I don't get how copyright laws apply to some music, when said artist has been dead for some odd years. I would like to use some copyright music for a vlogging from a artist that's been dead for a long time now. Shouldn't that music be fair use if that artist is no longer here?
>>128230299nope because the copyrights owned by the publisher make a legally distinct version by playing all the wrong notes
>>128230500you don't have to "play all the wrong notes", why do people make up weird shit when it comes to copyright
>>128230500Won't that still get copyright strike?
>The Copyright Act of 1907 was the first revision of US copyright law to include the recently invented medium of sound recording, but it left them to the states. Consequently copyrights on sound recordings were widely variable with some states having extremely long copyright terms. This situation held until 1971 when Congress nationalized them and established a single standardized length in sync with other copyright law.[9]
>>128230299Ask Chat GPT or Grok they usually research in depth if the copyright has been renovated or not. And its now public domain.
This won't apply for decades. Stuff exiting next year will be from 1930 before life-of-the-author plus copyright.The real scandal is that copyright ever got this long in the first place. Life-of-author-plus law is just an extension of that.
>>128233726
