Frage von popaj:
Hi,
are actually synonymous with background tunes you sound programs
created synonymous GEMA charge? eg if you want to sell short films.
Thank you.
Antwort von Kevinovicz:
As long as you like the music itself, "create", no melodies stealing ", no" unauthorized "Samples used"
and not the Gema are in - why should it be Gema-charge?
Antwort von Hans-Joachim:
Since you have to study the Lizenbedingungen the Manufacturer. For example, Magix is part of it, that "non-commercial" use is free of charge. The wording is not always consistent, so please read carefully.
This has nothing to do but with the Gema, but is only an agreement between you and the Manufacturer.
Antwort von Steelfox:
Hi,
if you do everything as described above, then no problem.
But remember:
If you like the movies then verhökerst, GEMA would nevertheless
be informed. They finally a legal right to it.
The decision then that is paid nothing.
How we do it all here, right?
;-)
Greetings
Antwort von popaj:
Ah ok, I see. Thank you.
What is it if I have a small tape for me
playing in the background?
Do I have to give notice to GEMA synonymous?
Why must this be done at all, what kind of
a club?
Antwort von Steelfox:
Who or what is in the background for the music playing in charge,
synonymous for "this association" does not matter. For most of us is the application, a necessary evil. Even if no material is GEMA.
Basically, each disc to the GEMA repertoire test are reported. They want to know just exactly what you do.
Registration costs nothing, the test is not synonymous - it's just a little annoying.
I am referring only to the sale of media. If you sell the film online as a file, the conditions are somewhat different. Here it may be that the Interested, anyone.
Everything is a bit complicated, a million forms can be for any application. Read up on those times through.
Antwort von MarcBallhaus:
What is it if I have a small tape for me
playing in the background?
Do I have to give notice to GEMA synonymous?
When you compose, what should play the tape, and not even a member of GEMA are, then do not. Since you can not, however, you will probably ne cover of have to play someone who has it better than you on it And so the question is clearly answered: OF COURSE! Because you do service its intellectual property!
Why must this be done at all, what kind of
a club? For the same reason you do not want that to your images without permission and copied without permission in their own film and thus boasts.
Musicians have copyrights, imagine, and they are represented by GEMA super, a privilege that we visually working artist - do not enjoy - unfortunately.
MB
Antwort von Kevinovicz:
But remember:
If you like the movies then verhökerst, GEMA would nevertheless
be informed. They finally a legal right to ...
Greetings Is that really so?
I can not imagine that, if I am the music for my film composing himself and no member of Gema, Gema anything it is concerned, I s.wen my film for how many million ¬ sell.
That's the misconception that the sit here a lot - but I will like to disabuse them synonymous, when in fact it should be otherwise.
Antwort von DWUA:
my film for how many million selling ¬ ... Self-composed and played:
Only interested in the tax office.
;))
Antwort von Kevinovicz:
my film for how many million selling ¬ ...
Self-composed and played:
Only interested in the tax office.
;)) och nööö - crap! ;-)
Antwort von Steelfox:
Is that really so?
Yes
Sorry.
And Music in play - no preference where - have a right to know
who is musical, as long represented on it.
In the case of music artists are members of the GEMA synonymous is justified.
Why, however, must be reported if synonymous royalty-free music is used, is beyond my knowledge.
Here, however, takes up the of the GEMA, launched the "GEMA presumption".
(A topic that was discussed here and elsewhere synonymous already hot)
The fact is (as it is synonymous in the guidelines of the GEMA) there must always
then something will be reported if you use music.
This has nothing to do synonymous with whether you or the person who makes the music there is a member.
Antwort von Kevinovicz:
Is that really so?
Yes
Sorry.
And Music in play - no preference where - have a right to know
who is musical, as long represented on it.
In the case of music artists are members of the GEMA synonymous is justified.
Why, however, must be reported if synonymous royalty-free music is used, is beyond my knowledge.
Here, however, takes up the of the GEMA, launched the "GEMA presumption".
(A topic that was discussed here and elsewhere synonymous already hot)
The fact is (as it is synonymous in the guidelines of the GEMA) there must always
then something will be reported if you use music.
This has nothing to do synonymous with whether you or the person who makes the music there is a member. "GEMA presumption" (?) - Something else learned.
One more reason to act against this monopoly and a collecting society to push for CC ...
Can I set up a club synonymous times, which is preparing to defend the rights of filmmakers set up, a "Kevinovicz conjecture" and let me first present each film to see that as synonymous yes no (copy) rights of third parties are violated? Would be even a business model.
There's stuff ...
Antwort von Steelfox:
Can I set up a club synonymous times, which is preparing to defend the rights of filmmakers set up, a "Kevinovicz conjecture" and let me first present each film to see that as synonymous yes no (copy) rights of third parties are violated? Would be even a business model.
There's stuff ... Eh, I can go along synonymous?
:-))
Would like to sit there on the board!
Well, if that were so simple.
Monopoly position, you may, I do not talk. It is synonymous other collecting societies. At least in other countries.
But as MB said already, would suit the visual guild but something synonymous.
Antwort von DWUA:
Is that really so?
Yes
Sorry.
And Music in play - no preference where - have a right to know
who musically, as long represented on it ... Unn when the geese in Buxtehude
then only with the A. .. toot hole!
;))
Antwort von Kevinovicz:
Monopoly position, you may, I do not talk. It is synonymous other collecting societies. At least in other countries.
Sure, with the monopoly was directed only to Germany.
I have the Gema always considered a weird club, because the billing systems are very strange and hard to see through one side. There are not synonymous in vain from time to time, a petition, it will hopefully create even synonymous to the Bundestag.
But that once the presumption must be said, that
anyone who bit Music zusammenfriemelt synonymous member of Gema is some beats, I suppose the bottom of the barrel. German Bürokratiekram high ten!
If it's not even against international and German law violates
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unschuldsvermutunghttp://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beweislast , but I am not a lawyer ;-)
PS Search for more members Steelfox 'and my club
DWUA? MB?
Antwort von Steelfox:
Let's hope at this, the TS, even with all the bureaucracy s.Filme the pleasure has lost, and his problem has been resolved.
i.Ü. is there somewhere on the net, a statement of a chairman of the above association, which says, in substance, that just has this presumption of innocence according to German law they do not Bewandnis.
...
Antwort von Kevinovicz:
Amen.
Over and out!
Antwort von DWUA:
GEMA once went so far that, when "our" composers,
which is of course always been and ever entered there,
4 counts of attempted due to "Music Quote" (of 1000) indicates,
to make "E" Music "U" Music.
Trouble without end. After many phone calls you have to agree
can.
(U / E = different assessment, since different royalties.
Something that always gets on the radio, "U" music playing less fair to
as an "E-Opus," which is often not sent to do.)
Copyright Infringement?
As would the "Civil Code" but begin to glow ...
;))
