Can I play the famous song &quot;The Stars and Stripes Forever&quot; in my mobile phone commercial game ? Is there any copyright issue? The song " The Stars and Stripes Forever " is a very famous song in the US. The song was composed by John Philip Sousa in 1896. By a 1987 act of the U.S. Congress, it is the official National March of the United States of America. Here is the link to Wikipedia about this song: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Stars_and_Stripes_Forever Here is the YouTube link so that you can listen to the song: https://youtu.be/a-7XWhyvIpE?t=59 My questions are: (1) If I hire some musicians to play this song so that I can record the song, and then play it on a commercial mobile phone app that I develop for sale. Is there a copyright violation in this case ? For example, I want to develop a commercial mobile phone app that displays fireworks and plays this song for the Independence Day (July 4th). (2) Who owns the copyright of this song ? Is it true that no one owns the copyright because the song was created a long time ago (or more than 75 years ago ? So, does this mean the song is in the public domain now, and anyone can use it in any commercial application ? (3) Generally speaking, are there any other sensitive issues such as cultural or political issues if software company plays this song in a commercial app for sale (in a respectful and appropriate manner) ? Thanks.
It depends on the terms of your contract with the musicians. Copyright in the performance belongs to the performer so you need to ensure the copyright is transferred or appropriately licensed to you. It is public domain. Copyright for US works published before 1978 is a maximum of 95 years from date of publication. Although written on Christmas Day 1896 it wasn't published until 1897. Copyright, therefore, could have lasted until 31 December 1991 at most. No.
Copyright Your code, and the display it produces, is automatically protected by copyright the moment it is &quot;fixed in a tangible form&quot;, which includes saving it in a computer file. In the US, a copyright notice has been optional since the effective date of the 1976 Copyright act, and in most other countries even longer. This is mandated by the Berne Copyright convention, and almost every country follows Berne, either directly or via the WTO's TRIPS Agreement. If an original work was posted to a web site, and then copied and re-posted without permission, the owner could send a takedown notice to the site where it is unlawfully posted, or that site's host. Or the author could sue for copyright infringement, and possibly collect money damages or get a court order forbidding further use of the content, or both. To sue in the US, the owner must first register the work with the copyright office, which requires payment of a fee. Trademark Unless you sell your program, or offer it for sale or rent, or sell or offer for sale something connected with it, such as a service, there will be no trademark. A trademark is a word, phrase, image, or design that identifies a particular product or service in the commercial marketplace. It serves to distinguish the trademarked product or service from other possibly similar things offered by other sellers. Product names, business names, slogans, logos, distinctive packaging, or design can all serve as trademarks. Once a person or business has acquired a valid trademark, others cannot, lawfully, use that mark or a closely similar one in ways that might confuse potential customers or members of the public about which goods come from which source, without permission. One also cannot lawfully use someone else's mark or a confusingly similar mark to suggest endorsement, approval, sponsorship or affiliation, unless one has permission from the trademark owner. To do either of these is to commit trademark infringement. If a trademark is infringed the owner may sue and possibly collect money damages, or get a court order against further infringement, or both. In some countries, only registered trademarks are protected against infringement. In others, such as the US, a degree of protection can be achieved just by using a mark &quot;in trade&quot;, that is, commercially. Valid copyrights are valid all over the world, automatically. Trademarks, however, must be protected country-by-country: what is protected in one country may well not be in another. Trademark registration is generally separate for each separate country where the trademark is used. Unlike copyrights or patents, trademarks do not automatically expire after a fixed period. But if an owner stops using a trademark &quot;in trade&quot; it may be canceled for lack of use in a relatively short period, as short as 5 years in some countries.
The opera may be in the public domain, but unless the performance is from several decades ago, which I assume is not the case, the performance is not in the public domain. The video therefore has copyright protection of its own. The use to which you want to put the video does not sound like fair use to me, although as the other answer notes that's impossible to determine without knowing more than you've told us, but the fact that the composition being performed is in the public domain is not a particularly important consideration in the analysis.
I don't believe you could do that without infringing copyright. The Star Wars theme is a copyrighted piece of music, and creating a transcription of it would be considered a derivative work. Only the copyright holder can authorize such derivative works. Cost doesn't factor into it at all. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work
No, it is not illegal to use the symbol of the federal government for your own personal use as it is a public domain symbol. However, the USMC will frown upon it. Marines have a sort of warrior culture ethos to them, when compared to the other branches of the U.S. military and a strong culture among those who served. Among Marine culture "there is no such thing as a former Marine"... that is, once you enter the service, you are a marine even if you retire (a former Marine is usually someone who was dishonorably discharged OR committed an action that would have gotten him/her discharged had they not retired). They do not take kindly to Stolen Valor (pretending or seeming to pretend you served when you did not). While this is legal to do per SCOTUS rule, it's not considered advisable. Most of the US military have dim views of Stolen Valor and will react very negatively. And seeing as how the Marines like to boast in song that they Guard Heaven for God upon Death, these are not enemies you would like to make. Tread extremely cautiously while doing this.
If you do, can you build/run it without being bound by said license? No, you cannot. Because there is no way to &quot;build/run&quot; it without making a copy. You copy the sourcecode, before you can run your compiler. That is the copy you are making, not copying the file that results from this process. A valid question might be, are you bound by the license? Well, that is up for lawyers and a court to decide, but in all countries I know, copyright is automatic for anything worth copying. And the copyright holder can grant licenses to people to allow things. So arguing you are not bound by a specific license would mean you would argue that you are bound by the legal default, which in most countries is &quot;You cannot copy that. At all. Unless you have explicit permission&quot;. That argument would sound like &quot;I stole all 10, because the offer of buy-one-get-one-free was not legally binding&quot;. Maybe it wasn't. But that doesn't mean you get to do something unrelated illegal instead. Now, there are many exceptions for &quot;personal use&quot;. You can sing any song in the shower. I would assume you can compile any program there, too. You just cannot use that program for anything worthwhile, the same way you cannot record your song in the shower and sell it.
See Golan v. Holder 565 U. S. ____ (2012). The question was whether Congress could pass a law that caused works in the public domain to regain copyright. The Supreme Court held that: The text of the Copyright Clause does not exclude application of copyright protection to works in the public domain. ... Historical practice corroborates the Court’s reading of the Copyright Clause to permit the protection of previously unprotected works. So, yes, works can come out of public domain and into Copyright protection. What about people who had been relying on the works not having copyright (i.e. people who had created derivative works, etc.)? That depends on how Congress intends the hypothetical law to apply to them. In the law in question in Golan v. Holder, Congress planned ahead for this, and included provisions for it in the law (quoting from Golan v. Holder): Reliance parties may continue to exploit a restored work until the owner of the restored copyright gives notice of intent to enforce—either by filing with the U. S. Copyright Office within two years of restoration, or by actually notifying the reliance party. After that, reliance parties may continue to exploit existing copies for a grace period of one year. Finally, anyone who, before the URAA’s enactment, created a “derivative work” based on a restored work may indefinitely exploit the derivation upon payment to the copyright holder of “reasonable compensation,” to be set by a district judge if the parties cannot agree. Last, could Congress extend copyright for 10,000 years? In principle, the Supreme Court has not said anything against this, but they have indicated that there is some line beyond which a copyright term would no longer be considered a &quot;limited time&quot; as required by the Constitution. In Golan v. Holder they mention in passing hypothetical successive re-applications of Copyright to a work after it expires, calling it &quot;legislative misbehavior&quot;: the hypothetical legislative misbehavior petitioners posit is far afield from the case before us. And in Eldred v. Ashcroft, they mention in passing hypothetical unlimited successive extensions of copyright, each of limited time, again calling that &quot;legislative misbehavior&quot;: Concerning petitioners' assertion that Congress could evade the limitation on its authority by stringing together an unlimited number of &quot;limited Times,&quot; the court stated that such legislative misbehavior clearly was not before it. I could imagine a court holding that the &quot;limited times&quot; clause in the Constitution does not permit Congress to extend copyright for 10,000 years, which is longer than the existence of the U.S. or any countries or even civilizations that the founders were aware of at the time of the Constitution's writing.
Do you have an explicit permission by the artist? Does the artist give a blanket permission to anyone which covers this kind of use of their work (a license)? If no, then you commit a copyright violation when you use their work for your blog. This applies to practically any country which signed the Berne convention which is almost everywhere in the world. Having no commercial interest is usually not an excuse to violate copyright. Regarding which jurisdiction applies when you, your website and the copyright holder are in different countries: I opened a new question about this.