PG Music Home Forums General Discussion Off-Topic Copyright laws and sharing homemade cover songs?

Rob is correct. The guy who made the recording does not hold a copyright on the sound that train made. He holds/held the copyright on the recording he made. I'm not even sure it falls under the category of "intellectual property". Maybe it does. Maybe it doesn't. I'm not a lawyer. The Beach Boys (or more likely and accurately, the record company) saved some money by licensing the recording instead of recording it themselves. That is at least a part of the value of the copyright.

It's the difference (in the old but still used model) between copyrights on a song and copyrights on the recording of said song. The former is held by the publisher of record. The latter is held by the "record company". The latter don't "own the song", just the recording. In fact, they pay the "owner of the song"...a statutory amount. Covers (no matter how closely they resemble the recorded version) have nothing to do with the latter...only the former.

I curious about how all this works in synchronization rights. I know you can't put a Led Zeppelin song in your film without explicit permission from either the publisher, record company, or both. And I'm pretty certain that the rates are not statutory, but negotiated and contractual. But I don't know who gets paid or how.

------

"You are right, Captain. I do babble." Data, Star Trek the Next Generation.

All this is very interesting but the original question is going off the rails, haha. To bring this train back on track...

Yes, we can post a cover on YouTube. Yes, YT may take it down. No, it doesn't appear that causes any problems with the uploader, the vid gets taken down, s/he moves on. No harm, no foul, right? Welll, not quite imho.

From Google's Help page concerning this:

It’s up to the copyright owners to decide whether or not others can reuse their original material. Copyright owners often allow their content to be used in YouTube videos in exchange for having ads run on those videos. These ads may play before the video or during it (if the video is longer than 10 minutes).

It's up to the copyright owner to decide. There is the moral rub because YT is forcing those owners to police YT looking for illegal uploads. It's also the answer to Rogers question that the owners do not get paid if YT doesn't have a huge database for that. According to this they don't need that because they simply wait for an owner to contact them first. Now they know who it is and now they know who to pay if they want to get paid. If they don't then YT will happily take it down.

If the rights holder is a huge corporation then I'm sure this is not an issue. They probably have some automatic algo that searches YT continually looking for this. But if it's an individual that's a burden to put on them but then maybe not. Maybe there is free or inexpensive software that can do that for them too. If not then they have to spend time maybe monthly to do YT searches and then the question is how to search?

If the uploader doesn't put the name of the song in the title, how do they search? YT itself apparently knows by their software that it's a copyrighted song but they don't automatically remove it, they wait for the owner to contact them. I may be wrong but it sounds like a catch 22 at that point. But OTH, if there's no or an incorrect song title then nobody else is going to hear it either except by accident. For the purposes of posting a cover just to show family and friends or for me perhaps to post a Biab version of a copywritten song just to demo how Biab works, I don't see any harm there because the link would need to be posted on this forum for example or to your friends only, the general public including the rights holder would never find it anyway.

Anyway, from a legal POV it seems like it's ok to post covers on YouTube and Soundcloud and probably others who use that same system. If someone is morally bothered by the fact that the burden is on the rights holder to catch it then don't do it.

Bob

Bob (jazzmammal),

I like the clarity that you bring to the table on this. Thank you.

I'm pretty sure that covers have often been played in situations such as weddings, coffee shops, small gatherings, etc., without the necessary copyright clearance always being obtained. With the aid of Google, I imagine it's much easier to search Youtube for covers than it is to police all the weddings, coffee shops, etc., around the world.

Noel

Another bit of info for YouTube users. As everyone has explained they will either monetize or take down your video if it gets reported by its owner. BUT, if you get multiple takedown requests YouTube can and will kill your account!

There is no doubt in my mind that there are coffee shops, wedding venues, even bars and such that do not acquire a license to play copy written material so as to pay royalties. (Bear in mind live cover music requires a different license from recording covers) I’m just as sure that for many that upload to YouTube feel that it’s fine to post others property, since it will either not be discovered, yet removed, or have ads embedded to monetize it. That is their business. Heck I have to admit I have played live music including covers. Not for pay but still. I will say I purchased my backing tracks from companies that carry a license. Everyone has a different view and happily each gets to decide what they want to do in this regard.

The only point I am making is, and the reason I used the term “morally” is that what is right and wrong is not defined by what one gets away with, or what other people, any organization, or group says. Right or wrong is defined by what is moral. What is legal, and fair. Stealing is stealing, taking what is not yours is theft. Using the lawnmower again, if I take my neighbors lawnmower use it, post it online sell it, and give the money back to my neighbor. I still stole it, because I did not have permission to use, post it, or resell it. This my view and while I respect that others is different, and I also respect their right to that view I am unlikely to change mine.

I can't help but wonder how many people technically violated copyright law by singing one of John Prine's songs as a tribute to him recently after we lost him.

I feel safe in saying that not all of them had paid rights to sing and post videos honoring him.

On the other hand, I can't imagine John being upset about it or wanting a take down notice to be issued to them or worse.

Hey, the guy just died, lets rip off his song..... Bwahahahahahahahahahaha.... yeah I know its not funny.... but it is a bit ironic.

I have a book about the business and legal aspects of music law. It's over 600 pages and I did try to find the section that dealt with this. UNsuccessfully.

Essentially, what you say is generally correct. Titles and chord progressions are not copyrightable under most circumstances. All the rock and rollers and blues guys are thankful for that.... the 1-4-5 progression is a standard.

However..... there is a point where the progression can be problematic. When the chord progression to a song is so unique that simply playing the chords with no melody indicates immediately to the listener the song's name.... it can in fact be a copyrightable situation. The argument would be.... do the chords to yesterday amount to that point?

F Em7 A7 Dm Dm/C

Yesterday all my troubles seemed so far away

Bb C7 Bb F C Dm G7 Bb F

Now it looks as though they're here to stay oh I believe in yesterday



[Verse 2]

F Em7 A7 Dm Dm/C

Suddenly I'm not half the man I used to be

Bb C7 Bb F C Dm G7 Bb F

there's a shadow hanging over me oh yesterday came suddenly



[Chorus]

Em7 A7 Dm Dm/C Bb Gm C F

Why she had to go I don't know she wouldn't say

Em7 A7 Dm Dm/C Bb Gm C F

I said something wrong now I long for yesterday


That would be for a jury and judge to decide. Above my pay grade. To reply to the question you posed.... Using this unique chord progression and naming it Yesterday..... I think that's a little too much of a stretch to call it a random musical event. Especially when the timing also falls into place.

If you were on that jury, how would you decide?

You are correct, and I'm wrong.

Darned it, you made me do more research!

A legal entity doesn't own the "copyright" to the chords, in the sense that no one else can use the progression.

But they do have the right to prevent the song from being intentionally copied in a way that has "substantial similarity" to the song.

An infringement case has to prove two things: "access" and "substantial similarity."

If the defendant can prove that they came up with the progression on their own, there's no infringment, even if the two songs are identical. Which means their version isn't a "copy", so no rights were infringed.

So in your example, given how ubiquitous the song is, it would be fairly easy to demonstrate "access" as well as "substantial similarity."

Interesting. I wonder how does that affect nearly every twelve-bar blues ever written?

And what about 1-6-4-5 progressions?

Many of them sound exactly the same.

If I went to 12 bars I would definitely get the blues! Can I take Herbs lawn mower on Charlie’s train and not get sued? These are questions I ponder!

I don't know which is worse--David being wrong or Herb being right.

(Do not copy/paste that comment anywhere. All rights reserved.)

I don't really have a dog in this race. I don't usually care for covers, unless whoever does it takes ownership (creative, not legal). I don't play an instrument well enough to benefit from "backing tracks"--and I certainly don't want to sing along. *shudders*. It's just that there are a lot of terms being inserted that may or may not apply to the OP's request (remember him/her?) and a lot of ambiguity in the request itself.

TECHNICALLY, YouTube is a video sharing site. You can't upload an .mp3 or other recognized audio file. TECHNICALLY, the license required would be a Synch license for music included in a video or film.

PRACTICALLY, there is no way for essentially any less-than-professional entity to secure a Synch license. So PRACTICALLY, YouTube resorts to other options, and responds to Copyright holders. Lawyers are not hippies. Lawsuits are not going to be filed if there are no damages to collect.

I have done two covers for inclusion on a standard CD release. I paid (through HFA) license for inclusion in a limited run to Bill Withers for Ain't No Sunshine. I did not sell enough CD's to pay for a stack of Blank CD's, but am happy that MR. Withers got a few dollars up-front. I attempted to locate the copyright holder of the other song, but it/they were not listed at HFA. So I sent a letter with my intentions* to the publisher of record and asked where I might send a check. I received no reply. Why not? Because is just wasn't worth the trouble and angst.

In neither case did I release the CD for streaming.

Perhaps I should not have included that second cover. Less than 10 individuals purchased a recording of me covering that song. There must be a special place in Hell for such as me. Anyway, just wanted to confess my sins.

I've done a small number of covers besides those only available at free streaming services. My only payment was listens and comments. Copyright holders and their lawyers can have them all. I did no damage to those copyrights, and may have even helped sell a few downloads or hard-copies of the originals, if only to wash out the bad taste of my cover from their ears.

Intent is important, both in law and morals. Read the YouTube terms of service and abide by it. Do all possible to see that Song-writers are compensated for their contribution to your hobby.

And I hereby swear that never again will I publicly perform whether in person or via recording someone else's creative work to an audience beyond my long-suffering family and/or close friends (of which I would expect to have fewer in the event of said performance) without implied consent and due compensation. So help me God.





* Yes, "intentions". Right or wrong, you don't need explicit permission to cover and release a song in a song format unless it is a "derivative" work. Take that, hippies.

http://ostrowesq.com/no-you-dont-own-your-arrangement-of-that-hit-song/

Okay Tangster that was funny and entertaining.

That right there's funny, I don't care who you are..... wait that too might be a copyrighted phrase..... that fat redneck comedian guy who likes to say "poop" a lot.

Oh what the hey... have your lawyer call my lawyer and we'll see what we can work out.

Well all the blues songs sound the same. Yesterday doesn't. Do you realize how many rock bands would never have released a single song if the 1-4-5-6 or 1-6-4-5 progressions were copyrighted....????

I think I will now go a plagiarize a C-F-G progression and claim it as my own. I might raise it a few steps to E-A-B to throw off the copyright claimants. You reckon they'll notice?

Only a redneck hillbilly North Carolinian would say reckon, ... er I reckon!

Turns and runs away!

Interesting complicated stuff, So just wondering as there are third party Fake disks with the format outlined just as you have described above (in my humble opinion anyway) so what you are saying is, this could well fall into the Copyright Infringement trap, and to muddle the waters even further, if an end user was to buy this particular Beatles Fake disk knowing the above they could get into trouble too.

I know the above is 99.99 % unlikely to happen either for the creator of a fake disk or the customer buying it, but what once seemed clear cut as being totally within the law, ie, chords or a title can't be Copyrighted, now no longer seems so, particularly if its a unique set of chords to a particular song and the Title of the song is clearly shown in a disk.