OverClocked ReMix Content Policy - Final Enacted 6/12/2007

[djpretzel]

You can't do that with a license TO.

I appreciate the legal acumen being granted pro-bono here, but would be a little more comfortable if it was accompanied by some sort of citation/caselaw, as opposed to our taking your word for it because you sound like you know what you're talking about, which you do. As a general point of interest to those reading this thread, I'd also recommend requiring citation any time you're receiving legal advice of any kind.

http://www.songwritingcompetition.com/rules.htm << entrant retains ownership, but agrees that music be distributed on CD for promotional purposes, and thus (seemingly) cannot request its removal

http://www.dir.state.tx.us/standards/srrpub09-rfo.htm << interesting; not *exactly* the same issue, but deals with IP, and mentions "a nonexclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, enterprise-wide license to reproduce, publish, or otherwise use such Intellectual Property" << this would seem to fly in the face of your points re: licenses being terminable at any point.

http://contracts.corporate.findlaw.com/agreements/visx/medjet.lic.2001.08.17.html << ditto: "Subject to the provisions of Section 6,

Medjet hereby grants VISX a non-exclusive, worldwide, perpetual, irrevocable

license, with the right to grant non-exclusive sublicenses, to use, reproduce,

translate, distribute (by any means known or hereafter developed, including

electronic distribution), market, make derivative works of and otherwise exploit

the Medjet Technology."

http://www.austindev.com/policies/hosting-terms/ << "g. Intellectual Property License. Customer hereby grants to AUSTIN WEB DEVELOPMENT an unconditional, irrevocable, non-exclusive license (exercisable without royalty or other payment by AUSTIN WEB DEVELOPMENT, but only in connection with the exercise of its remedies) to use, license or sublicense any patent, trademark, trade name, copyright or other intellectual property in which Customer now or hereafter has any right, title or interest, together with the right of access to all media in which any of the foregoing may be recorded or stored."

This one's more interesting because of its "Except as limited under applicable law" caveat:

http://www.foreverjewelers.com/policy/termsofuse.htm << "Except as limited under applicable law, for all material submitted by You to the Website, You automatically grant, or warrant that the owner of such material has expressly granted, ForeverJewelers.com the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, fully-paid up right and license to use, reproduce, create derivative works, publicly distribute, publicly perform, publicly display, assume any sound recording rights or moral rights of attribution or integrity, transmit, modify, adapt, publish, translate and distribute such material (in whole or in part) worldwide and/or to incorporate it in other works in any form, media or technology now known or hereafter developed (including, without limitation, print and electronic form, media and technology) for the full term of any copyright that may exist in such material. Except as limited under applicable law, You also permit any other Website user to access, view, store or reproduce the material for that Website user’s personal use."

My bottom line being that "irrevocable", "non-exclusive" licenses to use the intellectual property of others without conveying full ownership DO seem to exist. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying I'd really appreciate as much citation as possible, as I'm sure having gone through law school you'd be used to providing.

I happen to be in an amazing position to find as conclusive an answer to this question as possible, as my girlfriend is starting work next week for Finnegan Henderson (http://www.finnegan.com/), and since they're one of the top IP firms in the world, I'd have to think someone there can provide a conclusive explanation. It may in fact jive with everything AD has said, in which case more power to him. I appreciate his chiming in even if he's dead wrong, as well.

If royalty-free, perpetual, non-exclusive, irrevocable licenses were truly impossible, as AD claims, then how would sample libraries be licensed? How could I be able to utilize royalty-free clip-art? Are you saying that at any point East-West can terminate their license, break down my door, and take my Colossus and RA libraries back? Again, not being contentious... there's an answer out there, I'm sure.

As AD has shown, one section of the policy seems to be at odds with another section, and these things need to be ironed out, and the language cleaned up, before it's finalized. That's what we've got going on right now.

Again, let's not grant anyone the benefit of the doubt because they sound good; he may be wrong, he may be right, but thus far I'm not convinced that he's conclusively correct, especially given absence of citation. Again, I'd advise everyone, in any context, to not take things like this at face value, and to require ample corroborating material.

As an interesting aside, in an email from 2002:

Mr. Lloyd,

I have decided to discontinue participation in your website - Please remove all of my music from your server immediately.

This includes the following material:

DrMario_Funky_Pills_OC_ReMix.mp3

Contra_MEGAMIX_OC_ReMix.zip / mp3

BalloonFight_SkaPoppin_OC_ReMix.mp3

Faxanadu_Funk_Fusion_OC_ReMix.mp3

Toejam&Earl_WakeUp!_OC_ReMix.mp3

Adventure_Island_Higgins_Goes_to_Miami_OC_ReMix.mp3

You fail to provide any information -whatsoever- about your acquision of distribution rights - either on your website or during the submission process. This means you have none. Maybe you should get on that.

Thank you for your prompt attention.

Love,

-Jake

Better late than never?

[The Coop]

Again, let's not grant anyone the benefit of the doubt because they sound good; he may be wrong, he may be right, but thus far I'm not convinced that he's conclusively correct, especially given absence of citation. Again, I'd advise everyone, in any context, to not take things like this at face value, and to require ample corroborating material.

Well, that's why I used "seems" instead of "is" djp

But in truth, saying OCR can deny the removal request of a remix, while not claiming to want ownership, does appear to be at odds. It comes off as a "It's not mine, but you you can't have it back"-kind of thing.

[djpretzel]

Well, that's why I used "seems" instead of "is" djp

But in truth, saying OCR can deny the removal request of a remix, while not claiming to want ownership, does appear to be at odds. It comes off as a "It's not mine, but you you can't have it back"-kind of thing.

Did you read my post re: irrevocable, non-exclusive licenses? Your comment doesn't address the points I raised...

If OCR receives a DMCA Takedown Notice, how would this be handled? Would the offending song be pulled in a knee-jerk fashion, or will an attempt be made to determine the viability of the notice? The DMCA has been widely abused, and things that do not violate the DMCA are being removed by some sites based solely on the abusive notices. Knee-jerk reactions to DMCA notices can cause censorship.

It's never happened, so I don't know. How we'd handle such a situation doesn't really need to be described in this specific policy, so it's a bit off-topic, but I certainly wouldn't go to the great lengths required to remove mixes unless someone compelled me to do so. It'd be a lot of work, for one, and as you say, the DMCA can be abused. It wouldn't be knee-jerk.

I don't like the "violation of submission standards" clause, as it implies that accepted songs can be deleted later if it is decided that they no longer fit any new submission guidelines. I feel that once in, it should stay in unless the artist wishes it removed.

Realistically, the submission standards aren't going to change drastically... ever. We've refined them down to pretty specific levels. This clause is largely to address situations where we post something that turns out to be, for example, a MIDI rip, that somehow we missed in the evaluation process, and need to remove afterwards. I do not believe it needs to be rewritten.

Even though you later say "Additional credit to the original artist(s) responsible for each OverClocked ReMix used is requested, whenever possible," I think the artist's name should be in the 'minimum' as well. Most people will only do the minimum, it's humnan nature. I do not understand why the artists name isn't in the minimum to begin with. :/

Alright, everyone seems to be in favor of this. I'm trying to maintain a balance between making the requirement realistic and giving credit where credit is due. I think two pieces of information should be the minimum.

1. remixer name
   
2. www.ocremix.org

That way, even if the artist name changes, the site URL still lets users look up the track by name or game and find out the new artist name. Credit is given to the artist, but in terms of referencing information about the track or finding similar music, people would be directed to OCR.

This seems to be a big sticking point for some; I can't expect everyone to share my attitude that, when it comes to arrangements, it should be more about game & composer and less about achieving personal fame, I suppose.

Would this combination of information be acceptable to those who've previously expressed concern?

[Compyfox]

I'm sure as hell no lawyer, but having experience with "the law" in certain ways, I can at least give some comments. I leave the rest to those who really know their thing.

If royalty-free, perpetual, non-exclusive, irrevocable licenses were truly impossible, as AD claims, then how would sample libraries be licensed? How could I be able to utilize royalty-free clip-art?

Most royalty free samples and art is released on some sort of "common ground". Those people are happy to share their material, try to gain popularity and at a later place maybe get known on a commercial base, but can still release their stuff for free as "demo" or better said "appetizer".

Most of that stuff is still released with some form of copyright information (who did that stuff), then an additional info how you're allowed to use them (for samples it's "Creative Commons", with possible restrictions and conditions) and whether or not you're allowed to share that material, and if so in which form.

While you indeed try something similar here, I have to mention however that the samples, the music material, art, written form or whatever comes to mind is still not your creative property. In other words, you only have a "license" to use the material in a certain form, but you don't "own" it in any way, and have no rights to change that or interfere with the interest of the original creative mind.

Are you saying that at any point East-West can terminate their license, break down my door, and take my Colossus and RA libraries back? Again, not being contentious... there's an answer out there, I'm sure.

While they're of course not allowed to go on a rampage, they can indeed deny you the use of their licenses (especially with Call/Response systems) if you violate against their rules.

For example, if there's written: "These samples are licensed, not sold, to the purchaser and remain the property of Wilbert Roget, II. Redistributing, duplicating, reselling, electronically transmitting, uploading, sharing, or renting these samples is prohibited by law"

...it does indeed mean, if you want to use it in two studios, even if one's your home studio, and the other one a studio you have with your partner - that's not allowed. You'd duplicate and share the samples, use "two licenses" even if sold for one - which would make that action illegal (though in reality, most users ignore that). Same as if a client would come over, and ask you to mix his track with "his samples" and you work on your own. Collaborating is a different thing, as most samples are used in a musical context then (exchanging rendered files), still it has to be cleared in some sort of way.

If you violate against one of those rules, the firm you bought the samples from can indeed exclude you from future purchases and sue you. This'd be the form of "kick my door in and get back their samples". Though the negative side on it - first they have to get to know whether or not you're abusing against their rules. With Call/Response it's easy, but not with normal sample CDs that don't need keys or dongles.

I'm kinda happy that the issue with "ignoring removal requests due to selling the material" is being discussed and considered to be changed in some sort of way (though it's not done yet, and it's uncertain if that ever will be), along with other issues I adressed. But like LuIzA, I also rather won't submit my material anymore but rather go to another place with "less restrictions", or a more "open system", towards the participating person, as this is indeed not aimed for a "fun community" anymore. Unless the rules are laid out in a understandable and fair way for all participants.

This is in no way a disruptive behaviour or an outburst due to misunderstandings, it's just my personal opinion on this issue.

Best wishes and a nice evening.

[The Coop]

Well, that's why I used "seems" instead of "is" djp

But in truth, saying OCR can deny the removal request of a remix, while not claiming to want ownership, does appear to be at odds. It comes off as a "It's not mine, but you you can't have it back"-kind of thing.

Did you read my post re: irrevocable, non-exclusive licenses? Your comment doesn't address the points I raised...

I did indeed. The point you made (if I read it correctly) was that you believe there is a way to retain use of the song, without claiming ownership, even if the remixer demands their tune be taken down. That doesn't apply to telling someone "No. We're keeping your remix", which is simply bad form if nothing else. If a remixer throws a hissyfit, and demands you remove all their remixes, telling them "NO" (see what I did there?) creates an interesting problem. With the submission of a removal request, regardless of what may happen a month from then, OCR would in essence be using a remix without the remixer's consent... something I believe this site is against, yes? If you set a standard where you tell the remixer to basically go pound rocks when they submit a removal request for whatever reason, what kind of image is being sent? What kind of problems and issues is this going to raise? It seems this should also be a concern now that OCR is getting bigger.

I know the amount of work that would go into pulling remixes from torrents and the like is pretty substantial, but that's why I believe the ideas of a two week "cool off" period, and a "Once a remix is removed, it's gone" clause would work. The first would give them a chance to come to their senses, and the second would mean not having to go through the process of implanting the remix back into the line up. It would also make it so the remixer who submitted the removal request, could still submit future remixes (though perhaps not the same ones that were removed).

These aren't the nicest ways of dealing with the problem, but I believe they would be the most effective once they've been spelled out in legalese, and they would do away with what's proving to be one of the biggest sticking points in the policy draft.

[djpretzel]

I did indeed. The point you made (if I read it correctly) was that you believe there is a way to retain use of the song, without claiming ownership, even if the remixer demands their tune be taken down. That doesn't apply to telling someone "No. We're keeping your remix", which is simply bad form if nothing else. If a remixer throws a hissyfit, and demands you remove all their remixes, telling them "NO" (see what I did there?) creates an interesting problem.

I think that we're running up against the difference between a content policy / license and how the site will actually respond to such requests. How we answer such requests - whether it be a with a "no", a two-week cool off period, etc. - really shouldn't be baked into the policy, which is more attuned to legal terms than those sorts of specifics. AD made a post questioning the legal feasability refusing removal without obtaining full ownership, and I responded with information that I believe suggests it is legally feasible. You seem to be questioning whether it's a good idea, or the procedure surrounding it, as opposed to the legal enforceability of the clauses as written.

Which is fine, by the way, but they really are two different topics.

In the six plus years of running the site, we've had removal requests that more or less fall into the following categories:

1. I don't like OverClocked ReMix anymore. Please remove my mixes.
   
2. djpretzel, someone on the forums, or a member of the site staff has offended me. Remove all my mixes.
   
3. I've found Jesus or had some other type of epiphany/revelation in my life, and no longer wish to make my music available online in any form, anywhere. Remove my mixes.
   
4. I don't like one or more of my mixes any more, and believe it represents either my own abilities or OverClocked ReMix itself in a negative fashion. Remove my mix(es).

... and that's it. And, since some of us have decided to be more frank/hostile than others, I'd just like to say that I don't personally respect any of these motivations very much.

The first is petty; usually someone doesn't like something we said or did and thinks they can punish us by removing their material, or make some sort of grand political statement. The actuality is that we don't make any profit and do this for fun, so "hurting" us per se won't work, and the end result is that fewer people will be exposed to your music. Music that you supposedly made with the site's mission statement in mind: to honor game music and game composers. Removing your mix because of personal motivations is just that - personal. To me, it represents selfishness. This was somebody's ELSE's music that you've arranged and made available for free, and suddenly you have the nerve to use it as a bartering mechanism, or to make some sort of statement? Reserve that type of action for your own music, that's 100% yours, 100% original.

The second is worse than the first, as instead of any sort of ideological or procedural objection that could at least be seen as an issue of principle, we're instead talking about personal insults. Let me explain something: the tens of thousands of people that listen to and enjoy this music don't have any idea of the dramarama and politics that sometimes occur here, and don't want to. And they're the ones most directly affected by mix removal. And, again, if you wanna rebel against something... do it with original works. While I'm the first to acknowledge and appreciate that ReMixes involve a great deal of original material - we emphasize this all the time, in fact - they still represent arrangements of someone else's music. To try to "punish" OCR via mix removal is misguided in the first place; to do so with emo motivations doubly so.

The third is interesting. I might tend to have the most sympathy with this sort of explanation. However, along with the first two motivations, it too is selfish: I personally dedicate a good deal of my time to preparing and posting each mix, as does the site staff in judging them and moderating review discussion, and listeners in reviewing them. There's numerous people who've invested time and effort to every single mix on the site, not just the submitting artist. Luiza has emphasized, among other things, that she does this for "fun". That's fine - so do we - but for the fun that each submitting mixer has in making the mix, there's still a lot of work involved, and this holds true on our end as well. We're all about the fun, but OCR chews up a lot of our time as well. If as an artist you don't give a shit about that and could care less about the site staff's time and the opinions of those who have reviewed your pieces to date... don't submit in the first place.

The fourth I'm very sympathetic to because, quite honestly, I've got some pretty seriously shitty mixes on this site. Not god-awful, and (unfortunately) not in violation of standards to the extent that they could be removed on those grounds, but still... pretty bad. And yet I've still received compliments on some of them, even recently. Which is testament to the extreme subjectivity of opinion when it comes to music. With OCR, we are trying to build a representative collection of works - a canon, if you will - that best exemplifies what we've set down in our mission statement and submission standards. We can't do that if mixers are removing pieces because they simply don't like them anymore. Again, as with the third motivation, the mixer's wishes have to be weighed against the amount of work that went into judges evaluating the mix, my posting it, listeners taking the time to review it, and the entire staff's effort to promote it via torrent distribution and other channels. This is ultimately too subjective a motivation to entertain.

That's it.

There may be other motivations, but to date we haven't seen them. And since I don't particularly think of any of them represent the type of attitude or motivation I believe those submitting free arrangements of other people's music should have, I'm not compelled.

We want to have fun, but this fun represents a lot of work. We tirelessly look for ways to improve the site and for new methods of distribution so that more and more people can listen to this great music. I vastly prefer to spend these huge chunks of my life working on something without a gun to my head, especially when that gun is being held by the mixers I'm trying to get more exposure for, and particularly when that gun is motivated by these four criteria, none of which I hold legitimate.

[Hale-Bopp]

Hey guys, I have an inquiry regarding the following policy:

"Copyright owners of the original arranged music may use OverClocked ReMixes in a for-profit context."

Is this referring only to the original game composer that the arrangement or remix is based off of? I'm assuming it is, but I dunno, I can't tell. I hate making assumptions without more details.

The reason I ask is because, for example, my Summertime remix contains original material written solely by me (the melody in the chorus along with the breakdown are my original ideas) and I've always assumed, naturally I suppose, that I still retain my rights to that particular original material that I wrote, meaning that I at least retain partial control over how the entire remix would be distributed, for profit or not.

I've always been in the dark on this subject and knew I'd have to bring it up at some point somewhere. May as well be here and now.

Thoughts?

[djpretzel]

Hey guys, I have an inquiry regarding the following policy:

"Copyright owners of the original arranged music may use OverClocked ReMixes in a for-profit context."

Is this referring only to the original game composer that the arrangement or remix is based off of? I'm assuming it is, but I dunno, I can't tell. I hate making assumptions without more details.

The reason I ask is because, for example, my Summertime remix contains original material written solely by me (the melody in the chorus along with the breakdown are my original ideas) and I've always assumed, naturally I suppose, that I still retain my rights to that particular original material that I wrote, meaning that I at least retain partial control over how the entire remix would be distributed, for profit or not.

I've always been in the dark on this subject and knew I'd have to bring it up at some point somewhere. May as well be here and now.

Thoughts?

It's a good question. No one's yet objected to this specific point yet, but it's new as of this policy and wasn't around in any form previously.

It's less likely that the game composer owns the copyright to the game music in question (Yuzo Koshiro being one exception) and more likely that the publisher, e.g. Capcom, Nintendo, etc. owns it, but either way, we're saying that those individuals - and only those individuals - can use OverClocked ReMixes that arrange their copyrighted material in a for-profit context, if they so choose. In this instance, we're not ceding ownership of your work, but rather attempting to acknowledge that said work didn't involve any sort of permission from the original copyright owner. Given that these copyright owners could at any time send us a pretty solid cease & desist, the objection of which would require very subjective interpretation of fair use, this is sort of a nod to the game companies that if they wanted to use an OC ReMix in one of their games, on an album, etc., they could do so.

I could go either way on this one... my intention was to prevent cease & desists or any sort of potential legal issues by "throwing the copyright owners a bone" so to speak; a bone which would also, incidentally, mean a good deal of free publicity for the site and the ReMixer involved. However, it *is* granting license for these entities to use your music - including the original parts they had nothing to do with - for profit, none of which would be passed back to you.

So, there's pros and cons. Hopefully that answers part of your question.

As for your owning those parts of the mix that are originally yours, yes, that's correct. This policy, however, would involve your granting license to OCR, and through this policy to the original copyright owners, to use your mix specifically as the policy describes. Including the original bits.

[Compyfox]

That's it.

There may be other motivations, but to date we haven't seen them. And since I don't particularly think of any of them represent the type of attitude or motivation I believe those submitting free arrangements of other people's music should have, I'm not compelled.

But in other words that still means "whoever wants to remove his songs, no matter what reason, we`re not going to do that" - unless I get that wrong. Especially if it's a legitime reason like "I'm sorry, but I was chosen for a CD compliation/I want to release my remixes with proper permission and contract, but this contract asks me to remove all sources of possible releases, may it be free or planned to be sold in any other way"?

Of course it's dissapointing that people want to part with OCR for you. But it's their decision, their creative work and not just a 1:1 remix from (let's say) Mitsuda alone, as demanded in the quality guidelines from OCR anyway (else it wouldn't have been submitted). So they can indeed do with their material as they please. And this is what it's all about, this whole discussion, and that's what AD commented on, too.

Is it really that difficult and troublesome? Nothing against you, Dave. But OCR is really not the only (videogame) remix related community out there.

We want to have fun, but this fun represents a lot of work. We tirelessly look for ways to improve the site and for new methods of distribution so that more and more people can listen to this great music. I vastly prefer to spend these huge chunks of my life working on something without a gun to my head, especially when that gun is being held by the mixers I'm trying to get more exposure for, and particularly when that gun is motivated by these four criteria, none of which I hold legitimate.

Then why not doing the other way? Get a bit more lenient on rules, be more open minded. Does every track really have to be uber-produced to be suitable for this page? Do new mixers really need a massive quality check if they can get feedback and help from established mixers? Does every track need to be reviewed by the page founder and leader individually (if he's on a timer anyway)?

It worked with all those remixing projects out there, didn't it? And I guess this is what other communities made so popular. They work on a more musician focused basis, rather than on a quality forced and bottle-necked system. Fun vs. Uber-Professional Machinery - one is not the other.

Please don't see everything as mega difficult and highly professional. This is no record company that's talking about millions in terms of money income per year, but a "hobby community". Lighten up a little.

[The Coop]

I think that we're running up against the difference between a content policy / license and how the site will actually respond to such requests. How we answer such requests - whether it be a with a "no", a two-week cool off period, etc. - really shouldn't be baked into the policy, which is more attuned to legal terms than those sorts of specifics. AD made a post questioning the legal feasability refusing removal without obtaining full ownership, and I responded with information that I believe suggests it is legally feasible. You seem to be questioning whether it's a good idea, or the procedure surrounding it, as opposed to the legal enforceability of the clauses as written.

Which is fine, by the way, but they really are two different topics.

Hmmmm... true. Perhaps I did mix the two a bit. But I do honestly believe both could affect the site in equally bad ways. They might not be able to take legal action over you're rejecting their removal request, but word of mouth can cause just as much hassle. I know the old saying goes "There's no such thing as bad press", but in reality, there is. I'd hate to see this place setting itself up because of the way a line of text is worded, and not expanded upon.

Speaking of which...

"Once a work is submitted and accepted, OverClocked ReMix reserves the right to reject removal requests on the part of the submitting artist."

... is basically baking into the policy that you can/will reject removal requests by a given remixer. I may be wrong on this, but since you're telling people you can/will reject such things, isn't it a good idea to include how you will go about doing this? That seems like a rather important part of the policy being left out to me. I know it means properly wording even more things, and possibly delaying the policy's implementation, but a few small subsection additions like...

* Once a work is submitted and accepted, OverClocked ReMix reserves the right to reject removal requests on the part of the submitting artist. The actions taken upon a removal request may consist of...
     - A two week postponement of the removal, during which the remixer can review his decision to have his/her remixes removed. At the end of the two weeks, if the remixer still wants their remixes taken down, they will be.
     - Another way.
     - Yet another way.

 Should a given remix be removed from OverClocked Remix at the request of its remixer, that version of their remix will be permanently removed from the site's database, and can not be reinstated.

... don't seem like that big of a hardship. Plus, it'll make the policy that much more clean cut, and less ambiguous.

And BTW... "I found Jesus"? No offense intended to whomever had such a reason, but that's a rather odd reason to remove one's music...

... unless of course the remix has someone screaming "SATAN SATAN SATAN, IS YOUR MASTER! LORD OF THE FLIES RULES, FOREVER AFTER!" or something

[djpretzel]

But in other words that still means "whoever wants to remove his songs, no matter what reason, we`re not going to do that" - unless I get that wrong. Especially if it's a legitime reason like "I'm sorry, but I was chosen for a CD compliation/I want to release my remixes with proper permission and contract, but this contract asks me to remove all sources of possible releases, may it be free or planned to be sold in any other way"?

No one else has yet echoed this concern of releasing mixes commercially on a contract that clashed with OCR's policy. I've already stated that if you think at any time that you'll want to sell your mix for profit, it's better that you didn't submit it. You've already said that you wouldn't submit anything if this is the case. This site's about free music; I don't consider the point you've raised a major concern. I thank you for raising it, as it's interesting and wasn't addressed, but I don't feel the policy needs to account for it.

Of course it's dissapointing that people want to part with OCR for you. But it's their decision, their creative work and not just a 1:1 remix from (let's say) Mitsuda alone, as demanded in the quality guidelines from OCR anyway (else it wouldn't have been submitted). So they can indeed do with their material as they please. And this is what it's all about, this whole discussion, and that's what AD commented on, too.

Is it really that difficult and troublesome? Nothing against you, Dave. But OCR is really not the only (videogame) remix related community out there.

It's not a "1:1 mix from Mitsuda", but it's also not a "1:1 mix" from the mixer. This is moot; the point I was making is that effort is involved to evaluate, post, and promote the mix, and on the part of listeners, to review it. None of the reasons for removal I listed counteract that, nor would your concern about commercial release.

Whether we're the only game mix site out there or not is moot and off-topic.

Then why not doing the other way? Get a bit more lenient on rules, be more open minded. Does every track really have to be uber-produced to be suitable for this page? Do new mixers really need a massive quality check if they can get feedback and help from established mixers? Does every track need to be reviewed by the page founder and leader individually (if he's on a timer anyway)?

Most of this is off-topic and does not pertain directly to the policy. You've already been warned once about this. Your feedback about the policy is appreciated, but limit it to that topic please, or we will need to start moderating.

The policy as written gives us the right to refuse removal requests, period. We will probably reword this into submitting artists granting us a "perpetual, non-exclusive, irrevocable license to distribute", etc., since that seems to be what other entities are using and what AD has not yet addressed re: legal feasibility. As for whether or not we would grant a removal request, I've said my piece about the rationale and criteria previously stated and what Compy's brought up. As written, the policy doesn't rule out a situation where a removal request would be fulfilled, but since I can't think of any that I find particularly compelling, modifying the policy to include hypotheticals seems moot. If Compy got an AMAZING album deal and we needed to remove his mix, would we? Maybe. But the policy as written won't spell this out, because these types of things are almost impossible to spell out.

[Compyfox]

No one else has yet echoed this concern of releasing mixes commercially on a contract that clashed with OCR's policy. I've already stated that if you think at any time that you'll want to sell your mix for profit, it's better that you didn't submit it. You've already said that you wouldn't submit anything if this is the case. This site's about free music; I don't consider the point you've raised a major concern. I thank you for raising it, as it's interesting and wasn't addressed, but I don't feel the policy needs to account for it.

I think it does indeed need to be accounted - especially if the certain mix involved was already released (let's say) half a year ago, and was also the reason the firm contacted you.

In this case, there needs to be a certain solution found.

Most of this is off-topic and does not pertain directly to the policy. You've already been warned once about this. Your feedback about the policy is appreciated, but limit it to that topic please, or we will need to start moderating.

*sigh* You sure are picky. I just commented on your post, and in this case, you went OT first. It's not like I hijack this thread and talk about the difference of an african or european swallow or something like that.

[Dhsu]

Well, he was talking about the work it takes to post remixes, but then you went off on a tangent on the site standards...those two aren't really related, I don't think.

[Pongball]

It's a good question. No one's yet objected to this specific point yet, but it's new as of this policy and wasn't around in any form previously.

It's less likely that the game composer owns the copyright to the game music in question (Yuzo Koshiro being one exception) and more likely that the publisher, e.g. Capcom, Nintendo, etc. owns it, but either way, we're saying that those individuals - and only those individuals - can use OverClocked ReMixes that arrange their copyrighted material in a for-profit context, if they so choose. In this instance, we're not ceding ownership of your work, but rather attempting to acknowledge that said work didn't involve any sort of permission from the original copyright owner. Given that these copyright owners could at any time send us a pretty solid cease & desist, the objection of which would require very subjective interpretation of fair use, this is sort of a nod to the game companies that if they wanted to use an OC ReMix in one of their games, on an album, etc., they could do so.

I could go either way on this one... my intention was to prevent cease & desists or any sort of potential legal issues by "throwing the copyright owners a bone" so to speak; a bone which would also, incidentally, mean a good deal of free publicity for the site and the ReMixer involved. However, it *is* granting license for these entities to use your music - including the original parts they had nothing to do with - for profit, none of which would be passed back to you.

So, there's pros and cons. Hopefully that answers part of your question.

As for your owning those parts of the mix that are originally yours, yes, that's correct. This policy, however, would involve your granting license to OCR, and through this policy to the original copyright owners, to use your mix specifically as the policy describes. Including the original bits.

I honestly feel that it would be better to just leave that part of the policy out entirely. I can see where you're coming from in terms of trying to offer the copyright holders something in return for not sending out cease & desists, but at the same time, the remixers themselves are getting a pretty bad deal out of it.

From what I understand about copyrights, there are three different types that apply to music: there's separate copyrights over melodies, the recording itself, and any lyrical content. In the case of most remixes, the remixer actually holds more copyrights over their remix than the copyright holder of the source music. In most cases, the remixer owns the copyright for the recording itself, and also for any original material within the remix. The only copyright they're infringing on, obviously, is the notes of the melody that were taken from the source music.

In the case of a remix with original lyrics, the remixer actually holds three copyrights over their mix, while the copyright holder of the source music holds only one.

I personally agree that the exposure of having their music played in a commercial work would be great for most remixers -- but it should still be up to them to negotiate how it's handled. Having the site give the copyright holders of the source music permission to use a remixer's recording, original melodies, and possible original lyrics however they please just seems really wrong to me.

Assuming that this contract is retroactive, this seems really, really wrong to me. None of the remixers submitting music up until now have agreed to license their music for use in commercial material. This would basically be saying to anyone who opposes this part of the policy but has already submitted their music here, "Sorry, you're screwed, we changed the contract."

I wish I had a better answer for how to please the source copyright owners, but I still feel that this is not the way to go about it.

[Liontamer]

I honestly feel that it would be better to just leave that part of the policy out entirely. I can see where you're coming from in terms of trying to offer the copyright holders something in return for not sending out cease & desists, but at the same time, the remixers themselves are getting a pretty bad deal out of it.

From what I understand about copyrights, there are three different types that apply to music: there's separate copyrights over melodies, the recording itself, and any lyrical content. In the case of most remixes, the remixer actually holds more copyrights over their remix than the copyright holder of the source music. In most cases, the remixer owns the copyright for the recording itself, and also for any original material within the remix. The only copyright they're infringing on, obviously, is the notes of the melody that were taken from the source music.

In the case of a remix with original lyrics, the remixer actually holds three copyrights over their mix, while the copyright holder of the source music holds only one.

I personally agree that the exposure of having their music played in a commercial work would be great for most remixers -- but it should still be up to them to negotiate how it's handled. Having the site give the copyright holders of the source music permission to use a remixer's recording, original melodies, and possible original lyrics however they please just seems really wrong to me.

Assuming that this contract is retroactive, this seems really, really wrong to me. None of the remixers submitting music up until now have agreed to license their music for use in commercial material. This would basically be saying to anyone who opposes this part of the policy but has already submitted their music here, "Sorry, you're screwed, we changed the contract."

I wish I had a better answer for how to please the source copyright owners, but I still feel that this is not the way to go about it.

I'll agree with that. Not simply on an "it sounds good basis", but I believe you're right that there may be enough ambiguity in the picture that we may need to rethink that policy.

We may have to state that copyright holders of the original material need to contact the ReMixers in cases where they would like to commercially use the arrangements. AFAIK, it's what Tommy Tallarico did with the ReMixers whose tracks are on the Earthworm Jim Anthology album. Going that route would be, in effect, washing our hands of that whole process since we don't own the ReMixes anyway. I'm interested in other POVs.

[Bahamut]

I agree with Pongball & Larry on the part that should probably be taken out - the ReMixers did make the arrangement, and so they should be compensated somehow if it's used commercially. It gives less incentive for rearrangers out there to submit to OCR since a company may be able to hijack the track without giving proper credit to them.

[Geoffrey Taucer]

It's a good question. No one's yet objected to this specific point yet, but it's new as of this policy and wasn't around in any form previously.

It's less likely that the game composer owns the copyright to the game music in question (Yuzo Koshiro being one exception) and more likely that the publisher, e.g. Capcom, Nintendo, etc. owns it, but either way, we're saying that those individuals - and only those individuals - can use OverClocked ReMixes that arrange their copyrighted material in a for-profit context, if they so choose. In this instance, we're not ceding ownership of your work, but rather attempting to acknowledge that said work didn't involve any sort of permission from the original copyright owner. Given that these copyright owners could at any time send us a pretty solid cease & desist, the objection of which would require very subjective interpretation of fair use, this is sort of a nod to the game companies that if they wanted to use an OC ReMix in one of their games, on an album, etc., they could do so.

I could go either way on this one... my intention was to prevent cease & desists or any sort of potential legal issues by "throwing the copyright owners a bone" so to speak; a bone which would also, incidentally, mean a good deal of free publicity for the site and the ReMixer involved. However, it *is* granting license for these entities to use your music - including the original parts they had nothing to do with - for profit, none of which would be passed back to you.

So, there's pros and cons. Hopefully that answers part of your question.

As for your owning those parts of the mix that are originally yours, yes, that's correct. This policy, however, would involve your granting license to OCR, and through this policy to the original copyright owners, to use your mix specifically as the policy describes. Including the original bits.

I would have far less objection to this if the policy more explicitly required those copyright holders to inform the remixer, and to credit the mixer and the site. If there is original material in the mix, I should have a say in whether or not it can be used commercially, because those parts genuinly are MY intellectual property.

[Pongball]

I agree with Pongball & Larry on the part that should probably be taken out - the ReMixers did make the arrangement, and so they should be compensated somehow if it's used commercially. It gives less incentive for rearrangers out there to submit to OCR since a company may be able to hijack the track without giving proper credit to them.

Well, it's more that I think the remixers should have a bit more control over that situation should it come up. Many remixers would probably be fine with letting the company use their remix for no compensation. Others might find that unfair, and prefer to arrange a deal with the company themselves. I'm sure most would prefer to at least be contacted first.

It's a pretty sticky situation no matter how you look at it, since the remixer is infringing their copyright to begin with, but I think many copyright holders (such as the example that Liontamer gave just now) would still be rather sympathetic.

Anyway, like I said before, I can totally understand that djpretzel is just trying to protect the site by offering copyright holders a benefit too, but when you think about it, it's pretty doubtful that a company that has a problem with the site would suddenly be like "Oh wait, this changes everything!"

[GODJonez]

This new draft seems to cover the parts missing in the current policy nicely, especially the content that I was wondering about.

Keep up the good work. Everyone.

[zircon]

I want to bring up a couple things regarding intellectual property, as this is an area of law that I am studying.

With regards to the license issue, AD is partially correct. When you license something you are not giving ownership. Copyrights can be split and shared among any number of people. Additionally, specific rights can be shared and not others. Take my song "Throwdown". I can retain full control over the right to mechanically reproduce & distribute the song, and also the right the synchronize it with a visual. To date I have licensed the song to several people, giving them the limited right to synchronize the song with their video. They have no ownership. They cannot use the song for anything else than what I allowed them to use it for.

But there's another side of the story here. Just because you own a copyright doesn't mean you transcend contract law. Let's say I sign a contract saying, "I hereby grant Person B the non-exclusive right to synchronize my song 'Throwdown' in 'Crappy Student Film III' and edit it as necessary." Then, I decide I don't want Person B to use my song. I can't simply say "You don't have the right to use my song anymore. I own the copyright, and you don't, so what I say goes." I signed a contract that was legally binding, and if I bar them from using it they can sue me for breach of contract.

I'm speaking from experience here, BTW - besides my school studies in areas like copyright, business law, contract law, and publishing, I also actually deal with licensing music and copyright manipulation all the time because I license my own music (and license things from other people) and have to read/write contracts for it.

[djpretzel]

Alright, there's no one STRONGLY in favor of granting copyright owners the ability to use mixes in for-profit contexts, and some who have expressed concern, so that part of the policy is going to be removed. I'll edit it and remove it now.

[BrainCells]

Well, I agree a policy is needed and honestly the terms here are not as hard as we're used to see around. I agree with most of it and I even understand your points about removal requests, how much work is involved and all that.

However, after reading most of this thread, it sounds to me like "we're not taking your songs out no matter the reason" and it's not ok for me, since it's obvious that IF I someday have a reason to ask my songs to be removed, it will not be taken in consideration.

My questions are: Will this policy work for previously released material? If I don't agree with the new policy, would this be the right time for me to ask my songs to be removed?

Edit: I'm not saying I'm gonna do that...

[big giant circles]

Well, I agree a policy is needed and honestly the terms here are not as hard as we're used to see around. I agree with most of it and I even understand your points about removal requests, how much work is involved and all that.

However, after reading most of this thread, it sounds to me like "we're not taking your songs out no matter the reason" and it's not ok for me, since it's obvious that IF I someday have a reason to ask my songs to be removed, it will not be taken in consideration.

In the six plus years of running the site, we've had removal requests that more or less fall into the following categories:

1. I don't like OverClocked ReMix anymore. Please remove my mixes.
   
2. djpretzel, someone on the forums, or a member of the site staff has offended me. Remove all my mixes.
   
3. I've found Jesus or had some other type of epiphany/revelation in my life, and no longer wish to make my music available online in any form, anywhere. Remove my mixes.
   
4. I don't like one or more of my mixes any more, and believe it represents either my own abilities or OverClocked ReMix itself in a negative fashion. Remove my mix(es).

... and that's it. And, since some of us have decided to be more frank/hostile than others, I'd just like to say that I don't personally respect any of these motivations very much.

The first is petty; usually someone doesn't like something we said or did and thinks they can punish us by removing their material, or make some sort of grand political statement. The actuality is that we don't make any profit and do this for fun, so "hurting" us per se won't work, and the end result is that fewer people will be exposed to your music. Music that you supposedly made with the site's mission statement in mind: to honor game music and game composers. Removing your mix because of personal motivations is just that - personal. To me, it represents selfishness. This was somebody's ELSE's music that you've arranged and made available for free, and suddenly you have the nerve to use it as a bartering mechanism, or to make some sort of statement? Reserve that type of action for your own music, that's 100% yours, 100% original.

The second is worse than the first, as instead of any sort of ideological or procedural objection that could at least be seen as an issue of principle, we're instead talking about personal insults. Let me explain something: the tens of thousands of people that listen to and enjoy this music don't have any idea of the dramarama and politics that sometimes occur here, and don't want to. And they're the ones most directly affected by mix removal. And, again, if you wanna rebel against something... do it with original works. While I'm the first to acknowledge and appreciate that ReMixes involve a great deal of original material - we emphasize this all the time, in fact - they still represent arrangements of someone else's music. To try to "punish" OCR via mix removal is misguided in the first place; to do so with emo motivations doubly so.

The third is interesting. I might tend to have the most sympathy with this sort of explanation. However, along with the first two motivations, it too is selfish: I personally dedicate a good deal of my time to preparing and posting each mix, as does the site staff in judging them and moderating review discussion, and listeners in reviewing them. There's numerous people who've invested time and effort to every single mix on the site, not just the submitting artist. Luiza has emphasized, among other things, that she does this for "fun". That's fine - so do we - but for the fun that each submitting mixer has in making the mix, there's still a lot of work involved, and this holds true on our end as well. We're all about the fun, but OCR chews up a lot of our time as well. If as an artist you don't give a shit about that and could care less about the site staff's time and the opinions of those who have reviewed your pieces to date... don't submit in the first place.

The fourth I'm very sympathetic to because, quite honestly, I've got some pretty seriously shitty mixes on this site. Not god-awful, and (unfortunately) not in violation of standards to the extent that they could be removed on those grounds, but still... pretty bad. And yet I've still received compliments on some of them, even recently. Which is testament to the extreme subjectivity of opinion when it comes to music. With OCR, we are trying to build a representative collection of works - a canon, if you will - that best exemplifies what we've set down in our mission statement and submission standards. We can't do that if mixers are removing pieces because they simply don't like them anymore. Again, as with the third motivation, the mixer's wishes have to be weighed against the amount of work that went into judges evaluating the mix, my posting it, listeners taking the time to review it, and the entire staff's effort to promote it via torrent distribution and other channels. This is ultimately too subjective a motivation to entertain.

That's it.

There may be other motivations, but to date we haven't seen them. And since I don't particularly think of any of them represent the type of attitude or motivation I believe those submitting free arrangements of other people's music should have, I'm not compelled.

We want to have fun, but this fun represents a lot of work. We tirelessly look for ways to improve the site and for new methods of distribution so that more and more people can listen to this great music. I vastly prefer to spend these huge chunks of my life working on something without a gun to my head, especially when that gun is being held by the mixers I'm trying to get more exposure for, and particularly when that gun is motivated by these four criteria, none of which I hold legitimate.

Well, other than wanting to take a song that's been posted for free distribution, and then wanting to revoke it so it can be sold for profit, is there any other reason Dave hasn't covered that would truly justify wanting to take down a mix? Not to sound like a kiss-ass, I think Dave pretty well covered his reasons for not counting those as valid reasons, and he explained his reasoning really well.

My questions are: Will this policy work for previously released material? If I don't agree with the new policy, would this be the right time for me to ask my songs to be removed?

that part, i can't really answer for you, but i will say i hope not.

[djpretzel]

However, after reading most of this thread, it sounds to me like "we're not taking your songs out no matter the reason" and it's not ok for me, since it's obvious that IF I someday have a reason to ask my songs to be removed, it will not be taken in consideration.

My questions are: Will this policy work for previously released material? If I don't agree with the new policy, would this be the right time for me to ask my songs to be removed?

Edit: I'm not saying I'm gonna do that...

Well, if there were truly no way we'd remove your mixes at all, we would just say "OverClocked ReMix will refuse all removal requests" instead of "reserves the right to", but as I've stated, I can't think of any good reasons. Compy's issue about commercial licensing is probably the best reason thus discussed, and even then it would depend on the circumstances, but not barring that sort of situation... I suppose, hypothetically, if I started putting swastikas everywhere on the site and donating all ad revenue to white supremacist groups, as a ReMixer I'd want my tracks removed as well. Hopefully there's a good bit of trust that that won't happen...

This policy will not automatically be applied to previous mixes without the artists' consent. I intend to ask all mixers to grant such consent, but if they choose not to, their pieces will not be removed unless they so desire. Submission of any future material, however, would involve the policy not only being applied to that individual submission, but prior submissions as well. We'll keep track of who has or hasn't accepted the policy, our of necessity. I'd like to think that there's trust going both ways here that, after six years of hosting mixes for $0.00, spending hours upon hours working on the site, etc., that we're not actively out to screw anyone, much less the group of artists responsible for getting us where we are.

[Pongball]

Alright, there's no one STRONGLY in favor of granting copyright owners the ability to use mixes in for-profit contexts, and some who have expressed concern, so that part of the policy is going to be removed. I'll edit it and remove it now.

Awesome. Thank you.