skullsession
Max Output Level: -57.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1765
- Joined: 2006/12/05 10:32:06
- Location: Houston, TX, USA
- Status: offline
Re:Producing Backing Tracks for covers
2009/09/24 08:43:56
(permalink)
Specifically to the point....and I don't think this was quoted yet here...
Under the United States Copyright Act, the right to use copyrighted, non-dramatic musical works in the making of phonorecords for distribution to the public for private use is the exclusive right of the copyright owner. However, the Act provides that once a copyright owner has recorded and distributed such a work to the U.S. public or permitted another to do so, a compulsory mechanical license is available to anyone else who wants to record and distribute the work in the U.S. upon the payment of license fees at the statutory "compulsory" rate as set forth in Section 115 of the Act.
HOOK: Skullsessions.com / Darwins God Album "Without a doubt I would have far greater listening and aural skills than most of the forum members here. Not all but many I am sure....I have done more listening than most people." - Jeff Evans on how awesome Jeff Evans is.
|
Guitarhacker
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 24398
- Joined: 2007/12/07 12:51:18
- Location: NC
- Status: offline
Re:Producing Backing Tracks for covers
2009/09/24 08:55:38
(permalink)
If I hit it big, I wouldn't want 100 emails per day from kids asking if they can cover my songs at the senior prom.
Live performance of a cover tune is not the issue.... recording a cover tune is.
you see...you don't even need their permission directly to record a cover. you just have to pay the royalty fees to whomever they have representing them for licensing and probably 95% of artists don't deal with that directly, they have a licensing agent like Harry Fox Agency handle all of the licensing. Technically you don't need anyone's permission to record and distribute ANY copyrighted song. The problem, however, is that you do have to have an agreement with the copyright holder OR his/her/their representative on what the royatlies are to be paid. so if you can't get THAT agreement then you can't use the tune.
I played with a guy that had recorded a 45...and was giving them away, because he was unable to obtain the license .... he was still breaking the law, because he was not supposed to even give them away.
You can record any tune you want "for personal use" but you are not permitted to distribute it to anyone else for any reason.
I don't think ASCAP & BMI will come after you to collect the royalties..... you see there are many different aspects to the money flow in the music business. ASCAP & BMI collect performance royalties from live venues, radio stations, TV & film.... for the performance of a given song.
The publisher of the song gets paid by them (Performance societies) and also handles the licensing and mechanical royalties with the assistance of Harry Fox. They are the ones who are concerned about the actual legal aspects of licensing, and are seeking to protect their interests and that of their client, the songwriter. The songwriter, once they sign a deal to have the song "published" basically gives away the guiding ownership of the song and the publisher re-assigns the copyright into the publisher's name. The songwriter form this point forward has little or NO say in what happens with this song, and simply collects a check quarterly for the profits. The publisher "owns" the song forever once it is commercially recorded and released....so they are the ones who will come looking for the licensing fees and the mechanical royalties if you record "their" song. And yes, the royalties can and will be collected and fines can be applied...and the fines can be huge.
The songwriters and the publishers fought long and hard to get the rights they now have...it is their lively hood..... and when the cassette tape and then the CD and internet came to be.... their livelyhood was in fact in danger since it became very easy to bootleg their songs and cut out the royalty and licensing income stream.
BMI & ASCAP & the industry as a whole went to battle over this many years ago...and IIRC the movie industry also joined the battle for the same reasons.
My website & music: www.herbhartley.com MC4/5/6/X1e.c, on a Custom DAW Focusrite Firewire Saffire Interface BMI/NSAI "Just as the blade chooses the warrior, so too, the song chooses the writer "
|
Beagle
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 50621
- Joined: 2006/03/29 11:03:12
- Location: Fort Worth, TX
- Status: offline
Re:Producing Backing Tracks for covers
2009/09/24 09:05:51
(permalink)
skullsession
Specifically to the point....and I don't think this was quoted yet here...
Under the United States Copyright Act, the right to use copyrighted, non-dramatic musical works in the making of phonorecords for distribution to the public for private use is the exclusive right of the copyright owner. However, the Act provides that once a copyright owner has recorded and distributed such a work to the U.S. public or permitted another to do so, a compulsory mechanical license is available to anyone else who wants to record and distribute the work in the U.S. upon the payment of license fees at the statutory "compulsory" rate as set forth in Section 115 of the Act.
Yep! the only stipulation is that you pay them the license fees. there are a few artists, however, who don't use a representative to license their material so that it's difficult to get a licensing agreement. Simon and Garfunkel is one group that comes to mind. they license their stuff exclusively themselves and tend to "not be available" or "unreachable" in order to obtain the license from them, therefore most of their songs don't ever get licensed.
|
Spaceduck
Max Output Level: -50.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2499
- Joined: 2004/12/29 12:51:03
- Status: offline
Re:Producing Backing Tracks for covers
2009/09/24 09:45:31
(permalink)
Well here's where it gets really confusing. In the item that skull quoted, are they talking about copying the original recorded material (piracy), or are they specifically talking about remaking a song with your own original performance & interpretation? The two are completely different, and I would hope they're governed by different laws.
I still maintain that the music industry is too constrictive. If you compare it to literature, painting, and other forms of art, the other art forms are not so uptight. How many versions of the "Venus de Milo" have been painted & sculpted, and do you think any of them paid royalties to Milo? Similarly, in the golden days of music, composers were free to write "Variations on..." and nobody got their panties in a wad. In the literature world (often extending to films), we have a gazillion interpretations of Faust, Romeo & Juliet, etc, and it's all just par for the course. "Standing on the shoulders of giants" is what allows art to progress.
From an economic point of view I still don't see any validity to the "loss of potential sales" angle. Like I'm going to run to the record store to buy the Stones "Satisfaction" and pick up a copy of Britney Spears' version instead? People don't buy albums based on who wrote the songs, they buy based on the performance & presentation. Art has always been this way, but only in recent years (meaning: as billions of $$ get poured into the industry) have people started complaining.
I also don't understand the logic of treating a cover tune performance any differently than a recording of a cover tune performance. Yet the former is allowed while the latter is prohibited. That to me is just nuts. Either they should prohibit all expressions of the copywritten song, or they should chill out and let people sell their live cds. So you see my gripes with the whole structure--there are just too many inconsistencies.
Big disclaimer: you folks realize throughout this thread I've been talking about re-making someone's song with your own unique style & performance. I'm not talking about copying it note for note with intent to defraud the public & I'm definitely not talking about piracy. I really think the lawyers are trying to blur the distinction, and I'm afraid they're winning.
|
skullsession
Max Output Level: -57.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1765
- Joined: 2006/12/05 10:32:06
- Location: Houston, TX, USA
- Status: offline
Re:Producing Backing Tracks for covers
2009/09/24 09:59:09
(permalink)
The thing I quoted - Compulsory Mechanical License - is for creating your own recording of the song....played your way as long as you don't change the arrangement or the underlying melody. You CAN change the way the song is played to fit your personal style.
If you want to distribute copies if the original, you'd need a Master Use Rights License.
HOOK: Skullsessions.com / Darwins God Album "Without a doubt I would have far greater listening and aural skills than most of the forum members here. Not all but many I am sure....I have done more listening than most people." - Jeff Evans on how awesome Jeff Evans is.
|
Spaceduck
Max Output Level: -50.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2499
- Joined: 2004/12/29 12:51:03
- Status: offline
Re:Producing Backing Tracks for covers
2009/09/24 10:09:44
(permalink)
skullsession
The thing I quoted - Compulsory Mechanical License - is for creating your own recording of the song....played your way as long as you don't change the arrangement or the underlying melody.
Got it. Well then maybe none of this applies to me. On the Queen tune I mentioned, I drastically changed all the chords, the time signature & arrangement. The only thing I kept was the vocal melody for the 1st two lines of lyrics (I changed all the rest of the lyrics). So maybe I'm arguing an irrelevant point?
|
Beagle
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 50621
- Joined: 2006/03/29 11:03:12
- Location: Fort Worth, TX
- Status: offline
Re:Producing Backing Tracks for covers
2009/09/24 10:20:10
(permalink)
right - you don't have to do the recording exactly as the original, there's no stipulation on how you perform it. you can do a dance mix of "Starship Trooper" if you want, but you still have to pay royalties to Yes for it. the licensing does not dictate HOW you do the song - just that you're doing your version of someone else's intellectual property. From an economic point of view I still don't see any validity to the "loss of potential sales" angle. Like I'm going to run to the record store to buy the Stones "Satisfaction" and pick up a copy of Britney Spears' version instead? People don't buy albums based on who wrote the songs, they buy based on the performance & presentation. Art has always been this way, but only in recent years (meaning: as billions of $$ get poured into the industry) have people started complaining. "loss of potential sales" is difficult to prove, but they can do it. there are some remakes of songs that make a lot of sales - sometimes even more than the original. Look at Manfred Mann - they "covered" Bruce Springstien's "Blinded by the Light" and made a lot more in CD sales on that cover than Bruce ever did with his original (Bruce released in 1973, MM released his version in 1977). So it is possible that the cover is more popular than the original - I'm not saying it happens all the time, but it does happen. I also don't understand the logic of treating a cover tune performance any differently than a recording of a cover tune performance. Yet the former is allowed while the latter is prohibited. That to me is just nuts. Either they should prohibit all expressions of the copywritten song, or they should chill out and let people sell their live cds. So you see my gripes with the whole structure--there are just too many inconsistencies. I think there's some miscommunication here somewhere - it is different, but it's not prohibited at all! recording royalties are paid to the copyright holder via licensing, but performance of covers is paid to the copyright holder through agencies like BMI and ASCAP. they're certainly allowed - otherwise clubs and bars all over the world would not be able to hire cover bands. the bars are supposed to pay ASCAP or BMI (or similar agency) a yearly fee for having cover bands in their establishment. they're supposed to provide ASCAP/BMI with a list of songs performed by the cover bands so that the royalties are paid correctly. that doesn't always happen, but that's a completely different subject. yes, it is VERY complicated - much more so than any other art form. and I agree it's way TOO complicated and I'm certain it's so complicated because of lawyers involvement - but mainly because there's more money involved in it than any other art form. everyone wants "a piece of the action" - the copyright holders are not the ones getting paid ALL of the money from the royalties - lots of other people have their hand in the bucket before it ever gets to the copyright holder. and that's a shame and it is a very bad situation, IMO, and I don't like the way that works at all.
|
Beagle
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 50621
- Joined: 2006/03/29 11:03:12
- Location: Fort Worth, TX
- Status: offline
Re:Producing Backing Tracks for covers
2009/09/24 10:25:19
(permalink)
Spaceduck
skullsession
The thing I quoted - Compulsory Mechanical License - is for creating your own recording of the song....played your way as long as you don't change the arrangement or the underlying melody.
Got it. Well then maybe none of this applies to me. On the Queen tune I mentioned, I drastically changed all the chords, the time signature & arrangement. The only thing I kept was the vocal melody for the 1st two lines of lyrics (I changed all the rest of the lyrics). So maybe I'm arguing an irrelevant point?
au contraire, my fine feathered friend! copyright doesn't cover chords, time signature or arrangment - it's only the lyrics and melody. as long as the lyrics and melody are the same then you are required to pay royalties to the copyright holder. not only that, but even if you have PART of a song's melody in your song then you're required to pay royalties on that song - it's not 100% your song if you have part of someone else's song embedded in your song! technically that would make you a cowriter of a new song if you used part of someone else's song in yours and that gets into another legal mess. but bottom line is that if you are using Queen's melody and lyrics - then you need a mechanical license. it's just like I said above, if you do a dance mix of Starship Trooper, you have to pay royalties on it!
|
skullsession
Max Output Level: -57.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1765
- Joined: 2006/12/05 10:32:06
- Location: Houston, TX, USA
- Status: offline
Re:Producing Backing Tracks for covers
2009/09/24 10:51:52
(permalink)
HOOK: Skullsessions.com / Darwins God Album "Without a doubt I would have far greater listening and aural skills than most of the forum members here. Not all but many I am sure....I have done more listening than most people." - Jeff Evans on how awesome Jeff Evans is.
|
Spaceduck
Max Output Level: -50.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2499
- Joined: 2004/12/29 12:51:03
- Status: offline
Re:Producing Backing Tracks for covers
2009/09/24 11:01:09
(permalink)
Beagle
the bars are supposed to pay ASCAP or BMI (or similar agency) a yearly fee for having cover bands in their establishment. they're supposed to provide ASCAP/BMI with a list of songs performed by the cover bands so that the royalties are paid correctly.
Again I learn something new. Thanks for that info! I'm sure some of the ratholes I played in didn't bother with royalties, but it's interesting to know it's their responsibility.
yes, it is VERY complicated - much more so than any other art form. and I agree it's way TOO complicated and I'm certain it's so complicated because of lawyers involvement - but mainly because there's more money involved in it than any other art form. everyone wants "a piece of the action" - the copyright holders are not the ones getting paid ALL of the money from the royalties - lots of other people have their hand in the bucket before it ever gets to the copyright holder. and that's a shame and it is a very bad situation, IMO, and I don't like the way that works at all.
I think you're right; unlike the other art forms, there's a ton of money flying all over the music industry. It was inevitable that all sorts of rules would come into play. Some for better, some for worse. I need to read up on this because I still have a ton of questions especially concerning when a copyright expires & the work becomes public domain. I found a chart here (sound recordings midway down the page) http://copyright.cornell....urces/publicdomain.cfm and now I'm TOTALLY confused. It seems there's a whole jumble of laws & fine print based on what year, or often what month, the work was copyrighted. Wotta mess...
|
Spaceduck
Max Output Level: -50.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2499
- Joined: 2004/12/29 12:51:03
- Status: offline
Re:Producing Backing Tracks for covers
2009/09/24 11:14:26
(permalink)
Beagle
au contraire, my fine feathered friend! copyright doesn't cover chords, time signature or arrangment - it's only the lyrics and melody. as long as the lyrics and melody are the same then you are required to pay royalties to the copyright holder. not only that, but even if you have PART of a song's melody in your song then you're required to pay royalties on that song - it's not 100% your song if you have part of someone else's song embedded in your song! technically that would make you a cowriter of a new song if you used part of someone else's song in yours and that gets into another legal mess.
but bottom line is that if you are using Queen's melody and lyrics - then you need a mechanical license. it's just like I said above, if you do a dance mix of Starship Trooper, you have to pay royalties on it!
Gaaaah! Trapped on a technicality. There was a George Michael song a few years back, a pretty big hit though I can't remember the name. At the end of the song as it's fading out, he scats "You can't always get what you want... you can't always get what you want..." Sure enough, on the cd, Mick Jagger is listed as a co-writer. I always thought that was really weird, and it probably cost Georgie a pretty penny in royalties, but I suppose that's how things work.
|
Beagle
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 50621
- Joined: 2006/03/29 11:03:12
- Location: Fort Worth, TX
- Status: offline
Re:Producing Backing Tracks for covers
2009/09/24 11:45:51
(permalink)
I found a chart here (sound recordings midway down the page)
http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm
and now I'm TOTALLY confused. It seems there's a whole jumble of laws & fine print based on what year, or often what month, the work was copyrighted. Wotta mess... yeah, I understand the public domain laws less than I understand the copyright laws and I'm sure I'm not an expert on those! the PD laws were just recently changed (in the last 5 or 10 years?) and they were a lot less complicated before the change and the latest change was to support the copyright holder for longer, not the other way around, of course.
|