Talk:Mechanical license

It's quite ironic that this is a blatant copyvio from the Harry Fox Agency. I'd flag it as copyvio for deletion, but I think this is a useful subject for an article and will edit it to be more encyclopedic. -- Malber (talk · contribs) 18:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Fox???

It's a big, big world outside the USA. This Harry Fox Agency handles the majority of mechanicals in the entire world? If not, then maybe it's not worth mentioning.

Adding context

I know something about copyright, but this this article is still unclear to me. Could someone expound?

1) What is a mechanical license? Specifically, what does it allow someone to do that they would otherwise not be able to do?

2) Why is the Harry Fox Agency responsible for most US licenses?

3) In what way is a license "self-promotion"? Is the text meant to read that self-promotion activities often require licenses? Now it might be interpreted to mean that the license itself is self-promotion.

4) Why would an artist need to get a license for their own work? The citation to Harry Fox seems not to say this.

5) Is it an interpretation that ringtones are related to mechanical licenses? The citation to "The Register" does not explicitly name them.

Piano non troppo (talk) 04:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article lead

I'm taking another look at this article to see how it can be improved. I'm wondering where the broad definition of mechanical license in the first sentence comes from. I'm not aware of "mechanical license" being used outside the narrow context of its use in the music industry - a license to reproduce a version of a musical composition on a mechanical device or phonorecord. A search on both Google and Google Scholar appears to confirm this. So my question is, does anyone know of any sources that support the broader definition of "mechanical license" that is set forth in this article's first sentence? Hartboy (talk) 17:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Puff Daddy Example

The example given is of using a mechanical as the license for the composition portion of a sample. It's my understanding that a mechanical license is not a sampling license. A mechanical allows reproducing a work as a phonorecord. The sample itself is not a phonorecord, and is being used to create a *new* work. I've had a had time getting clarity on this from my sources, surprisingly. If I'm correct, then the example should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.50.214.112 (talk) 06:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Validity In The World?

From reading the article it is not clear whether the mechanical license has international value. To distribute a CD containing a cover all over the world, is the mechanical license sufficient? Is the mechanical license valid only in the united states? I think it would be useful to specify this aspect. --79.51.69.11 (talk) 09:15, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Exceptions

IANAL, but I believe review copies and Artist copies are exempt from licensing fees. 2601:1C2:1B7F:F450:7524:DF0B:191:AE69 (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]