Spoiler:
Whether or not you're infringing on copyright doesn't at all depend on whether you get money for it (although you can be hit harder if you make a certain amount of money off of the infringement, but it's still infringement even if you make no money off of it). Covers are generally close enough to the original to be considered derivative works, thus need permission from the copyright holder. I don't know the legal status of remixes, but I'd imagine it depends on how different it is from the original as to whether it's considered transformative (transforming the original into a new separate thing) or derivative (an alternate version derived from the original), with the former being in the clear and the latter covered by the original's copyright.Reactor wrote:Fan-made remixes, reduxes, covers etc. are fine, unless of course, the creator sells it for cash.
But you're generating traffic (and occasionally money, via ad support or Patreon) with someone else's creation (in this case, the written music and lyrics, not the recording).Reactor wrote:I don't get it...aren't companies after piracy and plagiarism? A remix or cover is neither...
Cost vs savings. If it would cost them more to go after someone than they'd save or get back by the reduction in piracy, there's less incentive for them to do it. If it would cost them a couple thousand to sue you, but they'd only get back a couple hundred for their effort for example, what's the point? They'd have more money by not doing anything. They may do it anyway as a deterrent (to "send a message" that any random person could be next), or they may not consider a specific instance worth the cost. Again, whether they do or not doesn't speak to the legality of what you're doing.Reactor wrote:I don't get it...aren't companies after piracy and plagiarism?
Correct. But you are missing something important here:Reactor wrote:I don't get it...aren't companies after piracy and plagiarism? A remix or cover is neither...
