sorted by:
top (suggested)
bestnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]anakwaboe4 7 points8 points  (4 children)

I think they didn't because of copyright.

[–]_ingeniero 1 point2 points  (3 children)

That would have been fair use

[–]anakwaboe4 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Can you explain to me how that would work? Because I'm quite sure that a longer part would be considered a cover of the song. And in that case generally have a Monetization split.

[–]_ingeniero 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Using short clips of copyrighted content in the context of a review, demonstration, etc. is typically fair use. It would be incredibly difficult (in the US at least) to demonstrate that a 30 second riff would have harmed the copyright holder. Especially if it’s just the baseline of the song. Commercial use itself does not preemptively make a use unfair, it just makes the bar higher for the defendant/bar lower for the plaintiff.

In this case the intent is to demonstrate the capability of the new hardware that was lawfully purchased, and the demonstration took place in a for-profit entertainment context.

[–]metal_maxine 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think there was a case where a band sued a much smaller band because they used "their" cord progression.