[quote name='AdamWoodBass' timestamp='1497637448' post='3319747']
Would it not have been Cullum's label paid Radiohead's label? I know that's semantics but in this topic semantics matter don't they? Not trying to be facetious about it, it's really complex when it comes to actual legal entities being that either Radiohead the artist owns the copyright or the label which Radiohead are signed to owns the copyright.
I know nothing about this sort of stuff and find the whole legal landscape quite intimidating!
[/quote]
Of course that is possible.
It's also possible that the writers of the music have sold the mechanical rights and publishing rights separately. Or kept one and not the other.
The point is, we don't know. All we know or at least can guess with some accuracy, is that there will have been a fee.
The semantics are only applicable to an individual matter and not a general rule to be assumed for relationships between other artists and their labels.
However the basic rule remains the same: someone (it matters not who) owns the rights to a piece of music. Anyone else who wants to do more with it than play it in a pub will need to obtain permission.
That permission might be cheap or expensive. It might be free. It might cost your house. The point is you don't know, and you won't know until you locate the rights holders and ask them. Some artists love covers and allow it for £1. Some don't allow it at any price.
If you find the rights holders (easy) then they are most likely to offer you terms. After all they want other ways of making money from their product.
They will send you a contract. It might be good terms. It might be horrific.
If you sign it without getting advice from a music lawyer then you are mental.