My friend is doing the music for my current game, and one of the tracks is something he ripped off Mario Kart Super Circuit. He has modified it with filters or something.
I was wondering if it is legal (I'm in England) for me to distribute this music with my game. Anyone know?
I don't know much about music laws, especially in England, but this is at the very least a gray area. Composing your own music would be less problematic.
OK, thanks for your help.
That was the impression I got from reading Google but it's good to hear someone else agree.
It's likely illegal, as it is a derived work, and it is derived from something you don't have appropriate licensing on.
Unless its parody. 
[url http://www.allegro.cc/files/attachment/596358
rip_off.MID]Five minutes of intensive, rude hacking.[/url] The melody is not the same anymore, so is this legal?
It's modded enough for the most part of the song, but not for the beginning. Anyone can heard it's Mario's song.
This really is interesting. Sure, its similar to the Mario theme, but its not THE Mario song.
If this is illegal, is it also illegal naming you game Half-Dead 2?
This is akin to taking Half Life 2, tweaking all the maps, naming it Half-Dead 2, and selling it.
If you're selling the game (and the music is a recognizable derivative work), then no, it probably isn't. If the music was made by you with imitating the Mario theme in mind, I don't know about in Britain, but in US some pain-in-the-rear IP company would probably get you for it. If the music originated with the actual music file, but is no longer a recognizable derivative work, I don't know. In all cases, if the game is not being sold it makes it more likely to be legal.
In all cases, if the game is not being sold it makes it more likely to be legal.
I shall be giving all aspects of the game away as public domain. My problem is that I don't know what Nintendo would think (if they found out) of a derivative of their copyrighted stuff being placed in the public domain by somebody who had no right to do so.
My advice would be to listen to the originated-with-Mario music that you have and use that as the base for some other music. That wouldn't be too hard (I don't think) and you could make a plausible argument that it isn't a direct derivative work of the Nintendo music.
The melody is not the same anymore, so is this legal?
No, it's quite clearly derived from Super Mario. But you may argue that it's not. Then you can take that argument to court. That's how it works.
Then you may declare personal bankruptcy because of attorney's fees. 
The court system doesn't work when you're going against a major company/group of companies, because they have enough resources to keep the fight going until you are bankrupt. (Unless you are Warren Buffet.) That's the tactic the RIAA is using against anyone who blinks at it.
Then a person in that situation should create his or her own music.
For use in a game, sure.
If you're worried about it, contact Nintendo. Worse case scenario they say you can't use it and you go from there (either argue with them or drop it). Best case they give you written permission and you don't have to worry. It sounds like it's an obvious derivative work, which without permission sounds like obvious infringement.
You cannot use music unless they license it to you.
Someone has defined the theft of music in seconds or beats. But I guess that was before midi. What I did there with the Mario tune was simple dragging of the notes in a midi editor, making the melody and harmony change. But all notes were on their original time. And the drum track was untouched. So listening to the music, one can recognise that the ideas are from Mario, but looking at the midi data probably reveals for anyone that an actual midi file with the original Mario tune was used and modified. So whoever did the midi file might sue me, more likely than the composer of the Mario tune would.
Well copy-right is the right that they have over it being copied or not.
If you didn't copy it, then it's fair game.
If you did copy it, and they didn't say you could redistribute it, then you can't. It's as simple as that.
If it is a derivative work (ie, some of it is copied, some of it isn't), then the parts that are copied cannot be redistributed, only all of the separate parts isolated from the stuff that was copied can be redistributed.
Now if nothing in the final is a direct copy from the original, then you may still be in trouble if in a court of law they could successfully argue that some of it is still a copy of a non-trivial portion of their work. Obviously trivial parts, like the note C or something, can't be copyrighted.
So it boils down to if you could honestly sincerely say to a judge "no this does not contain copied work." If you can say that then go ahead, there is no problems, if you are ever called up on it then who cares, you have already admited that you are confident about it so there's no hesitation.
And if you can't then you shouldn't.
If you weren't asking about whether or not it is right, but whether or not you could practically get away with it, then yes if you're not making any money from it, and not costing them any money, then unless they have a personal reason to use the law as a weapon against you, you won't have any trouble.
You got the right of using small portions of text, audio and image files under fair use. But ripping and using copyrighted music for your own game does not qualify as it (where you would need critical commentary of the piece).
In the UK, the fair-use exemptions aren't as liberal as in the US & other places, and this wouldn't qualify under either jurisdiction.
When your friend copied the game to begin ripping the tune, he had already commited a criminal offence which could get him 2 years in clinky. Nobody has ever been sentenced to anything like this (this law was panic-enacted in the 1980s to prevent people copying VHS tapes) but it's there as a stick for the police to beat you with.
Oh yeah, it's 2 years PER OFFENCE. Anyone with 50 pirate CDs is liable for 100 years hard porridge. It's a good job we've got the ECHR to appeal to now
As an example of what really happens, consider The Verve's number 1 hit Bittersweet Symphony. They sampled a Rolling Stones tune and had that as a loop through the song. They did this without seeking permisssion first, and as a consequence the court awarded 100% of the songwriting and performance royalties to the Rolling Stones. This left The Verve broke and the band split up shortly after. The moral is, don't take from a company bigger and badder than you, and if you do, make sure you don't make a number 1 hit out of it.
Johan's modification of the Mario theme is a legal alteration, pending that he did not 'copy' any of the Mario theme in the process. 
If he had used the original melody he'd be in trouble.
Yeah, but there's also the example of George Harrison's "My sweet lord" which was deemed by the judge on the day to be a cover of "She's so fine" (both use a similar 3 note riff in the chorus) and that cost GH £75,000 (which was a lot of money in 1973).
Do you really want to burden your original work with the thought that "I really hope this doesn't get to number 1"? As someone who has had a couple of hits, I have to say you've got everybody chiselling your ankles anyway, so you have to cover your backside in every dept.
Our current world of music is too small (as infinite as it may seem) to truly set two similar melodies apart. What it all really, really boils down to is who has more money and better lawyers. Political factors come into play as well.
I took a class on this about two years ago and we studied several cases. The whole structure of 'original music', 'appropriated music', 'stolen music', etc is completely absurd.
In all my infinite musical wisdom, I believe the most practical argument you can make is that music begets other music. The more popular a song is, the more likely it will seep it's way into a songwriter's mind, thus to be regurgitated in their own 'original' way. Musical trends are more dominant than you can possibly imagine; it's why oldies music all sounds the same to us now.
So, basically, copyright law in this domain is a heavy object for the record companies to prevent competition. My views on IP law are well known.
Bach sounds like Beethoven? yeah...a bit
If you follow trends you are, almost by definition, unoriginal.
The best pop acts shamelessly rework classical tunes, because they are out-of-copyright. It's a good defence when sued to say "No it isn't your tune, I stole it from Mozart" and that's similar to Prior Art in patent cases.
My views on IP law are well known.
You views would change quickly enough if you were feeding your family with your royalties.
</quote>
They did this without seeking permisssion first, and as a consequence the court awarded 100% of the songwriting and performance royalties to the Rolling Stones.
Actually, they did seek, and were given, permission:
The band had obtained composition rights to the sample from ABKCO Records owner Allen Klein, which controls the Rolling Stones' back catalogue and permission to use the recording of the sample from Decca, the publisher of the original album. Just before the CD Urban Hymns came out, Klein obtained a copy of the song and decided that the band had used "too much" of the sample and threatened a lawsuit. At that late time there was no way the sample could be removed, so the band and Klein came to a verbal agreement. “We were told it was going to be a 50/50 split," said band member Simon Jones. Later, when it was apparent that the song was a worldwide hit Klein demanded 100 per cent of the royalties or they would be forced to removed the CD from the record shops. The band settled out of court, agreeing to give ABKCO Records 100 per cent of the songwriting royalties.
Your views would change quickly enough if you were feeding your family with your royalties.
No doubt. However, that argument is a red herring, because the people who ostensibly would be feeding their families with royalties are the artists, and they get very few of the royalties anyway. The main beneficiaries of the current copyright scheme are the record and movie companies, and they add no value to the system--they are just parasites that have made themselves monopolies. The CEO of some record company is not what most people think of when they think of someone feeding their families with their royalties.
If you follow trends you are, almost by definition, unoriginal.
I'm saying that trends are unavoidable. Especially in this arena where money is concerned. Original music in the main-stream, money-driven world is ironically designed to be familiar so that it will sell. Music is attached to familiar artists, familiar products, familiar harmonic progressions, etc so it will communicate clearly. Its a double-edged sword.
"No it isn't your tune, I stole it from Mozart"
but what's being stolen? the melody? How many other countless components to music are original? Is the melody the only part of a tune that constitutes originality?
Absolutely not, but it's the part that people recognize and attack. What about Michael Jackson's "oow!", echoed by countless artists at that time? Trend of the time.
A three not melodic cell that finds itself time and time again in teen pop music? Trend of the time. A characteristic of the style. A device used by the artist to establish a particular niche.
The "amen break"? Theft. Plain and simple. But The Winston's never took it to court and now it's part of a whole musical style.
Wikipedia said:
Ah, if wikipedia is accurate, this Klein is a toerag of the first order.
because the people who ostensibly would be feeding their families with royalties are the artists, and they get very few of the royalties anyway.
And yet there are professional artists who do make a living, in spite of the greed of their publishers.
And yet there are professional artists who do make a living, in spite of the greed of their publishers.
Yes, but they could do that without the publishers. There was a band that made quite a bit of money by posting their album free for download on their own Web site and soliciting voluntary donations. Also, we already had this discussion.
If an artist chooses to let a Publisher do the publishing, it is their right.
I'm not questioning the artist's right to publish through a publisher; I'm questioning the publishers' practices. If you want examples, check out the older thread I linked to.
There was a band that made quite a bit of money by posting their album free for download
Yeah, any band can do that. 
Publishers are a good thing. If an artist is good enough to get a real publisher he will make more money. Bottom line.
Yeah, I wonder why said band isn't sticking to that model if it worked so well...
If you can afford to do your own publicity, then you get much better value from self-publishing, if you choose to spend your time (or money emplying people) that way.
It's the unestablished people who really need a publisher at first, because the publishers have the resources and experience already in place.