Royalties for cover songs

Slugbaby
A now-locked thread brought up an interesting subject:  mechanical royalties for cover songs.
 
...
 
Dead Admins:  I hope I'm not breaching protocol by discussing something that was shut down (for a reason i don't know).

Don't worry about that.  The prior thread wasn't really about discussing royalties, but rather was a character attack on other members (a TOS violation).
 
I look at it like this:  If you make a cover and intend to make money from it, then the original artists are due a portion of that.  If you do it for fun and make zero, zip, zilch, nada, well, I guess the original artists can still have a percentage (but it's going to be nothing). 

The fact is you are steeling from the artist and at the least to promote yourself...
Ever time a song is heard or played "the owner of the rights" is entitled to compensation...
Every time...
end of story... ;)
 
If you put up a cover song and you get 500 plays you owe the artist x cents for each play...
But if you don't pay and sneak around with fake names of songs and/or you don't have permission you can get sued..
 
Unless the artist gives up his royalty right by posting someplace like sound cloud.. this is a separate issue that is an agreement between the artist and Sound Cloud or where ever posted... here as well...
 
Bars and venues are required to fill out forms to submit to all the writer collection reps... like BMI, Ascap and many others... because different artists use different reps... these lists needs to go to all of them... and the Bars and venues are required to pay these royalties... for each and every song played... x cents for each person in the bar or venue... most never do...
 
TV, same thing but .x cent and millions watching can make you a nice hunk of cash...
 
Get your song on a show and money come flowing in... plus re-runs...
 
The only real fact I know about "how much" you get is Spotify, you get .01 cent per 4 hits/plays...
The laws are out of date and many artist's agents and reps are trying to get the laws changed...
I know Asccap is on board with this and pushing...
 
 
 
just an edit note: there are many sub deals like performance vs writers rights.. you songwriters need to learn this stuff before you get into a bad deal and owe more then you make off a song... 

The legalities are obvious, and the choice on whether or not to pay the royalties is an ethical one with possible ramifications (much like other lawbreaking pursuits).
 
I was inquiring as to how one goes about following the law.  Was that "END OF STORY" rant really worth the space it took?  None of us think music is free, we're musicians.

wow! thanks eph, I feel over... lol..
 
one thing that is related... I put up a song on Reverb  Nation... and for 19.99 or something like that they get your song out into the world... this was all done as a test for me to learn about how things work... after a few months I could google my song/band name and the song came up here and there... even for sales on the Micro soft store...
Hey! I had to do it... lol  I bought a copy of my song.. 1.07 with tax... that was many months ago and still I haven't seen any of my cash come back... though they say it takes a long time to get paid... On my Reverb account it says 9 sales. but I only see .01....  hey! I'm a pro songwriter now! I made .01 ! whoo whoo...
 
But like I said it's a test... so I'm just going to relax and wait.... but after a time... man.. well I have too be me... lol
 
peace!  
 

Slugbaby
The legalities are obvious, and the choice on whether or not to pay the royalties is an ethical one with possible ramifications (much like other lawbreaking pursuits).
 
I was inquiring as to how one goes about following the law.  Was that "END OF STORY" rant really worth the space it took?  None of us think music is free, we're musicians.

well if you want to point that out... but for me... it's just an expression of verification... nothing of a rant... that's just a different perception.. perhaps the same as you grandstanding in the forum calling me out is...  when you could have Pmed me and told me it offended you... I will get right on that! sorry!  
 
 
EDIT: ;) I think a "context" within the convince of a post should be factored into consideration when reading or composing a post... for example... YOU ARE A BUTT HEAD.. LOL means a joke... I JUST HAD A BABY! good thing.. "YOU ARE A BUTT HEAD" with out the lol or a wink...  is an insult... and in a general description of a "FACT" is simply a "FACT" nothing anal or rant a listc about it... LOL...  

Dave000
 
If you put up a cover song and you get 500 plays you owe the artist x cents for each play...
But if you don't pay and sneak around with fake names of songs and/or you don't have permission you can get sued..
 
Unless the artist gives up his royalty right by posting someplace like sound cloud.. this is a separate issue that is an agreement between the artist and Sound Cloud or where ever posted... here as well...

Soundcloud claims not to take any ownership right in your posting, which is technically true. What you give to SoundCloud and users of the "platform" i. e anyone able to hear your music posted there, is a royalty-free license to your performance that they can sublicense to others who are accessing it in what they call "linked services." So your rights are intact, but you have licensed them for nothing.
 
If you are the original author of a work posted to SoundCloud by another person performing your song, you retain full rights to the musical composition, regardless of who has posted it there. If someone "covers" your composition without obtaining a license from you, then SoundCloud may not disseminate it...end of story. Not only is it a violation of the terms of service, for someone to post a pirated cover, it invalidates any license SoundCloud or its users can claim to have received on the composition, and their only defense is the safe harbor provision of the Digital Millennium copyright act, so you can require them to remove it.
 
If you post your performance of your own original composition, then you grant a license to SoundCloud to distribute your performance, and in addition you grant, "a limited, worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, fully paid up, license to other users of the Platform, and to operators and users of any other websites, apps and/or platforms to which Your Content has been shared or embedded using the Services (“Linked Services”), to use, copy, listen to offline, repost, transmit or otherwise distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, adapt, prepare derivative works of, compile, make available and otherwise communicate to the public." Just to be clear, that means that while the license is intact, anyone can do a recording of your original composition, and to use samples of it in their own work (a derivative work) without paying you anything.
 
Although you can request that SoundCloud remove your work from public access at any time, under 17 U.S. Code § 203 (b) (1):
"A derivative work prepared under authority of the grant before its termination may continue to be utilized under the terms of the grant after its termination, but this privilege does not extend to the preparation after the termination of other derivative works based upon the copyrighted work covered by the terminated grant." 
 
So if someone finds your song/composition posted by you on SoundCloud, and makes his own version of it without your knowledge or permission, he is licensed to sell as many copies as he wants forever without owing you anything in return, even if you later request SoundCloud to take it down. This is MUCH worse than just making your song available for compulsory licensing, in which case you would be owed a royalty. This may not be what SoundCloud intends, but the wording of their license is so overly broad, that you are potentially giving up your right to be paid for your composition. If that is not what you intend, then do not post to SoundCloud.
 
 

Beepster
@Dave...
 

 

 

and yes that's hotlinked...

 

Try and sue me biznotch!

I don't get this beeper... what is hotlinked? why is your pussy hand on what is a representation on my hand" to stop posting...." I don't understand? what is biznotoch? are you picking on me and calling me names?
 
 
EDIT: I looked up "biznotoch" its slang for ****! ? this is great for the CW forum! and fair to me and not harassing me in any way!... good thing I quoted you so you cant change what YOU said...

slartabartfast

Dave000
 
If you put up a cover song and you get 500 plays you owe the artist x cents for each play...
But if you don't pay and sneak around with fake names of songs and/or you don't have permission you can get sued..
 
Unless the artist gives up his royalty right by posting someplace like sound cloud.. this is a separate issue that is an agreement between the artist and Sound Cloud or where ever posted... here as well...

Soundcloud claims not to take any ownership right in your posting, which is technically true. What you give to SoundCloud and users of the "platform" i. e anyone able to hear your music posted there, is a royalty-free license to your performance that they can sublicense to others who are accessing it in what they call "linked services." So your rights are intact, but you have licensed them for nothing.
 
If you are the original author of a work posted to SoundCloud by another person performing your song, you retain full rights to the musical composition, regardless of who has posted it there. If someone "covers" your composition without obtaining a license from you, then SoundCloud may not disseminate it...end of story. Not only is it a violation of the terms of service, for someone to post a pirated cover, it invalidates any license SoundCloud or its users can claim to have received on the composition, and their only defense is the safe harbor provision of the Digital Millennium copyright act, so you can require them to remove it.
 
If you post your performance of your own original composition, then you grant a license to SoundCloud to distribute your performance, and in addition you grant, "a limited, worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, fully paid up, license to other users of the Platform, and to operators and users of any other websites, apps and/or platforms to which Your Content has been shared or embedded using the Services (“Linked Services”), to use, copy, listen to offline, repost, transmit or otherwise distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, adapt, prepare derivative works of, compile, make available and otherwise communicate to the public." Just to be clear, that means that while the license is intact, anyone can do a recording of your original composition, and to use samples of it in their own work (a derivative work) without paying you anything.
 
Although you can request that SoundCloud remove your work from public access at any time, under 17 U.S. Code § 203 (b) (1):
"A derivative work prepared under authority of the grant before its termination may continue to be utilized under the terms of the grant after its termination, but this privilege does not extend to the preparation after the termination of other derivative works based upon the copyrighted work covered by the terminated grant." 

So if someone finds your song/composition posted by you on SoundCloud, and makes his own version of it without your knowledge or permission, he is licensed to sell as many copies as he wants forever without owing you anything in return, even if you later request SoundCloud to take it down. This is MUCH worse than just making your song available for compulsory licensing, in which case you would be owed a royalty. This may not be what SoundCloud intends, but the wording of their license is so overly broad, that you are potentially giving up your right to be paid for your composition. If that is not what you intend, then do not post to SoundCloud.

 
I just set this private.  I want to see if the link is still hot.  So what if we make them private on soundcloud but share them on Sonar?


test:  https://soundcloud.com/da...use-76324214/beloved-1
 
So it's live...hmm.  I've already copyrighted all my 2016 songs at the .gov.

This is one of the few threads that make me feel less intelligent for having read it.
 
No worries, the FSF is still at the top.  Bottom? 
 
 

eph221
NOW TRY IT BOB!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
https://soundcloud.com/david-sprouse-76324214/beloved-1
 
 
https://soundcloud.com/da...use-76324214/beloved-1

 
No go for both

This whole Sound cloud thing is really an issue... so a person could grab or record a song off SC and use it anyway they want?  and there is no recourse? I just grabbed a backing track! We should see how all this works as "a test". yea that was just mean....

Dave000
This whole Sound cloud thing is really an issue... so a person could grab or record a song off SC and use it anyway they want?  and there is no recourse?

Pretty much.
Let's say that Mary posts her original composition (words and music) to a song that tells you she has a little lamb. An ISIS operative accesses it on SoundCloud and uses her melody to create a recruiting anthem, "God tells us all to kill Jews and Westerners." Mary objects and takes him to US court, where "moral rights" are limited to visual arts, and the court is told that his use was licensed as a derivative work that he can "otherwise communicate to the public." ISIS has the better case.
 
Paul Simon thinks the song that he finds posted on SoundCloud is a hit and includes it on his next album offering her a payment of $.0000001 per copy. When Mary objects, his record company says they are already licensed to make an arrangement featuring PS for free anyway. She can sue him and his record company, and she might win on the basis that the contract with SoundCloud is unconscionable and does not provide equitable consideration to both parties, even though the contract language agrees with their position. Or she might not, since courts tend to favor written contract language on the assumption that both parties at least read it. SoundCloud is not in court at all since she licensed it to any users of the platform independently of her license to SoundCloud.
 
All SoundCloud really needs in order to do what most posters think it should do with their work is a license to stream the original in its unaltered form to individual users accessing the song from SoundCloud.com so long as the poster agrees that it should do so. Everything else in that ridiculously overbroad license is just to make sure they can sell your upload to someone else without requiring any significant commitments from their customers or paying you anything. 
 
https://soundcloud.com/terms-of-use
 

If I ever need a lawyer, I'm calling slart!

Fixed... but only because bit didn't like it.