Per wrote:
Rman - why are you linking to a page that explains copyright law for musical educators? There are exceptions (for example parody), but unless you know what you are doing, you may get angry lawyers coming after you. Artists are often touchy about derivative works. I would not recommend it.
* 'Cause this is all about
learning (aka education, which can be formalized as part of basic mission statement & non-profit formal standing) & of course, having fun in the process. Heck, there is no good reason ALL learning, instituitional & otherwise, should be anything but fun.... just the retention factor alone is persuasive.
* In other words, not only can the letter of the law support such an effort or approach (if the effort is framed accordingly) but just as important, all the case law (ajudicated decisions) will dissuade any attorney in their right mind... & if not, the judge will dismiss in the first premotion and that insane attorney will not only lose their rep but will also be exposed to liability themselves !!!
* The "angry lawyers" come after you when there is "lost revenue" issues.... & those are non-existent in this case.
* In the case of "parody".... your not entirely safe from 'actionable libel' suits.
* As far as artists being 'touchy' about derivatives.... they are if no proper acknowledgment is given the original work.... or, once again, if the derivative work negatively impacts their 'cash-flow'. Baring those 2 consequences, artists are tickled-pink with derivatives - 'cause it brings renewed attention to the originals and even new revenue as a direct result of that attention given the originals - plus its flattering to boot.
* Even with all that said, I'll concede your points are still valid, Per.
Cheerio, rv
.
Impact = C x (R + E + A + T + E)
Contrast
Reach
Exposure
Articulation
Trust
Echo
.
