|
|
|
|
|
by alexpotato
1192 days ago
|
|
> But my understanding of what Getty is selling is both convenience and a degree of legal protection for media buyers. I don't know if this is still the case (given Spotify/Amazon Music etc) but with regards to convenience: I remember reading a few years ago that it was almost impossible to find the holder of music copyright for a large portion of the existing catalogue of published music. This was due to a combination of: - no central database of ownership - a LOT of music is produced by small labels - music copyright ownership tends to change hands for various reasons I can see how in this domain (and therefore similar domains), having a quick and easy way to say "I need X and I need to know no one is going to sue me for using it" has got to be a service that large corporations are willing to pay for. |
|
Where it gets tricky is that with a piece of music, there are at least 3 or 4 different elements that are separately copy written.
You have the basic tune, the specific arrangement, the physical layout and content of the sheet music, the basic copyright of a particular recording, and finally (and most relevant to your example), what are called the synch rights, which are the rights to use a song as a synchronized part of a larger work, like a movie or commercial.