ozboomer wrote:
Many of the tunes are old-ish, so the ol' "Statute of Limitations" might help me out (some)...
See here http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm
for works in Public Domain, whose copyright has expired or was never in force.
Understand that in some cases, copyrights can be renewed, thus extending the rights.
Right now, most sound recordings are still under copyright protection until at least 2067. The written music may expire sooner - anything after 1923 should still be assumed to be under copyright protection though.
but as I read the Copyright notes on Soundcloud and elsewhere, it >seems I should be talking to the original music publishers for permission to post my recordings (publicly or otherwise)...
Yes, you should be, unless it falls under some Fair Use exemption, such as an excerpt of only certain duration, or for educational purposes, etc. However it should be noted that those exceptions have specificities and generally individuals posting songs or portions of songs actually don't fall under those exemptions even if they think they do.
If you record a song, and distribute it, you owe the publisher money.
..but what happens if I wanted to record and post a cover of a Bambi Molester's tune? What happens if the Bambi Molesters tune is itself a cover? Do I have to consider the original tune... AND the Bambi Molesters' arrangement as separate entities?
Copyright is for Lyrics and Music only. Arrangements are not covered unless they add a specific, identifiable element usually that shows significant creative work by the Arranger, such as a Sammy Nestico arrangement of a Duke Ellington song. Playing the song with different orchestration/instrumentation, or just dropping the bridge or adding an extra chorus does not usually fall under this. IOW, when The Ventures play Telstar, they pay Telstar. When you play it, whether you do The Ventures or The Tornados version, you pay The Tornados.
Does the 'royalties obligation' go through everyone who ever handled >the tune? Are you reading this, Dalibor? Can you shed any light on this? (I'm only using this band as an example, o'course; the questions apply to all sorts of bands, tunes, etc).
No. Basically, it goes to the original Copyright holder (Publisher). In essence, yours is just treated as another arrangement, even if you copy someone else's version.
Remember, I'm simply an "at-home" musician and I have no intention of trying to make any $$$ from my music...
They don't care. They're in business to make money and they want every stinking penny. Why do you think they convinced the government to allow them to renew/extend copyright holdings? Why do you think they go after all these people and places?
It's a myth that "if you don't make any money off it..." you're safe. Unless you're a non-profit meeting a fair use exemption (which, you're not) it doesn't matter whether you make money or not. If you "distribute" it, you're doing so without their permission.
I understand the "Creative Commons" thingo covers MY recording and MY rights (if I include such a statement with my Soundcloud/Facebook posting - this is what the 'archive.org' attributions are about for our annual compilations... Brian?)... but the question still remains about the actual tune I'm covering.
Well, your original work is covered by Copyright laws when it is put into a "fixed form", such as being written down or recorded. Period. Once either of those are done, it falls under Copyright protection automatically.
Creative Commons means you essentially give up your distribution rights. It basically says, anyone can freely distribute this work, but you are still the copyright holder. There are some variations of the licenses you can choose - for example, ones for commercial or non-commercial use. If you selected it could be used for commercial use, Pepsi could use it in an ad and not pay you a dime.
CC basically cuts out the middle man "licensing agencies" allowing you do decide if you want other people to share it with other people or not.
YouTube has (apparently) arranged something with some music publishers (that only cover the US requirements?) so perhaps I'd be Ok if I posted something on YouTube...?
When you play a gig a club, or look at the window next time you go in a place that has live music. They'll have a sticker on the wall for ASCAP/BMI.
Those are the agencies responsible for collecting performance royalties for live music that gets performed there. IOW, THEY pay the licensing fees so that bands can play covers there. My university does the same thing - they have licenses to cover things like Exam Cram concerts where live performances are done. A hotel that hosts receptions that have a DJ - they need to have this license! IOW, it was too hard to collect from performers, so ASCAP/BMI went to collecting from the Venues. The venue pays a blanket fee based on how much they think is going to get played there (which more than covers the fees, and, does NOT pay anything to the original copyright holders, because the music isn't tracked - the publisher keep this all for themselves!).
You Tube has a similar deal.
When I posted some surf tunes, some of them triggered red flags. If you post something with "1999" or "Prince" in the title (or more importantly, both) it will taken down instantaneously because Prince has a team of people working around the clock to make sure none of his music is on YT.
But what YT has is an arrangement that say if this copyrighted material reaches a certain number of plays, YT has to ask the person to take it down. So you can legally post a cover of Dock of the Bay on YT, but, if too many people watch it, they have to pull it.
Other things, they have to pull immediately.
People have "cheated" by not putting the title or the artist in the description, so it doesn't red flag in the system, but that's really illegal most likely. YT will at the very least close your account if you're caught.
In a sense, YT is like a club - they're paying the licensing fees so you don't have to. They treat users like cover bands. But you can't post a "real" version of many things - which just like a club, they have to pay a subscription (satellite radio for example) that covers the fees for "real" music.
I'm not sure how the TVs in sports clubs work, but I think the subscription to cable/sat works the same as that's what most of them seem to have (and if you check out your sat provider, you may see music channels called "Satellite Radio for Businesses" - those channels different subscription rates.
So yes, post it on you tube with the correct title and artist. If it red flags in the system they may require you to pull it, or they may just send you a notice stating it is allowed but you may be asked to pull it if it exceeds a certain amount of hits.
...or is it simply a matter of the $$$ and as long as my postings (on ANY web site) don't go feral with a million hits per hour or something, ThePublishingCompany(tm) couldn't care less about my toy piano cover of Stravinski's "The Rite of Spring"!?
Well, it's when it starts making you money, or more importantly, LOSING money for them that they feel is owed to them. So yes, number of hits is going to be a problem.
No one had a problem in the old days if you bought an album and copied it on to cassette to play in your car. Officially, that was illegal (or rather, infringement) and while things like that become accepted practice and were rarely if ever prosecuted, they could if they wanted to. However, given that you didn't lose them bu 12.95, it probably wasn't worth their time.
But now, a single post can reach millions in a heartbeat. As far as they're concerned, that's a million sales.
I've had a bit of a look around SG101 and other music sites I visit for such discussions... and the postings here by SURFmole and others have simply heightened my sense of paranoia.
I don't think you need to be paranoid, but you need to be responsible.
I haven't checked with Soundcloud, but they may very well have paid the licensing fees for you, such that if you post a cover of a song, as long as it doesn't start attracting too much attention, it would be OK.
It's kind of like, if you were in a cover band and you did Pink Floyd's "The Wall" and played it along with the Movie (as my band did) at a show or two, at places that pay licensing fees, it might be covered under many place's licenses. However, if we started doing sell out shows with it, and the right people caught word, everyone involved would be liable.
Here's the thing: I would stay away from "Making an Album of Covers".
That's not a good idea.
That is usually taken as an intent to distribute (kind of like drugs I suppose).
Licenses are likely to cover your band, recorded live, doing a cover of a song at a show, or you recording all the parts in Garageband an experiment.
But when it starts to look like a "product", that's where you start treading dangerous ground - even if the site has licenses, you have no idea what they actually cover.
If it's to be used for anything remotely commercial, go through a licensing agency.
Last edited: Mar 27, 2016 18:20:34
May Birthdays 
)...
