›

Legality of Posting Sound Clips on Websites

ReynaldoReynaldo 6,054 Posts
edited April 2009 in Strut Central
Is there a minimum amount of a song that it's more or less OK to post online? I want to do a minute from each song on an album, all stitched together into one file. I know online retailers do the sound clip thing sometimes but I'm guessing they have agreements or whatever.

  Comments

  • mannybolonemannybolone Los Angeles, CA 15,025 Posts
    Dude, unless you're clocking HUGE traffic, I wouldn't worry about it.
  • GrandfatherGrandfather 2,303 Posts
    Dude, unless you're clocking HUGE traffic, I wouldn't worry about it.

    Yup.

    Just go ahead and post those 320kbps full length rips already
  • selperfugeselperfuge 1,165 Posts
    Is there a minimum amount of a song that it's more or less OK to post online? I want to do a minute from each song on an album, all stitched together into one file. I know online retailers do the sound clip thing sometimes but I'm guessing they have agreements or whatever.

    oh dear god Reynaldo is going to go all Girl Talk on us.
  • fishmongerfunkfishmongerfunk 4,154 Posts
    that's a really interesting question and i'm not sure if the law is settled on this issue.

    for example-all music guide, a very high profile site, provides millions of 30 second clips from songs but it is doubtful that they are paying royalties or have obtained permission (that is a guess, given the sheer number of clips on offer). as far as i am aware, they have never been targeted.

    unlike amg though it sounds like your site is not commercially oriented, so maybe that adds a further level of insulation.

    you should most definitely have a disclaimer drafted and placed on your site. this last piece of advice i am 100% sure on.
  • GrafwritahGrafwritah 4,184 Posts
    Is there a minimum amount of a song that it's more or less OK to post online? I want to do a minute from each song on an album, all stitched together into one file. I know online retailers do the sound clip thing sometimes but I'm guessing they have agreements or whatever.

    Wikipedia usually has these types of things nailed down. (abridged)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Music_samples

    Music samples can be a valuable addition to articles about bands, musical styles, and genres. They can illustrate the particular instruments or musical elements in a song in a way that a text description cannot. However, usage of such samples needs to comply with copyright law and Wikipedia's guidelines. The limitations on length and quality described here apply only to fair use samples; free content samples are not subject to these limitations.

    Guidelines

    * Copyrighted, unlicensed music samples should generally not be longer than 30 seconds or 10% of the length of the original song, whichever is shorter. For songs under 5 minutes in length, 10% is shorter.
    * Samples must be of reduced quality from the original. A Vorbis quality setting of 0 (roughly 64kbps) is usually sufficient. To do this using Audacity, select Preferences under the Edit menu, and move the "Ogg quality" slider under File Formats to 0 before exporting the file in .ogg format (for Macs, select Preferences under the title menu (Audacity), and go to the File Formats tab).
    * Add proper licensing information to the Image description page. For copyrighted music samples it should be {{Non-free audio sample}}
    * All copyrighted music samples must be accompanied by a suitable fair use rationale, or it will be deleted
    * Add relevant information about the sample in the description page, especially length and quality, but also copyrights, album, songwriters, producers, etc... The template {{Music sample info}} can help with this. (eg: Image:MariahCareyWeBelongTogether.ogg)

    And fair use:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fair_use

    Policy

    For the purposes of this policy "non-free content" means all copyrighted images, audio and video clips, and other media files that lack a free content license. There is no automatic entitlement to use non-free content in an article. Such material may be used on the English Wikipedia only where all 10 of the following criteria are met.

    1. No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Where possible, non-free content is transformed into free material instead of using a fair-use defense, or replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available; "acceptable quality" means a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose. (As a quick test, before adding non-free content requiring a rationale, ask yourself: "Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" and "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the non-free content at all?" If the answer to either is yes, the non-free content probably does not meet this criterion.)
    2. Respect for commercial opportunities. Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media.
    3.
    1. Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information.
    2. Minimal extent of use. An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used (especially where the original could be used for deliberate copyright infringement). This rule also applies to the copy in the File: namespace.
    4. Previous publication. Non-free content must have been published or publicly displayed outside Wikipedia.
    5. Content. Non-free content meets general Wikipedia content standards and is encyclopedic.
    6. Media-specific policy. The material meets Wikipedia's media-specific policy. For example, images must meet Wikipedia:Image use policy.
    7. One-article minimum. Non-free content is used in at least one article.
    8. Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.
    9. Restrictions on location. Non-free content is allowed only in articles (not disambiguation pages), and only in article namespace, subject to exemptions. (To prevent an image category from displaying thumbnails, add __NOGALLERY__ to it; images are linked, not inlined, from talk pages when they are a topic of discussion.)
    10. Image description page. The image or media description page contains the following:
    1. Attribution of the source of the material and, if different from the source, of the copyright holder. See: Wikipedia:Citing sources#When uploading an image.
    2. A copyright tag that indicates which Wikipedia policy provision is claimed to permit the use. For a list of image copyright tags, see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free content.
    3. The name of each article (a link to each article is also recommended) in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate, specific fair-use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. The rationale is presented in clear, plain language and is relevant to each use.

    I know they are not the definition of what's legal but it doesn't seem that they have had much in the way of issues with copyrights.
  • ReynaldoReynaldo 6,054 Posts
    Thanks for posting that info. The boundaries are clearer now. Regardless, I'll have a minute of each track, mid-range quality (128 kbps). I'm going for more of a "collector's resource" feel--listen before you bid without investing time and bandwidth in a full-album download. Short clips are what I look for when I want to hear an album but there's only five minutes left in the auction, so I have to make my mind up quickly.
  • GrandfatherGrandfather 2,303 Posts
    what about youtube montages of the albums?
    I like finding tracks on youtube, even if its just a slide show with the song playing
  • Rich45sRich45s 327 Posts
    that's a really interesting question and i'm not sure if the law is settled on this issue.

    for example-all music guide, a very high profile site, provides millions of 30 second clips from songs but it is doubtful that they are paying royalties or have obtained permission (that is a guess, given the sheer number of clips on offer). as far as i am aware, they have never been targeted.

    unlike amg though it sounds like your site is not commercially oriented, so maybe that adds a further level of insulation.

    you should most definitely have a disclaimer drafted and placed on your site. this last piece of advice i am 100% sure on.

    You'd be surprised. It's not usually sites that are licenced but the content providers who supply the clips to the sites themselves.

    I'd imagine Allmusic is powered by someone like Muze, probably one of the biggest music 'clip' providers out there.

    http://www.muze.com/index.htm

    They provide the likes of Amazon with their clips.

    Not even remotely au fait with the concept of 'fair use' in the US so wouldn't want to give an uninformed opinion, but if you are using others IP however long or short, I would imagine you should pay, how likely you are to get lent on by the copyright owners is the question and I would imagine very little, so wouldn't worry too much
  • holmesholmes 3,532 Posts
    yes, those AMG clips are powered by amazon/muze.
  • discos_almadiscos_alma discos_alma 2,164 Posts
    investing time and bandwidth in a full-album download.

    Dude, it's 2009. You can get a webhost with unlimited bandwidth for like $7 a month. This should not hold you back. One advertisement on the top of your site should pay for this fee.
  • ReynaldoReynaldo 6,054 Posts
    investing time and bandwidth in a full-album download.

    Dude, it's 2009. You can get a webhost with unlimited bandwidth for like $7 a month. This should not hold you back. One advertisement on the top of your site should pay for this fee.
    I was talking from the users/downloaders perspective--but, still, I'm not going to post full albums.
  • discos_almadiscos_alma discos_alma 2,164 Posts
    investing time and bandwidth in a full-album download.

    Dude, it's 2009. You can get a webhost with unlimited bandwidth for like $7 a month. This should not hold you back. One advertisement on the top of your site should pay for this fee.
    I was talking from the users/downloaders perspective--but, still, I'm not going to post full albums.

    Gotcha. This sounds like a cool project. Good luck.
Sign In or Register to comment.