal trouble if the sample is not cleared with its copyright owner.

In today's reality it might mean that your video cannot be played without ads around it, and the money from those ads goes to the copyright holder. Or it will be taken down. Or you will be sued for some imaginary damages. That's the gamble you're taking by infringing copyright.

[whyterabbyt]

hi guys, yeah another legal question, i always thought using acapellas for promotion officially (or remix) is totally fine as long as you dont make money from it?

nope. copyright law includes absolutely nothing about acapellas, promotion, remixes, or making money.

[osiris]

When you buy one from Beatport something like a EULA pops up right before you download and can sometimes be very long. You have to read these. There are dedicated Vocal packs you can buy which are very expensive, but you get the rights to do whatever you want with the vocals. That is sometimes true but one I bought had a little legal word salad phrase about if the song hits, they are going to want a piece of the pie. But that was only one out of many vocal packs I bought. Still reason to really read everything if you're going to remix.

[enroe]

... but one I bought had a little legal word salad phrase about if the song hits, they are going to want a piece of the pie.

Ooohps. That's very strange - and very rare. I doubt that this passage will
stand up to judicial clarification.

[BertKoor]

You agreed, so why wouldn't it stand up in court?
Wanna try it out?

[vurt]

if it's a full acapella it seems fair enough to me anyway, they've basically written and sang a song.
hell yeah if it's a hit they deserve something.

ive known big time engineers, offer free work to bands, with the same provision, if you make big money on this record, you pay me then.
obviously i think they have an idea there would be some level of success rather than just any old band.
but yeah as bert says, if you agree with it (which using it infers) then legally, you owe them.

[osiris]

It wasn't like an agreement, nothing you like check a box saying you've read and agree, like software. It was a paragraph - you had to scroll down to even see - on the bottom of the receipt. I don't remember the artist either, but it wasn't any more expensive than others I've bought. $50 for 4, maybe 5 songs. You also have to be careful what you buy because some people put these out and there just phrases and shouts. There's good ones with verses and choruses.

[enroe]

You agreed, so why wouldn't it stand up in court?
Wanna try it out?

Haja, yes, you have agreed to the terms and conditions.

But which business model is then left? The "business model" of
selling sample libraries basically means that one makes samples
available - and that the buyer, if he has purchased them, can use
them to put together new songs himself - and then may sell them
independently, as a "new product".

However, if the sample seller limits his sale for future use or assigns
a share of the profits, then strictly speaking this is no longer a "sample
sale", but working together on a song. So something completely
different - and legally contestable.

Of course, legal challenges will probably have different outcomes in
different countries, but the chance that the sample buyer will win is
very, very high here.