Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
The only restriction on recording a cover of somebody else's song is 'first use'. The writer, once the song has been recorded, cannot stop somebody from recording it under a 'compulsory license'. Royalty rates paid under a compulsory license are higher than the normal ones, so it rarely pops up. Probably the best know case is when the Circle Jerks wanted to record Paul Simon's 'Red Rubber Ball'. Simon hated the idea, tried to stop them, but ended up just having to settle for the higher royalty rate (poor baby!). The only instance in which this is not the case is when the song has not previously been recorded, in which case the writer has a legal leg to stand on in refusing to allow somebody the use of their tune. Royalties for live performances are the responsibility of the venue, not the artist. Most clubs, concert halls, etc... make regular payments to BMI and ASCAP to cover royalties on music played in their venue. There are some places (mostly coffeehouses, it seems) that will only allow original music, so they can avoid having to make payments to performing rights organizations. Suggested reading: This Business of Music. You'll learn more than you ever wanted to know about publishing, contracts, and how to make sure that you don't get screwed. Hope this helps, George "Mr. Tough" wrote: > > All my other posts in this matter will be private, since I know it's not > really on topic. : > > >yet you say later.. > > > >">Obviously Sony think that they can take anyones music, without > >permission, > > >and re-release it without credit....." > > Actually, I only wrote the paragraph at the very top. It would be a good > idea if we took the rest with a grain of salt, as with all accusations of > this nature. I also noticed that Sony's letter wasn't in German and had > several spelling errors. Some meaning can be lost or gained in >translation. > Even if it was originally in English, the text wasn't copied exactly, >since > there were so many errors. However I do believe the general meaning of >the > e-mail (that Sony blatantly infringed on someone's rights to their > composition--something that major labels would sue a band out of >existence > for.) > > >i thought ANYONE could cover a tune - as long as they credited it's >authors > >andpaidthe mechanicals, adhering to publishing laws, etc,. > > > >pls fill me in here > > According to American copyright law, you need the author's (or copyright > holder's if they're signed) permission to legally release a cover tune. >With > the permission, the author usually requires original credit and payment. >I > would imagine that German copyright law would be similar in this aspect, >as > this is the specific purpose that copyright was created for. While Sony >was > offering payment and publishing credit, they specifically avoided >speaking > to the original artists until the records were already on the shelves. >The A > & R rep did this because he knew the band was 'anti-corporate' and would >not > grant them permission. > > You can legally reproduce (or cover) a song if the purpose is for >"Criticism > & Comment" (where copyright law meets the 1st amendment), or education > (under "Fair Use"). The former includes song parodies. Once again, this >is > American copyright law. > > You can often 'get away' with covering a song if: > 1) It does not interfere with the sale of the original. > 2) You're not famous and it's not your biggest song. > 3) The copyright owner (often a record label) never finds out about it. > > I believe it's technically illegal to cover a song in a live show, but >big > famous bands do that all the time and never seem to suffer from it. > > I betchya that Sony tried to copyright that techno song for themselves. I > don't know for sure, but the majors are crazy about securing copyrights >for > everything. They even copyright sound effects CD's! > > Mr. Tough > > p.s. thanks for reading this far! > ______________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com