-
(Apologies if there's all ready a thread on this.)
I was recently reading some threads on this forum, and in one of them there was a lot of discussion about "new standards." I've noticed for awhile that a lot of groups who tend to not be in the forefront of popular music in and outside of jazz--e.g., classical, bluegrass, flamenco--get put on the map doing elaborate covers of Nirvana or Coldplay or Metallica or what have you. I've been trying to hatch up some candidates for covers (feel free to share if you have any ideas
); however, there's the elephant in the room: what do you do about copyright laws? "Unauthorized copying, arranging, adapting, recording or public performance is an infringement of copyright. Infringers are liable under the law." The quote is from the first page of Hal Leonard's Bob Marley songbook. I imagine this is the same for pretty much any popular music, so what's a guy gotta do to write a jazz cover of one of these songs?
I'm not exactly hip to copyright laws from the 40's, 50's and 60's, but I get the impression that covering someone else's song was a little less regulated in that era. Perhaps that's why there isn't a "new standard" per se because it's just too damn difficult to get anything passed the legal part. Perhaps it's a little more simple than that. Anyone know more about this than I do?
Thanks!
Justin
-
01-21-2013 07:36 PM
-
I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, blah blah blah. I am, however, a concerned musician and I've done pretty extensive research in the matter
The problem that really confounds the matter concerning copyright and music is that there is not only one "degree" of copyright to worry about:
If you want to record a copyrighted song or arrangement thereof and put in on an album or DVD you intend to distribute (i.e. NOT for personal use), you need to get a "mechanical license". In the US, I believe these are obtained from the Harry Fox Agency
If you just want to perform the tune whether in its original form or an arrangement, you need performance rights, though this is usually the responsibility of the venue. These rights are obtained from agencies such as ASCAP or BMI
If you want to distribute a sheet music arrangement that you make, whether for commercial reasons or just for your friends/band/church group/whatever, then you need to obtain print rights. I don't think there is a particular agency for this, other than getting permission directly from the copyright holder or sheet music publisher.
Incidentally, unless youtube changed something, it was perfectly legit to put up videos of your own interpretations of copyrighted songs/tunes. I think youtube was/is considered a venue in this regard and therefore it's their responsibility to obtain the rights for performances. The reason one can't legally put up other copyrighted songs/music videos is because one needs to have a license to distribute the recording...
For instance, using Nirvana as an example, you can put up a video of your own rendition of "All Apologies" because for all sakes and purposes the video streaming from the youtube site itself is considered a performance. You can NOT, however, put up the rendition of "All Apologies" from either the Unplugged CD or DVD video because, in addition to the copyright of the song itself, there is also another copyright on the recording.
Standard boilerplate... Basically, buying a book of sheet music doesn't confer any other rights other than the right to practice and play the songs/tunes for personal use. If you want to perform the same songs from the book you'll still need to have the performance rights (again, usually provided by the venue you'll be performing in), and if you want to record the song for anything other than personal use you'll need to get a mechanical license..."Unauthorized copying, arranging, adapting, recording or public performance is an infringement of copyright. Infringers are liable under the law." The quote is from the first page of Hal Leonard's Bob Marley songbook.
Clear as mud, amirite?
EDIT: this goes for all copyrighted music, not just contemporary stuff. You'll need to get permission for virtually all jazz and popular music, unless it's in the public domain (i.e. classical music) or you write it yourself and thus own the copyright. Seriously, almost all of it is still protected under copyright.Last edited by jckoto3; 01-21-2013 at 08:35 PM.
-
to make things worse the government keeps extending how long copyright lasts before songs become public domain. The easiest way to look at it is whatever your doing with someone else's song your probably violating copyright.
-
jckoto3 has posted a good summary of the applicable copyright procedures for musicians. very clear.
-
So all of the performances in the Showcase section of this forum among many other areas in the forum breach copyright laws? Yikes.
-
Shhh.
-
There's an educational use defence/exclusion to copyright, which MAY cover the items in this forum.
Originally Posted by ColinO
BTW, I'm not sure that the comments above, relating to Youtube taking responsibility for the items they host, is correct. I believe that responsibility lies with whoever uploads the files.
I'm not an legal expert.
-
This is the site on songs that are in the public domain: PD Info-Public Domain and Royalty Free Music
It pretty much confirms what jckoto3 said: "Music and lyrics published in 1922 or earlier are in the public domain in the United States. No one can claim ownership of a song in the public domain, therefore public domain songs may be used by anyone. Music recordings, however, are copyright protected separately from musical compositions. There are no sound recordings in the public domain in the USA."
It appears that 90 years is the benchmark.
So, basically any home recording that I do and distribute myself is violation of copyright if it's not my music. But Youtube is ok (and soundcloud as well?).
And with venues, let's say I got a gig at a restaurant or wherever playing standards. The restaurant, bar, lounge etc. is considered in this case a venue and it's their responsibility to obtain the rights to performance?
They make it so complicated don't they!
Thanks for the info!
-
oh, probably shoulda posted this, too.
Digital Licenses
"Do I Need a Mechanical License?
If you are manufacturing and distributing copies of a song which you did not write, and you have not already reached an agreement with the song's publisher, you need to obtain a mechanical license. This is required under U.S. Copyright Law, regardless of whether or not you are selling the copies that you made.
You do not need a mechanical license if you are recording and distributing a song you wrote yourself, or if the song is in the public domain. If you are not sure if the song you are looking to license is in the public domain, and therefore does not require license authority, we suggest you use the search on www.pdinfo.com."
-
About posting covers/arrangements on youtube: It seems you're right, youtube has changed something since I last checked a few years ago. From their FAQ: Originally Posted by ohlcv
[Emphasis mine] ...so there you go, eh? They don't just come out and say "no", but they can't say "yes" either.Recording a cover version of your favorite song does not necessarily give you the right to upload that recording without permission from the owner of the underlying music (e.g. the songwriter).
It's actually far more confusing than that since youtube has done a lot of back-room haggling with the major music publishers in order to obtain certain rights for the users of the site, yet it's nearly impossible for a normal user to find out exactly what these rights are..
-
All of this begs the question, does anyone care? lol
-
Actually, yes, many of us musicians and people of other professions who create non-physical goods for a living really do care. Originally Posted by Jesterbob
-
Amazing how people who wouldn't take as much as a paper clip from work, will download music, movies, books, software and don't think twice about it. Like to see there reaction when time for them to get paid and were told sorry some guys took your check and made copies of it and gave it to their friends. Originally Posted by jckoto3
-
Intellectual property is a strange concept. Unlike a paperclip, when you take a song or an idea, the owner still has it. When's the last time you thought to pay the inventor of the wheel(or his decendants) for your use of it? Or electricity?
There are 12 notes. It's very difficult to claim ownership of the arrangement of those notes on any particular order and it is a difficult right to enforce.
Personally, I would prefer to see no intellectual property rights, but that is a phylisophical point of view - and not a popular one.
It's an interesting and emotionally charged issue. That said, the law is the law and one would be wise to follow it.
-
Theft of intellectual property has made it very hard for every professional musician to feed their kids. It's a fact. How low is it to steal food from the mouths of children? It's a reflection on an ignorant and selfish culture.
Last edited by cosmic gumbo; 01-23-2013 at 06:04 PM.
-
I agree, and it's affecting all sorts of industries - software, publishing, movies, etc etc. Originally Posted by cosmic gumbo
Copyright recognises the fact that intellectual work takes talent and time and often financial investment and has commercially exploitable value. We live in a world where more and more work is intellectual work rather than manufacturing. The creator of this work is free to offer the work "for free" if they want to. But the copyright conditions are the creator's choice and in any civilised and mature society they must be respected.Last edited by Bill C; 01-23-2013 at 06:41 PM. Reason: clarification
-
I doubt that is a fact that you could prove empirically. But starving children are always a forceful argument in lieu of facts. It's interesting that your selective indignation probably does not extend to chord progressions.
-
Er, speaking of facts, chord progressions are not protected under copyright hence all the contrafact tunes (e.g. tunes based off of rhythm changes, blues changes, etc) during the bebop era -- None of those guys legally needed to get any permission to use these progressions. It's not "selective indignation", but a matter of law. Originally Posted by ColinO
-
You are right...chord progressions are not protected under copyright laws. Care to hazard a theory as to why that is as opposed to melodies? Given the infinitely more varied the possibilities are for different chord progression than there are for different melodic progressions, I find that odd.
I thought it was a case in point when Joe Satriani went after Cold Play for ripping his melody off and then was confronted on Youtube with about 100 previous songs with the same melody way back to Cat Steven I think it was in the early 70s.
In any event, as I say, follow the law. Whatever you do, don't question the law.
-
Legalities aside, a chord progression doesn't actually specify which notes to play, so maybe that's why it never became subject to copyright.
-
I'm not sure what you mean. There are many, many songs in which the same notes are played in the chord progression (should I name every blues shuffle ever played? or about a thousand standard ii V I progressions? If I play the same melody a half step up is that different? Then why so chords? Seems kind of arbitrary to me.
-
I haven't read every response, so sorry if I'm repeating something. But what I read somewhere is that all establishments that have music played (either via a CD or live musicians) have to pay a royalty fee to the big music licensing companies (like BMI). This money is supposed to cover the cost of "licensing" the music they are playing. I know it's a much more complicated process than I have written here, but that is it in a nutshell. So this why bands can play covers in establishments and not have to worry about that s***.
Again, this is just something I read somewhere. I don't know for 100% sure if this is completely accurate. But it makes sense. I've never heard of any cover bands being sued, have you? They play locally all the time. And have been for as long as there have been restaraunts, bars & nightclubs.
-
I remember when Lumpy Funicci owned all the jukeboxes in Kettle Hill county, and you needed a special license from him.
-
They go after the restaurant, bar, nightclubs, and even retail businesses that have/play music to pay the royalties. Like a radio station keep a playlists so royalties can be paid, clubs who has been nailed by one of the agencies will ask bands to fill out lists of the songs performed. I remember playing a Country bar above the stage out of audience view were signs saying "Please refrain from playing ASCAP songs", ASCAP was one of the first agencies to get nasty with clubs. Also why to you think TV stations try to avoid their people singing Happy Birthday, there are two old ladies who own the copyright on it and are vicious about collecting their royalties. Originally Posted by Guitarzen
My last job was in Media for a large church when we were just doing local services we were never hassled about royalties for songs the guest singers performed. Then like many churches today we start streaming services on the internet, then they started hitting us for tracking songs and paying royalties. So we had to started having to use artists doing original material and sign a release for our use.Last edited by docbop; 01-24-2013 at 12:48 AM.
-
My point was that if a tune specifies, say Bm, E7, Ama7 there are probably hundreds of actual note combinations I could use to play that progression. Originally Posted by ColinO
Reply With Quote
Autumn Leaves (Fingerstyle Chord Melody)
Yesterday, 11:56 PM in Improvisation