Copyright question

[Dick]

I was just wondering if Meat or anyone could settle for me how the copyright works for his live covers. In particular Gimmie Shelter.
Does copyright still lie with the Stones or as Meat had a silghtly different arrangement etc does he own the copyright, to his live version? Does that make sense?

Cheers,

Richard

[MeatGrl1]

I would think it's with the person who wrote it unless Meat bought it.
For example Michael Jackson bought The Beatles catelouge so he owned the rights to all the Beatles back catelouge and I'm guessing that's how it works, however if Meat didn't do that then the copyright is still the Stones.

Hope that makes sense.

[RadioMaster]

it's not that simple. I believe when you go on stage you can perform whatever the hell you want. think of all those cheap bar tributes and cover bands (no pun intended) for example.
now if you're gonna release it on a record, that's a different matter. I could imagine that you'd have to pay royalties in some way.

[MeatLoafFanRay]

I would think it's with the person who wrote it unless Meat bought it.
For example Michael Jackson bought The Beatles catelouge so he owned the rights to all the Beatles back catelouge and I'm guessing that's how it works, however if Meat didn't do that then the copyright is still the Stones.

Hope that makes sense.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure you're right on that one.

[djfierce]

you pay a fee to the performing rights society, they in turn pay the people who own the copyright to the song, it might not even be the stones, they might have sold it to a publishing company.

I've just done huge essays on this stuff lol, its all very interesting how this works,there are prs companies for each country and they all share information and kind of work for each others interests.

In a perfect world, any band/singer performing someone elses songs, should be a member of the PRS company for their country, its usually a one off fee covering a year's worth of performances and covers them to perform almost any commercially available song out there. All this involves is the singer wishing to do the cover to inform the prs of the songs they intend to do.

[djfierce]

I would think it's with the person who wrote it unless Meat bought it.
For example Michael Jackson bought The Beatles catelouge so he owned the rights to all the Beatles back catelouge and I'm guessing that's how it works, however if Meat didn't do that then the copyright is still the Stones.

Hope that makes sense.

It's not common for that to happen, the beatles thing happened because it passed its ownership date so Michael was able to buy it and make some money from it, which is why about two years ago we saw remastered beatles tracks continuously in the charts for a few months.

But it doesnt happen in the 'normal' music world

it's not that simple. I believe when you go on stage you can perform whatever the hell you want. think of all those cheap bar tributes and cover bands (no pun intended) for example.
now if you're gonna release it on a record, that's a different matter. I could imagine that you'd have to pay royalties in some way.

cheap bar tribute bands and cover bands if they are legal and correct are either members of the prs themselves or it is even possible for the premises to be a member which covers anyone performing there ( i assume they pay a higher fee)

just realised i sound like a smartarse lol sorry about that but i have just handed in 5 very well researched and bloody long assignments on the subject of the business, performing, copyright, licensing etc etc

apparantly sound engineers need to know this stuff :p

[RadioMaster]

lets say I write a song. Could I prevent you from performing it? Cant do I anything against it as long as you pay your fees?

[Dick]

Cheers for the response. My issue is with a video i made and when editing and was trying to find some music and to cut a long story short, Meat's cover of Gimmie Shelter fits the scene better than perfectly. This is bad because it halts me from pulishing it on youtube or openfilm, as i dont want to get sued, or have the sound removed from my sketch. Now you see my dilema.

[djfierce]

well, you as the songwriter should be a member too, the minute you put a song out there commercially, you should be a member, this also covers airplay, you get paid for the average amount of times your song is played.
Yes you can do something if i perform it, you report me to the prs and they sue my arse and pass on the relevant fees and whatever comp is awarded to you, legal cover is a big reason why alot of artists are members, otherwise it's the lengthy and costly procedure of pursuing me on your own 'dime' which you may or may not figure is worth the hassle.
But if you werent a member then it's difficult for you to do so because as long as i have performed with a license or in a venue with a license then i can claim i have done everything i am required to do by the ruling music commision, which in the uk is the BPS who polices this part of the industry via the PRS, they make sure anyone playing or performing music pubicly is licenced to do so, usually spot checking places

[djfierce]

Cheers for the response. My issue is with a video i made and when editing and was trying to find some music and to cut a long story short, Meat's cover of Gimmie Shelter fits the scene better than perfectly. This is bad because it halts me from pulishing it on youtube or openfilm, as i dont want to get sued, or have the sound removed from my sketch. Now you see my dilema.

yea, the likleyhood (sp?) is that you wouldn't get sued for putting a youtube video up though, the worst i've heard of is videos being removed and accounts closed, which i admit still isn't nice.

I see loads of stuff like that on there still, so it's up to you whether you want to risk it lol but just be prepared it might be taken down ;)

[AndrewG]

I believe the whole royalties thing especially in the states is rather screwed up with differrent companies owning different songs sometimes not even all of one artist. You have a big publishing company called Harry Fox, who cater for the majority of artists' royalties but not all. The real pain in the ass comes when someone wants to do a cover and put it out on a cd. You have to pay a line share, a set percentage on that song, however if you go over 5 minutes you have to pay more for each minute. Hence we hardly ever see Meat Loaf / Steinman covers ever reaching the original length.
It's a crappy system in my opinion.

Performing rights are more affordable for bands and establishments I am guessing.

[djfierce]

there are lots of publishing companies, an artist/songwriter sells their rights to these companies, its not the same as performing rights, there can only be one performing rights company for each country. The publishing companies are businessess designed to make it easier for artists to get their music out there (supposedly) but PRS are who collects the royalties, the publishing companies just sit in the artists chair as copyright (not royalty) holders. Alot of artists can be found on publishing companies because most of them are owned by the big record companies, therefore their artists get a free ride.
the lesser well known unsigned artists usually have had their music legally 'stolen' from them.

But as Dick lives outside the U.S none of that applies to him.

[djfierce]

Performing rights are more affordable for bands and establishments I am guessing.

well for the £50 it costs to join for the artist and £40 a month for the venue, i would think that's affordable for any artist out there looking to put their work in the commercial world.


The publisher thing doesnt apply to Dick's question but i mentioned it to correct Meatgrl.
I don't really agree what they do and even the british prs website describe a publishing company like this

A music publisher is a company or individual who enters into an agreement with a writer to exploit the writer’s musical works to the benefit of both parties.

That word exploit kinda sticks with me and says it all really :bleh:

[daveake]

Slightly off-topic, but the UK PRS have a rather aggressive campaign to get not only pubs and clubs to pay for licenses, but pretty much every business in the land to do the same. For example, you walk into a shop and they have a radio turned on, playing a music channel. They need to have a PRS license. Reasonable, you might think. Second scenario - a company has an office with 10 employees and one of them has a radio on his desk. Yes, they need to pay up too. All of these things count, as far as the PRS are concerned, as "public performances". This despite the fact that the radio company already paid. You may think that taking your own CDs to work and playing them would be OK, but no that requires a PRS license too. Even playing a radio in a company car counts as a "public performance"!!

Dave

[allrevvedup]

Agreeing with Ms Fierce on this one as in Ireland IMRO tried cracking down on a lot of songs being played in public.

You'll see a lot of stores and businesses with IMRO stickers which means they are legally allowed to play but in some shops that simply have the radio on IMRO will crack down on it.

In order for me to protect the songs I have written I think i have to have played at least 12 shows or know someone that's already a member of IMRO.

So if Bono is reading this, get me in man:D

[AndyK]

There's a court case ongoing at the moment in the USA where ASCAP are suing a small bar which hasn't payed it's live performance license dues.

ASCAP had cited one particular performance by a local band at this venue, and claim to be sueing on behalf of Bruce Springsteen and some other artists whose names escape me right now, because the band played a couple of Bruce's songs.

Interestingly, Springsteen denied any links to this case and took action to have his name removed from the ASCAP paperwork

There's a couple of discussions on one of the Springsteen forums about thishere (http://www.greasylake.org/the-circuit/index.php?showtopic=94954) and here (http://www.greasylake.org/the-circuit/index.php?showtopic=95076)

[djfierce]

unfortunately they go well over the top, a hairdresser's that has been open for years in my studio managers town had to declare bankrupt and close the business because prs spot checked her and found she played a radio behind the counter. They managed to sue her for the fees plus compensation in lew of the amount of years she had been running the business. The penalty was so much she fell into deep debt and had to sell off her business.

It's the same here Mike, most pubs and clubs will have PRS stickers, even our studio has to have one.

[Bohemian]

just realised i sound like a smartarse lol sorry about that but i have just handed in 5 very well researched and bloody long assignments on the subject of the business, performing, copyright, licensing etc etc



If that's true, then god help us all. Because not even you can get it even remotely right.

Michael Jackson does NOT own the COPYRIGHT of the Beatles songs. The reason they were in the charts again recently has NOTHING, I repeat NOTHING, to do with anything Michael Jackson has done or ever did in the past.

What Michael Jackson owns HALF of (he defaulted the other 'half' to his record company—Sony—effectively to take care of debts that he could not recoup) is the PUBLISHING RIGHTS of the Northern Songs Catalogue. The Northern Songs catalogue contains the songs of Lennon/McCartney more or less until the dissolution of the Beatles, and the songs of George Harrison until 1967.

The COPYRIGHT lies with the artists. ie, the estates of John Lennon and Paul McCartney. Every time they are performed, played etc, the songwriting royalties go straight into Yoko and Paul's pockets. It is the PUBLISHING fee that goes half to Michael Jackson, and half to Sony.

Interstingly, Paul's publishing company MPL owns the songs that the Beatles released before signing with DJM, with whom they later formed Northern Songs. But no one says Boo about Paul getting the publishing fees for Please Please Me, a song written by John? MPL also owns the rights to Buddy Holly's catalogue. Again, no one even knows or cares.

The MJ / Beatles thing is possibly the most misunderstood thing in the history of the interwebs. But Joe Public knows absolutely nothing of copyright at the best of times. :roll:

[Monstro]

So out of curiosity why were they rereleased? Personally I don't believe that Michael Jackson bought what he did just to hang an ownership document on the wall, he must've expected some sort of return on his investment.



The MJ / Beatles thing is possibly the most misunderstood thing in the history of the interwebs. But Joe Public knows absolutely nothing of copyright at the best of times. :roll:

I beg to differ, I'd say the most misunderstood thing on the interwebs is netequette, it's amazing how some people can be so damned rude...

If that's true, then god help us all. Because not even you can get it even remotely right.

[AndyK]

If that's true, then god help us all. Because not even you can get it even remotely right.


If you can't disagree with somone's opinion or views without coming across as antagonistic or looking for an argument, then please dont' bother. Play nice!

[djfierce]

ok so when you as an artist sign a publishing contract which specifies that you are handing over all copyright ownership then you are not really handing it over :roll:there is no such thing as publishing rights, publishing companies own the copyright to their catalogues, there would be no point in them existing otherwise. I posted here to help someone out who politely asked a question, i dont give a flying ~~~~ whether some smartarse thinks they know better, now i know why i left this bloody site, everybody's an expert lol

and just for the record to correct those that didnt read my post properly, i never mentioned anything about MJ owning the copyright or anything to that effect :bleh: if you mean the recent bundles that were released then no they were nothing to do with MJ, as my post said the flutter of singles that we saw in the charts about 2YEARS ago, and how do i know that MJ was behind that? The remastering notes sent out to affiliated studios from the Engineer who did the remastering, thats how!

[Monstro]

Something grabs me I check it out, just read several articles about M Jackson, his company ATV Music and how much income owning the copyright to the beatles catalogue has made...... I just googled "Michael Jackson Income from Beatles Songs", various articles from several reputable sources, all stating that $47 million was a sound investment to pay as the returns are far greater.

Wouldn't mind a slice of that pie lol

[allrevvedup]

Hence why more and more Beatles songs will feature on ads and different things.

If it makes money it'll be flogged to anyone who wants to pay for it. Hence why i'm not sure artist integrity really exists, more justthat everyone has a price (and there's always a debt/bill to pay somewhere)

[MeatGrl1]

Like Jackson 5's Rockin' Robin is now on a bloody Areo's Bubble advert :shock: :roll: !!

[24K]

unfortunately they go well over the top, a hairdresser's that has been open for years in my studio managers town had to declare bankrupt and close the business because prs spot checked her and found she played a radio behind the counter. They managed to sue her for the fees plus compensation in lew of the amount of years she had been running the business. The penalty was so much she fell into deep debt and had to sell off her business.

It's the same here Mike, most pubs and clubs will have PRS stickers, even our studio has to have one.


At the factory, in the company that my hubby used to work for, played a radio over the sounds system, they had paid the fees required but when it came for renewal they wanted obscene money, so the factory stopped playing the music, now everyone has an mp3 player on;)LOL..

[Julie in the rv mirror]

If it makes money it'll be flogged to anyone who wants to pay for it. Hence why i'm not sure artist integrity really exists, more just that everyone has a price (and there's always a debt/bill to pay somewhere)

It does. Back in the '80's, Chrysler offered Bruce Springsteen several million dollars (I don't know the exact figure) to use Born in the USA in a commercial. He turned it down. Last year, after he took a bunch of flack from fans when he agreed to sell a Greatest Hits CD as a Wal-Mart exclusive, he acknowledged that it was a mistake.

I was kind of disappointed to hear Anything for Love used in that steak sauce commercial. :roll:

[Julie in the rv mirror]

Sorry, I meant to include this in my last post and I forgot-

Here is a good article about music copyrights/royalties:

http://www.howstuffworks.com/music-royalties.htm

[daveake]

If it makes money it'll be flogged to anyone who wants to pay for it. Hence why i'm not sure artist integrity really exists, more justthat everyone has a price (and there's always a debt/bill to pay somewhere)

Indeed ...

John Carter Cash, the son of the late Johnny, said Thursday that the estate had agreed to allow the country legend’s likeness and creative property to be used in the branding and marketing of a new ass cream from Blairex Laboratories, the makers of Boudreaux’s Butt Paste. While that topical ointment is for use on the asses of infants and children, the new product will be marketed more for adults with ass discomfort and anal itching.

“Johnny Cash’s Ring of Fire Ass Cream” will begin production in June with expected shipment to Fred’s Dollar Stores across America by the ass-itchingly hot month of August. “This is an exciting new application for the Johnny Cash name and we feel that it will reach an area that hasn’t been reached before” smiled John Carter.

The television advertising campaign will include actual footage of Johnny and June performing “Ring of Fire” in a humorous spot where Johnny leaves the stage suddenly to use the product because his ass hurts. Computer animation will manipulate Johnny’s mouth to say “Woo-wee! That’s good ass cream!”

Some country music historians and Cash fans have criticized the move harshly, calling it gross commercialism and flagrant mismanagement of Cash’s image and legacy. For his part, John Carter sees it as a strategic move to expand his late father’s influence: “Not everybody’s into country music, but everybody’s ass gets itchy or painful, so this will allow people in all walks of life to experience the Man in Black.”

News of “Johnny Cash’s Ring of Fire Ass Cream” follows last month’s release of an album of hip-hop remixes of Cash songs, which was also said by many to be an “ass” product.

:lol: