copyright question

[TaurusT]

Hi there,

 

I'm planning to do a cover (recorded/rearranged) of "What a wonderful World" by Louis Armstrong.

And also "I'm in the mood for love".

 

I've never recorded and published a cover before.

 

These songs are quite old. Does anyone know if it is safe to record and publish these covers on a CD? I would be making a completely new recorded cover of this song and what to know if there's something I need to do.

 

Any advice to point me in the right direction would be appreciated.

[Sven Golly]

SongFile.com from the Harry Fox Agency.

[Lindaru]

Who owns What A Wonderful World

 

Here is what I was able to find . . . above for who you would contact for permission to publish a cover of the Louis Armstrong song, below . . . I am confused as to why so many copyright owners. :idk

 

Lots of owners for I'm In The Mood For Love?

[MathOfInsects]

Lindaru, those aren't quite it. The first is a VA copyright for artwork on a particular album, and the others are a hodgepodge, but mostly SR copyrights covering people's recordings of the song.

 

OP, follow Sven's link, or try rightsflow.com. Either way, you'll tell them how many copies you're pressing and how long the song is, and they'll give you a price. Unless you're famous or vastly overestimating your run, it will not be expensive.

 

You MUST obtain a license to have your CDs manufactured professionally. If you're running 50 copies at home, and don't expect to make money off your release, but are using it instead as a calling card or proof-of-life, you don't really need clearance. Mechanical licenses are purely about preserving flow of income. No income projected = no damage done to the claimant.

 

 

[BobK]

Hi there,

 

I'm planning to do a cover (recorded/rearranged) of "What a wonderful World" by Louis Armstrong.

And also "I'm in the mood for love".

 

I've never recorded and published a cover before.

 

These songs are quite old. Does anyone know if it is safe to record and publish these covers on a CD? I would be making a completely new recorded cover of this song and what to know if there's something I need to do.

 

Follow Sven's link. The Harry Fox Agency is the clearinghouse for mechanical royalties, and SongFile is a special branch of the agency for licensing 2,500 or fewer copies.

 

What's important is not the age of the song, but whether it's copyrighted or public domain.

 

If it's copyrighted, you have to pay what are called mechanical royalties for each copy that you sell, whether it's physical or digital.

 

Check out the FAQs at SongFile and Harry Fox, as well as Google, and perhaps a book or two on the music biz.

[DulceLabs.com]

If you're running 50 copies at home, and don't expect to make money off your release, but are using it instead as a calling card or proof-of-life, you don't really need clearance. Mechanical licenses are purely about preserving flow of income. No income projected = no damage done to the claimant.

 

ummm.. Yeah no. Unless your application falls under "fair use" (and you can successfully defend that claim), you need to obtain the proper clearance if you plan to distribute any copyrighted material whether you are selling it or giving it away.

 

"If you are manufacturing and distributing copies of a song that you do not own or control, you need to obtain a mechanical license. This is required by the U.S. Copyright Act, regardless of whether or not you are selling the copies that you make. "

http://www.harryfox.com/license_music/why_need_mechanical_license.html

 

[MathOfInsects]

That's not entirely what I meant, though you're right of course.

 

What I meant was, for practical purposes, if this is a small-run non-commercial release, he could probably skip the license--in the same way that you might for a home performance of the same songs, or a performance in any room that doesn't pay into the rights agencies.

 

He can't claim it as his own (hiya, Led Zeppelin). But he can pretty safely cover a standard if it is not intended for commercial distribution.

 

Though this queasy feeling I'm getting as I type this suggests I am not completely comfortable being on this side of this argument, so I may back out now and go poke my eyeball with a drum stick.

 

[Lindaru]

Thanks, MathOfInsects . . . a while back on another thread, I posted about a lady doing cover songs on You Tube from Phantom Of The Opera, and the person getting her video removed actually provided links from the same site I did above, so I believed that was the standard for determination?

 

If I am in contact with her again, i will set her right since she had her video removed on that basis.

 

[Bobadohshe]

Math of Insects has the right of it with his posts.

[MathOfInsects]

Thanks, MathOfInsects . . . a while back on another thread, I posted about a lady doing cover songs on You Tube from Phantom Of The Opera, and the person getting her video removed actually provided links from the same site I did above, so I believed that was the standard for determination?

 

If I am in contact with her again, i will set her right since she had her video removed on that basis.

 

There are different kinds of copyrights. VA is for visual arts. SR is for sound recordings. PA means the song (or other creative work) itself--words and music, or whatever portion of that you are claiming authorship of.

 

SR protects a particular recording--your recorded version of a song. It doesn't change the copyright claim to the underlying song itself...though it CAN, if you, the recording artist, also wrote the song.

 

So if you obtain the right to record "I'm In the Mood for Love," your RECORDING will be protected by the SR you file, but you will not then become the copyright holder to the original song. That remains in Robbins/Alfred's hands.

 

That site lists all copyrights related to a title. So some will be relevant, and some won't. In the Phantom case, perhaps they were...?

[J. Dan]

Also, videos require a Synch license, which is almost impossible to get. They are not available through agencies like Harry Fox. You have to negotiate directly with the copyright holder, and there is no standard for fees. That's why most people don't bother trying and just post videos to YouTube hoping they won't get taken down. Sometimes they just stick ads on it to recover some revenue. I've had videos taken down before. One was a live performance of us playing Bloody Well Right by Supertramp. Search YouTube - you won't find that song on there anywhere. They owners are pretty hard core about nailing anybody who posts it. In fact, any of the Supertramp stuff except stuff played Live by Roger Hodgson will not be there.

[linwood]

I've never used this service, but might be worth looking into... Hit Me

[DulceLabs.com]

That's not entirely what I meant, though you're right of course.

 

What I meant was, for practical purposes, if this is a small-run non-commercial release, he could probably skip the license--in the same way that you might for a home performance of the same songs, or a performance in any room that doesn't pay into the rights agencies.

 

He can't claim it as his own (hiya, Led Zeppelin). But he can pretty safely cover a standard if it is not intended for commercial distribution.

 

Though this queasy feeling I'm getting as I type this suggests I am not completely comfortable being on this side of this argument, so I may back out now and go poke my eyeball with a drum stick.

 

It's a slippery slope.

 

Realize that the commercial aspect has NOTHING to do with it, other than making one feel OK about it because no money is changing hands. I also understand the chances of getting caught are small but, just like running a red light, it doesn't make it right and could end up in a crash in burn.

 

 

[slowtraveler]

It's a slippery slope.

 

Realize that the commercial aspect has NOTHING to do with it, other than making one feel OK about it because no money is changing hands. I also understand the chances of getting caught are small but, just like running a red light, it doesn't make it right and could end up in a crash in burn.

I guess it's a slippery slope from a moral point of view. From a legal standpoint it's unambiguous: the OP describes a case that is indisputably infringement. It is significant, though, that damage to the rights holder is minimal to non-existent. The costs to the rights holder of litigating a claim almost certainly exceed the amount of damages he/she could reasonably recover. At worst, the OP could probably expect a cease-and-desist nastygram from the rights holder's attorney.

 

I think MathOfInsects makes a valuable point. The rights holder has a valid legal claim, but both parties can reasonably make a cost-vs-benefit analysis of their actions. One can certainly say that this sort of infringement is wrong from a moral standpoint, but I think we should be careful to distinguish between moral obligations and legal responsibilities. This kind of infringement is widely tolerated, though it does carry risks. I can think of tons of other examples like this one, where I would say that slack enforcement of legal rights is actually a social good.

 

IMO this situation is much more like rolling a stop sign than running a red light, from both a legal and a moral point of view

 

[Brettymike]

Right now, Eminem has our guberment on the mat for breach of copyright, because they thought they could help themselves to one of his songs for free for their B.S advertising. I hope he sues them so bad, their feet don't touch the ground frankly

Brett

[TaurusT]

Shouldn't there be a distinction between "distributing the actual file/song" and "creating an all new cover based on the song (chords, melody, lyrics)?

In my case, I'd just be doing a cover with my own arrangement.

[DulceLabs.com]

Shouldn't there be a distinction between "distributing the actual file/song" and "creating an all new cover based on the song (chords, melody, lyrics)?

 

There is.

[Lindaru]

If you have significantly changed it to be much different than the original (parody for example), I believe you are okay under the Fair Use. On my radio show I have created very short parody snippets (enough that the listener knows what it is a parody of), but full length ones, according to Weird Al Yankovic, you should get permission from the artist and label before doing so, even though it is legal.

[J. Dan]

Shouldn't there be a distinction between "distributing the actual file/song" and "creating an all new cover based on the song (chords, melody, lyrics)?

In my case, I'd just be doing a cover with my own arrangement.

 

Well, regardless of who performs it, the writer wrote it.

[BobK]

Shouldn't there be a distinction between "distributing the actual file/song" and "creating an all new cover based on the song (chords, melody, lyrics)?

In my case, I'd just be doing a cover with my own arrangement.

 

I understand where you're coming from, but regardless of what you think should be, the reality is that there's a long history of copyright law that addresses all these issues and more. Lots of smart artists, business people and lawyers have been working on this stuff for many years, so your best bet is to get a book or do some web searches and learn the facts.

 

You might still decide that your project is small enough that you want to fly under the radar, but at least you'll know the risks.

 

Sven has provided some helpful links. Check 'em out.

[Sven Golly]

Shouldn't there be a distinction between "distributing the actual file/song" and "creating an all new cover based on the song (chords, melody, lyrics)?

In my case, I'd just be doing a cover with my own arrangement.

 

Did you even bother clicking on the links I gave you?

 

17. How do I license a new arrangement of a copyright-protected song, or a medley?

A new version or arrangement of an existing song that alters the melody or character of the song, or a medley of existing songs, is called a derivative work. You need to obtain permission from the publisher directly to create a derivative work, and include that permission when you apply for a mechanical license using HFA's regular licensing form which you can obtain here.

 

You can use the following databases to locate publisher information:

 

http://www.ascap.com

http://www.bmi.com

http://www.sesac.com

http://www.copyright.gov

From the FAQ section of the SongFile link that I posted almost 24 hours ago.

 

[J. Dan]

Sven, I'm glad you posted the pertinent point. Clicking the link you posted and actually reading through it is SOOOOOOO much work! Why didn't you just do that in the first place? It's you job, after all.

[Sven Golly]

Sven, I'm glad you posted the pertinent point. Clicking the link you posted and actually reading through it is SOOOOOOO much work! Why didn't you just do that in the first place? It's you job, after all.

 

I know... what can I say, I'm just so lazy.

[J. Dan]

Sven, I'm glad you posted the pertinent point. Clicking the link you posted and actually reading through it is SOOOOOOO much work! Why didn't you just do that in the first place? It's you job, after all.

 

I know... what can I say, I'm just so lazy.

 

and you could have saved everyone SO much time!

[slowtraveler]

If you have significantly changed it to be much different than the original (parody for example), I believe you are okay under the Fair Use.

If the new work contains recognizable melodic and lyric elements of the underlying song, it will be considered a derivative work and therefore subject to infringement claims. The parody fair-use defense is narrow and specific. It has to do with the act of creating an artistic commentary on the original work and not simply, for example, writing amusing alternate lyrics to an existing song.

 

Basically, anything remotely resembling a "cover" is going to constitute infringement. If the OP decides to snake by without obtaining a license, he/she should learn the facts and make an informed judgment about the risks, as Sven and BobK wisely recommend.

[slowtraveler]

Coincidentally, fair use got a little boost today from a federal appeals court:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/15/business/media/youtube-dancing-baby-copyright-ruling-sets-fair-use-guideline.html

 

[Lindaru]

My significant changes are a line or two sung a capella with perhaps sound effects or if I put music behind it, it is different music that I create, and yes, I have run this past someone who knows music copyright and it was acceptable under Fair Use.

 

But like I said above, Weird Al suggests contacting the owner before doing something like that, even parody.

[MathOfInsects]

Realize that the commercial aspect has NOTHING to do with it, other than making one feel OK about it because no money is changing hands.

 

This is probably for another thread--or probably has already been in one--but: No, can't agree here. Copyright protection is (functionally) solely an income/commodity-protecting mechanism.

 

Think of it this way: If you sit at home and copy Warhol's Soup Cans stroke for stroke, then burn it, was a crime committed? Infringement? Who was wronged? What should the penalty be?

 

Now let's say you copy Warhol's Soup Cans, and a friend stops by before you burn it. You show her the copy you made. Then you burn it. Was THIS a crime? You did not claim the work as yours, you just showed your copy to someone.

 

Now let's say you copy Warhol's soup cans...and give the painting to some corporate headquarters to temporarily display in their lobby. You call it "Warhol's Soup Cans Painted By Me." Crime? If so, what should the punishment/penalty be?

 

Now let's say that the corporation pays you $500,000 for the painting. The Warhol estate finds out and wants some or all of the sale money. Are they entitled to it? If you say no, are you committing a crime?

 

The only distinction between the first two examples and the last two is the commodification and monetizing of the copy. Most would agree that the first two don't "feel" like crimes, and the last two feel a bit icky, with the last one feeling the most straightforwardly wrong.

 

If OP plans a small run, without charging money, and the "copies" of these songs are simply a snapshot of where he is now as a musician, he's solidly in example #2 above. And even if you argue that he's in example #3, the worst that happens is that the copyright holder might ask him to "take it down." As long as no money or commodification is involved, no real claim of damages exists.

 

On a philosophical level, the best option for any artist is the widest possible distribution. If you write a song and it finds its way (properly credited, or even simply not improperly credited to someone else) into the earbuds of every person on earth, you have succeeded beyond your wildest (artistic) dreams. If a painting you paint finds its way onto every wall in the country, you have you have reached the pinnacle of artistic hope. If your poem becomes a schoolyard rhyme, you have succeeded beyond measure.

 

The only thing you haven't done is made money from it.

 

Copyright protection is a mechanism to ensure that if money is made off of creative or intellectual property, it's made by whoever owns the rights to that property (which is not always the creator). It LIMITS distribution--e.g., hurts the artist, on the purest philosophical level--in order to control the flow of any income or other commercial benefit produced by the product. It's purely a commercial construct.

 

So it's not a slippery slope, and it's not independent of the commercial aspect. It is SOLELY the commercial aspect, and the slope is pretty well defined: for all practical purposes, just as with the home-made copy of Soup Cans, the guiding principal tends to be--and rightly should be--"No harm, no foul."

[DulceLabs.com]

As long as no money or commodification is involved, no real claim of damages exists.

 

Sorry, but that is incorrect. Legally, the statutory "damage" occurs as soon as the copyright is infringed, as the owner was deprived of their control of the work. See, there are actual damages (loss of profit) and then there are statutory damages (kind of like "pain and suffering ) . Look up 17 U.S. Code § 504 - Remedies for infringement: Damages and profits.

 

Of course in a practical sense, the chances of getting caught and brought to court are pretty slim in the case of a low-profile musician making a CD of cover songs to give out (or even sell) -- I am just stating what the law says.. And it doesn't say "It's OK if you don't make any money or don't get caught..."

[MathOfInsects]

Legally, the statutory "damage" occurs as soon as the copyright is infringed, as the owner was deprived of their control of the work...I am just stating what the law says.. And it doesn't say "It's OK if you don't make any money or don't get caught..."

 

I know you are, though it's safe to say that section has never and will never be used for the context we're talking about, which is its own message.

 

I think you missed my point again, though, not that I blame you in that wall of words I barfed up. While there are aspects like this written into the edges of many copyright laws, at heart, copyright law is an income-flow protector. Plain and simple. No income or other commodity--reputation, branding, publicity--at stake, no copyright legislation (again, for practical purposes).

 

The old trope goes that the copyright laws in the US get extended every time the earliest Disney films come up for PD. The irony is that those films are often versions of old folk tales. (Which Disney copyrighted...)

 

Anyway, these conversations always get less fun when they turn into who-can-Google-better. I'd be curious what your thoughts are about the hypothetical examples I gave. Have it in you to run them down?