Advice needed on music copyright

[Musky]

[quote name='redstriper' post='1050782' date='Dec 7 2010, 05:41 PM']Can you provide some examples ?
I have never heard of anyone being prevented from using works providing the royalties are correctly assigned.
They may get sued or investigated by PRS and have to re-assign royalties, but they are not stopped from using them permanently - or am I wrong here ?[/quote]
Way back in the mid/late seventies I remember a case reported in the NME where Led Zeppelin prevented someone covering Stairway to Heaven, on the grounds that it was derogatory. I can't remember whether it had actually been released or was about to be released, but I do remember that the journalist wasn't overjoyed with the news as he thought it was a good version.

I don't remember who was responsible for the cover, and don't think I'd ever heard of them even at the time.

Edited December 7, 2010 by Musky

[BigRedX]

[quote name='redstriper' post='1050575' date='Dec 7 2010, 02:32 PM']PRS make considerable efforts to prevent copyright theft (like taking on Google and other online distributors) because it affects performance royalties for their members and these two 'entirely different things' are closely connected.[/quote]
I'm sure cetera will be along shortly to put us all right, but...

AFAIK the PRS/Google disagreement was all about performance royalties.

The PRS had determined that Google as owners of YouTube need to pay more for their licence to "broadcast" YouTube content to the UK (which is the area that the PRS collects royalties from/for.

Google disagreed and retaliated by restricting UK access to some the YouTube content.

While there undoubtedly is a lot of YouTube content that amounts to copyright theft, that's not the reason why in UK you can't access all of the YouTube videos.

[icastle]

[quote name='Musky' post='1051032' date='Dec 7 2010, 08:59 PM']Way back in the mid/late seventies I remember a case reported in the NME where Led Zeppelin prevented someone covering Stairway to Heaven, on the grounds that it was derogatory. I can't remember whether it had actually been released or was about to be released, but I do remember that the journalist wasn't overjoyed with the news as he thought it was a good version.

I don't remember who was responsible for the cover, and don't think I'd ever heard of them even at the time. [/quote]

It's been covered loads of times - even Rolf Harris and Dolly Parton have done covers of it!
I remember one done back in the 80's that was a cut down version and far shorter than the original, but I think they were a 'one hit wonder' whose name escapes me.-

Edited December 8, 2010 by icastle

[Musky]

[quote name='icastle' post='1051645' date='Dec 8 2010, 01:38 PM']It's been covered loads of times - even Rolf Harris and Dolly Parton have done covers of it!
I remember one done back in the 80's that was a cut down version and far shorter than the original, but I think they were a 'one hit wonder' whose name escapes me.-[/quote]

Indeed. Dread Zeppelin even counted Robert Plant as a fan apparently.

I really don't remember enough of the details to have any idea why Led Zep would have wanted an injunction to prevent the release of a cover, but in the seventies rock was Serious Business - perhaps they just didn't like the idea of someone taking their art in vain. Or perhaps it was something more prosaic.

[Beedster]

Guys

I'd completely forgotten I'd posted this, so many apologies for my absence and many thanks for the responses. Having read the posts I'm a little confused, so I'll re-read and see if I can get things any clearer.

The main concerns are that there are three songs which we, and a few other people, believe have legs as songs in their own right (i.e., over and above the recorded performances). There is a balance of enthusiasm to get the music out there and, given that there's been some tentative talk of trying to sell the songs to other performers, nervousness about doing so. Is a publishing deal perhaps the best bet here?

Cheers

Chris

[icastle]

[quote name='Musky' post='1052067' date='Dec 8 2010, 08:13 PM']perhaps they just didn't like the idea of someone taking their art in vain.[/quote]

Hmmm - my recollection of them was that I found that the album covers were far more interesting than the contents...

[Jase]

[quote name='Beedster' post='1052070' date='Dec 8 2010, 08:22 PM']Guys

I'd completely forgotten I'd posted this, so many apologies for my absence and many thanks for the responses. Having read the posts I'm a little confused, so I'll re-read and see if I can get things any clearer.

The main concerns are that there are three songs which we, and a few other people, believe have legs as songs in their own right (i.e., over and above the recorded performances). There is a balance of enthusiasm to get the music out there and, given that there's been some tentative talk of trying to sell the songs to other performers, nervousness about doing so. Is a publishing deal perhaps the best bet here?

Cheers

Chris[/quote]

If you're thinking of selling your songs to other performers maybe you should see a music lawyer? Things may seem friendly, everybody may get on well etc but you really should safe guard your material.

[flyfisher]

[quote name='Lenny B' post='1050996' date='Dec 7 2010, 08:33 PM']And I'm a lawyer, so please take my word for it - there are the famous sampling infringement cases (Robbie Williams v Ludlow off the top of my head) and thousands of other claims and cases that don't get reported.[/quote]
May I ask something that's always puzzled me? Is it true that when you sue someone it has to be for 'damages'?

In the case of someone copying your song, re-recording it and releasing it as a chart-busting success the damages are, I guess, fairly clear. They've made a bunch of money using your original song, so you sue them for the value of the money they made (which should have been yours) plus a bit for your time and trouble. Fair enough.

But what about the case of a pub band that plays for nothing but steals your song? They're not making any money from your material, just performing it for their own pleasure. Can they be sued to prevent them playing your song? What would the 'damages' be?

[BigRedX]

I think one of the reasons that a lot of people here get confused over the various aspects of music copyright is because there are two separate things that are covered: The Work, and The Performance.

The Work, is basically the song (or music for an instrumental). This is not a recording or the score, but the actual song song itself. Although there have been moves to change this, the way the law currently stands AFAIK is that once The Work has been performed in public anyone else can then also perform it. The Work itself still belongs to the person/people who wrote it and they will be eligible for performance royalties from anyone who performs it (whether or not they actually see any performance royalties will depend on the composers being members of the relevant organisations - in the UK the PRS - and whether the performance has been logged at a detail that records individual songs being played).

The reason that anyone can perform a Work is due to the way that music used to be 'consumed'. Before record players, the only performance was the live performance. Also the songwriters/composers and performers were generally different people. As a songwriter you relied on other people performing your songs in order for them to be heard, so it was in the songwriter's interest to have as many people as possible performing their songs. The songwriter makes money from the work generally through performance royalties (which are split between the author, composer and publisher (if there is one), or occasionally as a one-off payment for the work when a music publisher buys it outright (in which case the publisher then gets the performance royalties).

It is possible to stop performances of your Works if it can be proved that they are being used in a manner that is derogatory to the original.

The Performance is the actual act of playing The Work. This will usually mean a permanent recording of the work. The copyright on a Performance
belong to whoever owns the original recording (either a record company or the musicians who played on the record or a combination of both).

This is the main reason why artists who include samples in their songs end up making little or no money off these songs as they to pay royalties for both The Work (usually the composers of the sampled Work become co-composers of the new Work) and also The Performance that they sampled.


--------


To the OP:

If your looking primarily at getting other people to cover the songs rather than original songwriter, you are probably getting to need to look at getting a publishing deal. You will need a music lawyer to help you get the best deal, and it might be a good idea to find someone who you are comfortable dealing with first before you start looking for Publishers and have to get something sorted out quickly in order to decide whether to take the deal(s) being offered.

Good luck!

[BigRedX]

[quote name='flyfisher' post='1052317' date='Dec 9 2010, 01:19 AM']May I ask something that's always puzzled me? Is it true that when you sue someone it has to be for 'damages'?

In the case of someone copying your song, re-recording it and releasing it as a chart-busting success the damages are, I guess, fairly clear. They've made a bunch of money using your original song, so you sue them for the value of the money they made (which should have been yours) plus a bit for your time and trouble. Fair enough.

But what about the case of a pub band that plays for nothing but steals your song? They're not making any money from your material, just performing it for their own pleasure. Can they be sued to prevent them playing your song? What would the 'damages' be?[/quote]
This is only a problem if the performers in question are claiming that they wrote the song rather than the person who actually did.

If someone records a "chart-busting" version of your song then join the PRS and sit back and enjoy the royalties as they come in!

The covers band playing your song down the pub are also paying royalties for playing your song although indirectly. The venue should have a PRS license in order to have live or recorded music playing. If the performance was logged and the band playing filled in the song sheet correctly then you may see a very small amount of money. However it is pretty much impossible to log every song from every live performance every day in the UK and then match those up with the relevant songwritters, so it doesn't happen very often.

[Lenny B]

[quote name='BigRedX' post='1052541' date='Dec 9 2010, 11:01 AM']This is only a problem if the performers in question are claiming that they wrote the song rather than the person who actually did.

If someone records a "chart-busting" version of your song then join the PRS and sit back and enjoy the royalties as they come in!

The covers band playing your song down the pub are also paying royalties for playing your song although indirectly. The venue should have a PRS license in order to have live or recorded music playing. If the performance was logged and the band playing filled in the song sheet correctly then you may see a very small amount of money. However it is pretty much impossible to log every song from every live performance every day in the UK and then match those up with the relevant songwritters, so it doesn't happen very often.[/quote]



The above is dependent on you joining the PRS first!

You genereally don't need permission to record and release a song registered with the MCPS provided that it has already been released (you can't do the first released version) - however, arrangements or adaptations need permission

Damages are based upon what your quantifiable loss would be - for a pub band playing your songs, that's pretty much nothing - that is if you're not a PRS member - if you are a member, then the venue should (theoretically) be paying something. But you could also (provided you've the money and inclination) apply for a court order preventing them from doing so again.

[tauzero]

[quote name='icastle' post='1051645' date='Dec 8 2010, 01:38 PM']I remember one done back in the 80's that was a cut down version and far shorter than the original, but I think they were a 'one hit wonder' whose name escapes me.-[/quote]
Far Corporation. An un-named bunch of Machiavellian chancers, they played their cover version down the phone to Robert Plant and asked him what he thought of the song and what they should call the band. They thought he replied "Far Corp".

This may not be entirely historically accurate.

[icastle]

[quote name='tauzero' post='1054203' date='Dec 10 2010, 04:16 PM']Far Corporation. An un-named bunch of Machiavellian chancers, they played their cover version down the phone to Robert Plant and asked him what he thought of the song and what they should call the band. They thought he replied "Far Corp".

This may not be entirely historically accurate.[/quote]