What's new

Selling fan made soundtracks legal?

MarcelM

Senior Member
i was wondering if this was legal? i see quite a bunch of people selling fan made soundtracks and iam just curious if this is legal? i guess and believe its not, but still people do that?

is it even legal to create a fan made soundtrack at all?

iam no expert in that matter and simply had to ask :) thought twice before posting though ;)
 
What's a fan made soundtrack?

a cover or own/different version of a soundtrack from a movie.



the composer seems to be very skilled and is selling on bandcamp. id be worried about the legal issues.
 
You can't sync someone else's copyrighted material to picture without a license, at least not legally, but you can make audio covers of songs if you tick the proper boxes. Check out BMI or ASCAP website for details.
Interesting, thanks! I would probably never do this intentionally. But there have been a few tracks from Austin Wintory which would be fun to cover, for fun.
 
There are a few people I noticed doing this:

https://syntheticorchestra.com/store/

https://alexroe.bandcamp.com/music

But I don't know what exactly the license deal is here. I am a bit surprised this is a thing?
I'm sure there are some weird legal issues but I personally don't see the logic for it. Alex Roe, for instance, simply writes music that feels like Dark Souls, but he's not really using any of the content in any sort of official way, considering the purchases are purely audio downloads and the music is original. You'd think Sony would have gone after him by now for his Bloodborne remixes, if anything, though they're free to download.
 
I'm sure there are some weird legal issues but I personally don't see the logic for it. Alex Roe, for instance, simply writes music that feels like Dark Souls, but he's not really using any of the content in any sort of official way, considering the purchases are purely audio downloads and the music is original. You'd think Sony would have gone after him by now for his Bloodborne remixes, if anything, though they're free to download.
But he is using the official copyrighted Title. I know a lot of library music is made to be sound-alike to current film music. But they are careful to never name their inspiration. (Never really investigated.) Fan soundtracks do not seem that much different to library music. Straight covers obviously have to use the title because you can not make a cover without naming the pice covered.
 
But he is using the official copyrighted Title. I know a lot of library music is made to be sound-alike to current film music. But they are careful to never name their inspiration. (Never really investigated.) Fan soundtracks do not seem that much different to library music. Straight covers obviously have to use the title because you can not make a cover without naming the pice covered.
Hmm. Actually though, for Darksouls he's using "Darksign" as the title (not sure that that's registered), and "Born in Blood" for Bloodborne. Fairly clever dodges, it seems. I do know he's gotten shout-outs by composers for those games.
 
Hmm. Actually though, for Darksouls he's using "Darksign" as the title (not sure that that's registered), and "Born in Blood" for Bloodborne. Fairly clever dodges, it seems. I do know he's gotten shout-outs by composers for those games.

*** I am not a lawyer ***

There probably are legal issues, but sometimes composers have to take risks. Most companies will issue a cease and desist letter or some DMCA notice take down the infringing material. Some companies may actually greenlight dedication pieces or covers without penalty as long as the new pieces follow specific rules.

Is it legal? It depends on how the law is interpreted.

Should you take the risk? It depends on what your risk tolerance is. Be bold but deal with the consequences!
 
It believe it requires a mechanical license or you may get a call from Harry Fox. He can certainly not claim the writers share.
 
My understanding of covers (only my understanding mind), UK specific: If you write a song and play it publicly and/or present it in recorded medium it is then legal for someone else to cover it without needing your permission. A few things to note: they must of course present it as a cover, not use any recorded elements from the track (sampling or remixing), mechanicals/royalties must be paid. They have control over their master recording but not your composition for example I think if an ad agency wanted to use the cover version they would need permission from the person who does the cover and the copyright holder of the original, though I'm not too sure on this, either way a lot of people ask if they can use my covers, I say I can only say yes to my version of the composition, not the composition itself. I think this is what @JohnG is saying above.

Reasons you can stop people doing/releasing a cover of your song are along the lines of defamation etc.

Releasing covers: I clear licenses and pay mechanicals up front (I have to with the digital distributor I use). YouTube did a deal some years back with major record labels, I've not ever been able to find much information about it, but it allows people to earn income from covers, same as you would if you made a covers album. For example, were you to do a cover of an Adele song, YouTube would flag this using an auto-matching database and/or tag/title match and whatever else they use to identify covers. Once the video is flagged you either accept that it is a cover (checking the publisher/copyright holder information is correct), and ads are then placed on the video with 45-55% going to YouTube, a percentage going to the copyright holder (say Universal in Adele's case) and some goes to you, or challenge it if it isn't a cover.

When I reached out to Universal about doing my Adele cover and was interested in using the original vocal, the form did ask for clarifaction on whether it was a cover or an arrangement, I didn't go ahead with it so never got this difference cleared up.

Sometimes I've contacted the composer if I can't find the copyright holder/publisher. For example I did a cover of the Rick and Morty Theme and Ryan Elder was real helpful in sorting me out with that, so there are ways to find out who owns the publishing if the usual databases don't help.

Images and video may present a whole other issue when it comes to copyright. Then educational use, fair use and other things may or may not come into play (according to YouTube's policy only). For example there are YouTube channels that review, react or do 'everything wrong with' or 'how it should have ended', again this is only going on my understanding, they are able to do this under policy laws of YouTube. I think one of those channels had stated that.

A lot of this is case-by-case stuff. Whenever I've reached out to YouTube representatives or spoken to composers/publishers, it's always a little different. So I'd recommend always asking if you're unsure, be sure to find the publisher and clear linceses, make sure mechanicals are paid, do things tastefully and respectfully. My cover of the Walking Dead theme got a nice shout out from Bear McCreary - so I think some people appreciate the efforts of people doing covers of their work. For me, it's a celebration of the music, it's a chance to explore the music and give my own response to it.

So is selling a fan-made sound track legal? If they're covers of the tracks with license/mechanicals cleared then yes.
 
Lets put it another way. what happens if a movie composers grabs your music and makes a track out of it and its released theatrically and broadcasted. you would sue since its your music.
so now comes any dick joe and harry and grabs copyrighted video with copyrighted music and uploads to youtube and no one is the wiser. youtube shows ads and they get paid. a lot of times the video is monitized and the uploader gets paid. so yea, i just don't like where these tech companies are going with our content where they make gazillions on other peoples work.
in the video in this thread we can understand its a fan made thing and trying to show chops on a real video... but its still someone else content who worked hard to make it and its still entertaining us. in other words, the video should be licensed to do these and if the music is a recreation of an original then there should be also be compensations its another persons creation.
this basic copyright thing is getting more and more lost in "tech" translation and the upcoming new generation of kids are no way near understanding this.
 
There is certainly a shift in the attitude toward copyright mainly manifesting in younger generations brought up where everything is available instantly and is downloadable/shareable. New media isn't necessarily responsible, but the big tech companies' handling of it and laws being quite far behind I think are, plus lack of education among other things. Relating to the state of YouTube, things are in a much better place to where they were 10 years ago.

Misconceptions still remain though; tech companies aren't rogue and are under constant scrutiny from labels/studios. It's very hard if even possible to have a successful YouTube channel based off illegal use of copyright material. It's therefore very hard to make any money from illegal use of copyright material on YouTube let alone legal use of copyright material.

Also, just because ads are on a YouTube video does not mean the uploader has monetised it and is receiving any money. If the content is owned by a studio/label, chances are they've chosen to allow the video to run and are taking 100% of ad revenue (after YouTube's share).

Though I think YouTube videos are very different to theatrical releases, we can use that as an example. Let's say there is a comprehensive, robust database you can easily upload your music too as soon as you've finished writing it. Every theatrical release is run through this database. It notifies you that your music is being used and you're able to claim all money made from it since release and have two options: stop the release running or allow the release to run claiming 100% of the income. With the second option you're generating money from someone else's legwork by not acting on the fact they didn't ask permission. That's how YouTube works. Major networks and studios have their content in a big database (I think this was legally imposed on YouTube) and allow their content to remain uploaded because they are (now) able to claim the content and with it all ad revenue, while the uploader doesn't get anything (as it should be if it's not been cleared/permission granted). Networks, studios and labels have seen the potential for extra income and are exercising it.

Take for example a wedding dance video that went viral, I forget what song it was but it got flagged, and then there's two options from the label: Annoyance at copyrighted material being used without permission and a video take down, or an opportunity to monetise. Content was claimed, ads were placed, and as a result the track floated up to the charts. The uploader themselves wouldn't have cashed in, the label did.

It's by no means perfect and people will feel differently about it, but it is shaped by networks, labels and studios. They can remove videos, they can let them run and monetise, that was part of their legal dealings with YouTube. Not just the major players though - anyone can put in a copyright claim on a video and at some point (I think dependent on subscribers/sales/influence) can upload their materials to the content ID database. It's certainly implemented too late (I think we're talking 2009 through 2012 and ongoing), but implemented non-the-less. I think laws will always be behind technology and given the seismic shift brought about by digital distribution it has taken a while to catch up, it shouldn't have I don't think, but it did.

Copyright has and always will be debated, certainly surrounding issues brought about by new technologies:

1985:
https://www.nytimes.com/1985/11/21/...lties-on-recorders-and-blank-audio-tapes.html

2012:
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/21/...-to-stop-copyright-violations-on-youtube.html

2039:
?
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom