《野狼 disco》这首歌使用的伴奏是合法的吗？

如何认定？

以下所有时间都是北京时间。

ihaksi 到目前为止（2月8日 23:00）的所有回复的翻译已经更新完成，他基本上把这件事情的来龙去脉说清楚了。

2月6日 23:35 更新

补充一点我对版权费的看法，如有错误，请告知。

我想提一下音乐播放平台之外的版权收入，首先讲一下节目制作方的版权支付。

江苏卫视跨年晚会使用了ihaksi的编曲但是没有标注ihaksi为编曲人，只不过我看其他歌也没标注作曲人，都只是标注了现场演唱者和演奏者；北京卫视跨年晚会使用了ihaksi的编曲并且标注了ihaksi为编曲人；湖南卫视跨年晚会没用ihaksi的编曲；央视春晚虽然看简介是没使用ihaksi的编曲，但是仔细听伴奏很明显是在原伴奏之上改编的，这个我觉得编曲人中应该要有ihaksi（哈哈，我打我自己的脸）。

宝石在上述节目中通过自己或别人演唱由ihaski编曲的《野狼disco》所获得的版权收入要给ihaski分三成以上。歌手在一次表演中一般能获得两类收入，一类是表演费，表演费类似CEO在公司的收入；另一类是版权费，版权费类似CEO所持有股票的股息，只不过版权费是节目制作方付给版权代理机构的，类似于股票经纪公司。

关于音乐版权行业的具体情况我会找时间补上来，最近看了不少介绍美国音乐版权业现状的文章。

2月6日 19:48 更新

下面是ihaksi自己的回复，我翻译了一下。

原视频链接：https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsozyHE6OKE

2月6日 0:00 左右回复

For all the people who are wondering: All sold leasing licenses are still effective as agreed and the rights granted in a leasing license cant be taken back by anyone. Unlimited lease allows uploading and monetizing on all streaming platforms, but it doesnt allow usage on TV, films or games without a separate license. Im personally taking no actions against anyone. Hope this clarifies things!

P.s. Its hard for me to know what has been told in China and honestly Im a bit afraid that all the parties are bending and manipulating the facts for their own benefit. Above are facts

以下是我给所有对这件事好奇的人的回复：所有已经卖出的租赁型许可证仍然是有法律效力的，并且已经授予这些租赁型许可证的权利不能收回来了。无限制租约允许持有人在任何流媒体平台上传作品并且以此获利，但是不允许在电视、电影或游戏中使用，除非另外再和我签一个合约。我本人不想起诉任何人。希望以上澄清了这个问题。

备注：我很难搞清楚中国人目前在争论些什么，实际上我有点害怕各方都为了自己的利益而歪曲事实。以上都是事实。

2月6日 3:00 左右回复

Yeah no problem, I do get that its confusing! Well first of all I couldnt know this was him because he didnt actually address that in any way. Usually people tap out around $600 or so on the exclusives, so often I just assume they dont have the capita to invest thousands on a beat. Thats why I usually just recommend the unlimited lease unless they really insist on a price or actually give me an offer.

没问题（乐于回答），我有点被搞懵了。首先我不知道这就是他（指宝石Gem），因为他没有以任何方式告诉我（他就是宝石Gem）。通常大家对exclusive版本的出价都在600美元左右，所以我一般都假定大家不愿花几千美元来买exclusive版本；因此我通常都会推荐他们买unlimited版本，除非他们真的愿意买（花几千美元）。

At the same time someone actually made an offer. It was the first decent offer Id gotten on the beat. It was for that $5,000 which is a really good price so I agreed on it. Again I want to point out that, like I said, all leasing licenses are still valid as agreed.

但是这次还真有一个人要买exclusive版本（台湾陈某），这是关于这个beat我第一次收到的那么高的出价（暗示了之前想买more sun的人大概只愿意出几百美元），也就是5000美元，所以我成交了。我想重申，所有之前卖出的租赁型许可证仍然是有法律效力的。

All my exclusive licenses always include a paragraph that actually states that all leasing licenses are still effective and the new exclusive license holder cant make copyright claims against any leasing license holders. This is specifically to avoid any contract breaches and to respect all leasing license rights. If someone is telling otherwise its not true. As long as one sticks to their leasing license terms theyre still good to go!

我卖的所有exclusive版本的合约里总是会有一段声明，即所有之前已经卖出的租赁型许可证仍然有效，并且新的exclusive版本许可证持有人不能因为版权问题控告租赁型许可证持有人。这一特别声明是为了避免版权纠纷、尊重所有租赁型许可证持有人的权利。如果有人（exclusive版本许可证持有人）还是要说你侵权了，那么只要你是继续按照你的租约行事就不用怕他。

Nothing more to it really. Hope that sheds some light on the matter!

其实关于这个问题没什么好继续再谈的了，希望我的以上回复能给大家有所参考。

2月6日 3:00 左右回复

I think the live performance refers to gigs that you do. Performances on festivals, clubs etc, not actually TV performance. Got to admit Beatstars doesnt really give all the appropriate options on the "quick screen" to really represent the true nature of the license, but the full contract can be read before hand I think. That I can guarantee that I always sell only one exclusive license to any beat. I think people have mixed the unlimited lease with the exclusive there.

（有人问他Live performance到底指什么）我认为live performance指的是表演你的音乐作品，例如在音乐节、俱乐部等场所演奏它，但是实际上不包括电视上的表演（根据后文，表演了也没太大问题，毕竟合同里没说清楚）。我必须承认，Beatstars这个网站并没有提供所有应有的合适的选项给我选择，所以最后生成的合同很难表达出我真正要表达的意思，但是我认为大家拿到合同后还是能读懂我的意思的。我可以保证每个beat我只卖出了一个exclusive版本的许可证，我认为大家可能混淆了无限制租赁型版本和exclusive版本。

2月6日 5:00 左右回复

I honestly want to believe that there was no intentional copyright infringement to begin with and as said several times now there shouldnt really be a problem if they just stick to the terms of their leasing license. Its kind of weird though that the publisher didnt approach me about the license and just be straight with me about what happened. Assuming theres a huge company behind this track its odd that they decided not to handle licensing of a mega hit themself, instead the artist sends a random email himself without proper introduction. That still feels kind of shady to me.

坦率地说，我愿意相信没有人是要故意侵权的。正如我之前多次说的，如果你一贯是按照租约行事的，那么你就完全不用担心侵权的问题。令我感到很奇怪的是，版权公司（指北京飒娱文化传媒有限公司）没有和我商谈购买(exclusive版本)许可证的事项并且直截了当地告诉我到底发生了什么，如果有一个大公司看上了这个伴奏，但是他们却不打算亲自为一个即将诞生的爆款歌曲购买许可证的话，我会感到很奇怪；相反，是艺人（误以为是宝石本人，其实是他朋友）亲自给我零零星星发了几封邮件，而且他没有好好地介绍自己，对此我至今仍然感到很疑惑。

2月6日 22:00 左右

Im not quite sure what is the confusing part? Like I said Gem didnt address himself in the email nor did his team approach me (at least not so that they would have told me its them). They already had a huge hit in their hands so why didnt they just made some good offer right off the bat. Ive never actually asked for $5,000 on any beat if someone asks for an offer because it usually is way too much for an average Joe. If they would have just made the same type of offer I wouldve accepted it. I want point out that Im not actually the one making the lawsuit (even though its been falsely reported otherwise apparently) and I wont gain anything from this thing no matter the outcome!

我有点搞不清我上面的回复中到底哪里没有说清楚？就像我之前说的，宝石（误以为发件人是宝石）没有在邮件中说清楚自己是谁，并且他的团队也没有和我谈购买事宜（至少他们没有告诉我他们是宝石的团队）。他们已经有一个爆款歌曲在手了，为什么他们不直接给我一个合理的出价。实际上如果有人要买我的任何一支beat，我从来不会开价5000美元，因为通常5000美元对于一个普通的rapper来说太高了。如果他们直接出价5000美元，我是会直接接受的。我希望指出的是，起诉宝石团队的人并不是我（虽然很明显这已经被错误报道了），无论诉讼结果如何我都不会得到任何东西。

And again, his unlimited lease is still valid. What confuses me is what part of this people dont understand. He has a valid license, he has a clear documention of the license and hes allowed distribute his track within those terms. All my exclusives always include a paragraph that states that all previously sold leasing licenses will stay valid. That applies in this case too, he just has to stay within the terms of his license. I never make deals that contradict with other licenses.

我再次重申，他的无限制租约仍然是有效的。我搞不懂这些人到底哪里没弄明白（前面有人说不太明白他的意思）。他有一个有效的许可证、一份清晰的合约说明，只要不违反合约条款他还可以继续使用这个伴奏。我的所有exclusive版本合约中总是有一段声明，即所有之前卖出的租赁型许可证仍然有效。对于这次事件也是一样的，他只要履行合约条款就行了。我从来就没有卖出过和其他租约条款有冲突的exclusive版本许可证。

Theres no specific reasons for my long reply times though. I often just postpone anything that feels not so urgent. I already agreed on the one offer I got so basically there was nothing to answer.

关于我间隔了很长时间才回复其实并没有什么特殊的原因，我经常推迟处理所有不那么紧急的事情。我已经卖出了exclusive版本所以其实我没什么好回答的了。

2月6日 23:00 左右

This is exactly why I want to stress the fact that all leasing licenses are still valid, Im not the one acting on this thing nor trying to break any already existing licenses. The original contract didnt actually even include the paragraph about the leasing licenses staying valid, I insisted that part to be included so that it wont breach previous licenses (also had it checked by my own lawyer so its definitely legit). The fact that the exclusive holder still feels like they have something to sue for just isnt honestly in my hands. There was some contradiction whether I actually even made the beat or not, so I was asked to a make video proving that its my original production and that I was authorized sell licenses in the first place. I did that and unfortunately its been misleading people to think that Im part of the law suit.

（有人说他和宝石都不是那种为了钱不择手段的人）

这就是我为什么要强调所有的租赁型许可证仍然是有效的，我不是那种见钱眼开的人，我不会违反已有的合约（条款）。实际上最初的合同里甚至都没有包含那一段「其他已经卖出的租赁型许可证仍然有效」的声明，是我坚持要加进去的，只为不和之前的租约冲突，而且我还让我的律师核查了一遍，因此这肯定是合法的。exclusive许可证持有人仍然觉得他们有什么可以用来起诉，这我管不了。据说有人质疑我是否是more sun的原作者，所以我被人（台湾陈某）要求制作一个视频来证明我就是more sun的原作者以及我是第一个被批准可以卖许可证的人。我照做了，但是很不幸这让人误会我就是起诉宝石的人了。

2月6日 23:00 左右

And further more I have to point out that $5,000 isnt really that much money. Its about my months salary, good price, but definitely nothing to pull any scams for on my part.

此外我需要指出的是，5000美元对我来说并不是一笔多可观的钱，毕竟这和我的月薪差不多，这的确是一个不错的出价，但是这绝对不至于让我去搞诈骗。

2月6日 23:00 左右

I hope Gem didnt sign anything if hes acting within the terms of his lease. If he is actually breaking the terms though then its obviously a different story. Ive provided facts about the contract and made the video to proove its my production. If someone is questioning the legatimazy of any license I can definitely confirm those. Respecting the realms of a license is still in the hands of the license holder.

如果宝石没有违反租约条款，我希望他不要再签别的合约了。如果他真的违反了合约条款，那就又是另一回事了。我已经给出了关于合同的事实，并且也做了一个视频来证明我就是原作者。如果有人质疑任何许可证的合法性，我可以随时给出证据。违不违约要看许可证持有人打算怎么做了。

2月7日 2:00 左右

I dont know whats an accessory contract so I assume not. But I did have a lawyer to go through the contract so theres no small print and it doesnt contradict with leases. They asked for the video for proof that Im the producer of this beat (nothing surprising there and I definitely want the credit for it), but they published it without my permission. I asked them about all this and they claim that they have never implied to the public that Im the one behind the lawsuit. We even had an article here in Finland that said Im suing a chinese rapper. I corrected them, but obviously there is some false information that Im the one with the lawsuit. I sold the licenses yes, and I dont want either party to abuse their license, but Im definitely not in the actual lawsuit. Like said, if Gem sticks to his license nobody can complain, but if he does actually breach the terms then exclusive license holder can act on it.

（有人问他有没有和台湾陈某签什么附属合约）

我不知道什么是附属合约，所以认为我没有签。但是我的确有一个律师通读了（exclusive版本）合约，保证合约没有显示不清楚的地方以及不和租约冲突。他们（玛西玛公司）让我做一个视频来证明我就是more sun的原作者（没什么好惊讶的，而且我的确想证明我就是原作者），但是他们未经我同意就把视频公布了。我问他们（玛西玛公司）为什么要这么做，他们说他们从没告知公众我就是起诉人。甚至我们芬兰这边都有一篇文章说我起诉了一个中国说唱歌手。我纠正了他们的错误，但是很明显还有一些消息在说我就是起诉人。我的确卖出了许可证，并且我不想双方滥用他们的许可证，但是我绝对不是起诉人。就像我前面说的，如果宝石坚持按照租约行事，那么没人能抱怨什么，但是如果他的确违反了合约条款，那么exclusive许可证持有人可以起诉他。

2月7日 2:00 左右

I truly want to believe that and honestly at no point Ive been mad untill all this escalated. I actually kind of hope that we could just leave this case behind and maybe even do a collab track afterwards, just without the drama and in mutual understanding right from the beginning!

我真的愿意相信（宝石无意侵权），我一直都很冷静，直到现在事态升级我才开始有点抓狂。实际上我还有点希望我们能让这件事翻篇儿，甚至如果可能的话我们之后还可以合作一首歌，从一开始就互相理解对方。

2月8日 23:00 左右回复

There seems to be more and more false rumors going around so I will make my last comment now and be done with it. So in conclusion. Both licenses the $99 lease as well as the $5,000 exclusive license are valid. Anyone with a license from me needs to follow the terms of their license. I do not have part in the lawsuit and my comments have no real legal effect and Ive just wanted to inform you guys about the situation to avoid any confusion. Im no longer the license owner in China so I simply have no power over any of this, well just have to let those parties involved solve the matter in court.

现在谣言似乎越来越多了，这是我最后一次回复，以后不会管这件事了。下面是我的结论：99美元的租赁型许可证和5000美元的exclusive许可证都有法律效力。任何向我购买许可证的人都需要遵守他们的合约条款。我没有参与起诉，我的回复没有真实的法律效力，我只是想告诉你们到底是什么情况，以防你们产生误解。我不再是中国地区的许可证拥有者了，所以我无权干涉任何事情，我们只需让这些利益相关方在法院解决这件事就行了。

Id just like to continue the work that I love which is producing. Im sure we can all learn something from all this (I know I have) and I truly hope nothing like this will ever happen again during my career.

我只是想继续从事音乐制作工作，我确信我们能从这次事件中学到一些东西（至少我学到了），我真的希望在我的职业生涯中不再发生这种事情。

2月5日 9:16 更新

指出几点合同中的基本事实：

99美元的租约显示可商演。49、99、5000美元的合约都显示可商演，只有29美元的不能商演。
29、49和99美元的合约有效期限只有5年，5000美元的合约一直有效。
版权费分成情况：29、49、99美元的要给原作者ihaksi分三成，5000美元的要给ihaksi分七成。
购买了5000美元版本的人没有权利控告在这之前就购买了租用版本（29、49、99美元版本）的人侵犯了他的版权，这些人只要不违反自己所签的租约就行。

我主要谈一下有争议的商演问题。合同和网站上的简介（For Profit Live Performances）没有冲突，董宝石购买的99美元版本确实是可商演的。有两个条款可以证明，一个是Miscellaneous条款，「The license******, does convey or grant the right of public performance for profit 」，意思是可以商演；另一个是大家都提到的Performance Rights条款，「Licensee may receive compensation from performances with this license」，意思是可以从表演中获得收入，也就是可以商演。

那么为什么原作者不在Performance Rights条款里明确指出可以商演，而要把这一句话放在Miscellaneous条款里呢？看完四个版本合约的Performance Rights条款和Miscellaneous条款就能明白了。

29美元版本的Performance Rights条款内容是：

The Licensor here by grants to Licensee a non-exclusive license to use the Master Recording in unlimited non-profit performances, shows, or concerts. Licensee may not receive compensation from performances with this license. 注意最后一句是「may not」。

49美元版本的Performance Rights条款内容是：

The Licensor here by grants to Licensee a non-exclusive license to use the Master Recording in unlimited non-profit performances, shows, or concerts. Licensee may receive compensation from performances with this license. 注意最后一句是「may」。

99美元版本的Performance Rights条款内容是：

5000美元版本的Performance Rights条款内容是：

The Licensor here by grants to Licensee a exclusive license to use the Master Recording in unlimited performances, shows, or concerts. Licensee may receive compensation from performances with this license.

29美元版本的Miscellaneous条款内容是：

This license is non-transferable and is limited to the Composition specified above, constitutes the entire agreement between the Licensor and the Licensee relating to the Composition, and shall be binding upon both the Licensor and the Licensee and their respective successors, assigns, and legal representatives. 没有「The license does convey or grant the right of public performance for profit」。

49美元版本的Miscellaneous条款内容是：

This license is non-transferable and is limited to the Composition specified above, does convey or grant the right of public performance for profit, constitutes the entire agreement between the Licensor and the Licensee relating to the Composition, and shall be binding upon both the Licensor and the Licensee and their respective successors, assigns, and legal representatives.

99美元版本的Miscellaneous条款内容是：

5000美元版本的Miscellaneous条款内容是：

The license is non-transferable and is limited to the composition specified above, does convey or grant the right of public performance for profit, constitutes the entire agreement between the Licensor and the Licensee relating to the Composition, and shall be binding upon both the Licensor and the Licensee and their respective successors, assigns, and legal representatives.

这下明白了吧，4个版本的合约应该都是用的一个模版，只是根据版本不同改几处地方就行了。例如29、49和99美元版本的Performance Rights条款内容除了「may not」和「may」的区别外完全一样，而49、99和5000美元版本的Miscellaneous条款内容完全一样。

被禁言了一天，本来昨天就应该发上来的。。。

高赞回答关于商演问题都没讲到点子上。最令我惊讶的是，很多法律专业人士看合同也这么草率，合同都不读完吗？这个话题在知乎上发酵了一天多，我没看到一个人是认真把合同读完的，否则大家也不会对能不能商演产生质疑。

作为在微博上看了董宝石解释的吃瓜群众，感兴趣可以去董宝石微博，他在一直播做了解释，我简单提炼一下，图片都是我自己从直播里截的：

1、最初创作时是用的免费版本，后来买了使用权后觉得大家听习惯了就没有改成去掉水印之后的版本。

2、提供了付款记录，时间：2019年7月12日下午3:43:42。99美元。（有凭据和合同截图）也就是说在近半年前就已支付版权费。