Only if the song is a free domain song, such as "Happy Birthday" or "God Save the Queen". Popular songs, such as songs which are owned and copyrighted by an artist can only be used with written consent from the copyright holder, unless your organization holds an ASCAP license, in which case, the ASCAP logo must appear on the page containing the music which is being used under the ASCAP license you hold.
No, unfortunately.
To ethically incorporate content from other blogs into your work without infringing on copyright laws, you should obtain permission from the original content creator, provide proper attribution, and only use a small portion of the content for commentary, criticism, or educational purposes.
Creating a midi file can be considered a copy, or a derivative work, and playing it in public would be a performance. Copying and performing both require permission from the copyright holder.
Yes. The rhymes are uncopyrighted, and even if the original author had done so, their copyright would have long since expired.
Most often, it's not the website that's infringing, it's the users. Napster, Limewire, and Bittorrent, for example, are not inherently illegal, but they're used illegally.
Ravel's works are in the public domain in most countries, except France, where convoluted laws mean they are protected until 2015.
To avoid infringing on Nintendo's copyright when creating content related to their games or characters, you should seek permission from Nintendo before using any of their copyrighted material. Additionally, you can create original content inspired by their games or characters without directly copying their intellectual property. It is important to understand and respect copyright laws to avoid legal issues.
The site itself is entirely legal; the user-uploaded content, on the other hand, is very often infringing.
The website is http://sportstownbackgrounds.weebly.com
Quite a bit. For information on US copyright laws, visit the website of the Copyright Office. For other countries, the WIPO website is a good place to start.
It could be considered a derivative work, which is one of the exclusive rights of the copyright holder.
Yes, as long as the new "artwork" is not "derivative" of the original art and you do not misrepresent it as produced or licensed by the copyright owner. See related question on NFL materials: "Can you legally make an item using NFL fabric and sell it?"