Oh, I remember this from buying a gift for a friend. As explained to me by animation students, prismacolour are cheaper because they're not refillable or parts-replaceable, they are as they are, they finish, you toss them. They're also not quite as quality, but the quality is comparable, but the wee bullet nib is apparently annoying, and many preferred copic's chisel-and-brush setup. You can also blend custom colours and so on with Copics - fill them with your ink on a new nib, and hey presto - as well as saving over time by refilling rather than replacing.
If a cover song has a creative commons license do I still need a mechanical license to use it in a film?
YES. Rights to the "song" and rights to the "master" (recording) are separate. The recording may be free for you to use but the song is still owned by someone else.
If a cover song has a creative commons license do I still need a mechanical license to use it in a film?
YES. Rights to the "song" and rights to the "master" (recording) are separate. The recording may be free for you to use but the song is still owned by someone else.
Actually, even worse. That person probably isn't allowed to Creative Commons that song. Let's say I go and sing "Thriller" into a microphone. I am not allowed to Creative Commons that because I do not own all of it.
You might also want to do a little research into the TV show Glee and how they have legally used derivative works (covers) in their show without any credit given to the cover artist. They simply use a license to the original work.
Which makes we wonder where Weird Al songs fall since they are derivative works (parody).
Parody is actually protected under the first ammendment. Al doesn't need a license or anything, though he does get the artists permission for his own personal reasons.
Parody is actually protected under the first ammendment. Al doesn't need a license or anything, though he does get the artists permission for his own personal reasons.
That is not what I am wondering about. What I am wondering is if anyone needs permission from Al to cover his songs if they are already able to cover the originals via a license from the rights holder of the original work.
Covering songs is a special case due to something called compulsory licensing. If you want to cover a song they have to let you for a set price. They can't say no or negotiate a different price. It's compulsory.
I understand compulsory licensing and mechanical licensing but as we have seen with the show Glee they have taken covers of existing popular songs (some with very original reworkings) and used them on the show with credit only given to the original rights holder of the song.
Weird Al creates parodies of original works (covered under fair use and he gets permission) but these are still essentially covers (some are transformational while others are merely derivative).
As it stands right now if Scott went out, got his mechanical license and recorded a cover version of a popular Lady Gaga song (even with some transformative changes) the show Glee could take his reworked cover and use it on their show with zero credit going to Scott for his reworked arrangements.
With that said could they do the same thing with a Weird Al song? What about any parody or any cover that is transformative in nature?
What about the harp twins on YouTube? They are transforming the source music for playing on harps. Could Glee take that and use it on the show without giving them credit?
They couldn't do it with Weird Al, because he owns the rights to the lyrics, and they couldn't use those lyrics without giving him credit. That being said, they already copied JoCo's cover of Baby Got Back without giving him credit. I have no doubt they could do the same thing to these harp twins.
This is more for the people in the scientific, medical, and public health fields, but is there a study out looking at the effects of artificial sweetener consumption in early life and development of adult diabetes?
Artificial sweeteners are heavily correlated with all manner of bad outcomes healthwise these days, especially in relation to obesity and diabetes. They also appear to increase your appetite for sweet things overall, as well as your tolerance for sweet flavors.
These was a new study, like, yesterday released that brings it all up (again).
Why someone would ever want an artificial sweetener is beyond me.
Though i am suddenly reminded of a short story with an anorexic kid who ate nothing but Splenda, a fat kid who ate everything else, and a barn that they burned down.
Artificial sweeteners are heavily correlated with all manner of bad outcomes healthwise these days, especially in relation to obesity and diabetes. They also appear to increase your appetite for sweet things overall, as well as your tolerance for sweet flavors.
These was a new study, like, yesterday released that brings it all up (again).
Is an actual side effect, or is it more that when you consume a lot of sweet things your tolerance will be increased either way, and because it has so few calories they just drink even more of it?
I'm not a fan of most Artificial sweeteners, but mostly because diet stuff tastes like shit. I don't have as much of a problem with Splenda though, probably because I know how it works and it doesn't taste as weird.
If I remember correctly, the sweetness triggers your body to start metabolizing sugars, because it is expecting more sugar to be coming in. When that sugar fails to appear, you then get hungry and eat more.
I admit that I do use artificial sweeteners, but very sparingly. I use two packets of Splenda in my morning coffee once per day and that's about it. Generally, I just go with real sugar for everything else.
Comments
I feel like the answer is probably "yes," but I want to see what some experienced people think.
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Before_Licensing
Which makes we wonder where Weird Al songs fall since they are derivative works (parody).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_license#United_States
Weird Al creates parodies of original works (covered under fair use and he gets permission) but these are still essentially covers (some are transformational while others are merely derivative).
As it stands right now if Scott went out, got his mechanical license and recorded a cover version of a popular Lady Gaga song (even with some transformative changes) the show Glee could take his reworked cover and use it on their show with zero credit going to Scott for his reworked arrangements.
With that said could they do the same thing with a Weird Al song? What about any parody or any cover that is transformative in nature?
What about the harp twins on YouTube? They are transforming the source music for playing on harps. Could Glee take that and use it on the show without giving them credit?
These was a new study, like, yesterday released that brings it all up (again).
Though i am suddenly reminded of a short story with an anorexic kid who ate nothing but Splenda, a fat kid who ate everything else, and a barn that they burned down.
I'm not a fan of most Artificial sweeteners, but mostly because diet stuff tastes like shit. I don't have as much of a problem with Splenda though, probably because I know how it works and it doesn't taste as weird.