Snippet Copyright question

[mkdominatr]

I had a discussion with a friend of mine about cover songs and also the snippets of songs U2 does live in concert. According to him they have to pay for the right to those songs, but I wasn't so sure. Just wondering if anyone knew the answer to that?

 

[bsp77]

I believe they have to pay for the rights if they sell the live songs (CD or DVD) but if they just cover it in concert, they don't have to pay.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

each situation is different... sometimes they get permission to use it, sometimes it's on the same record label and it doesn't matter, sometimes they remove it to avoid having to pay for it (see america removed from bullet the blue sky on the popmart video)

as far as simply playing it in concert? they don't have to pay for that.

 

[Popmartijn]

I had a discussion with a friend of mine about cover songs and also the snippets of songs U2 does live in concert. According to him they have to pay for the right to those songs, but I wasn't so sure. Just wondering if anyone knew the answer to that?

Yes your friend is correct. For every public performance of a song, a payment has to be made to the rights association of that country. Usually, it's the promoter/venue owner paying for the rights, not the artists themselves. I'm not 100% sure if this also goes for snippets of songs, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is.
BTW, the payment is also for their own songs (although they get part of that money back with their publishing money, but still...).

 

[The Disciple]

I believe they have to pay for the rights if they sell the live songs (CD or DVD) but if they just cover it in concert, they don't have to pay.

I agree.

 

[Niceman]

I believe they have to pay for the rights if they sell the live songs (CD or DVD) but if they just cover it in concert, they don't have to pay.

Pretty positive.

 

[craigp]

I believe they have to pay for the rights if they sell the live songs (CD or DVD) but if they just cover it in concert, they don't have to pay.

hence why "send in the clowns" was edited from uabrs during the "the electric co" , u2 didnt have enough money to pay for the song (seems unreal these days! ) to be featured so it was left out of most versions of the cd/vhs

 

[vaz02]

Does paul mccartney own the rights to happy birthday ?

 

[mkdominatr]

Just interesting how they have to pay to play their own songs. I understand how it comes back at them though...

 

[Niceman]

Just interesting how they have to pay to play their own songs. I understand how it comes back at them though...

They don't have to pay anyone to play their own songs.

 

[craigp]

Just interesting how they have to pay to play their own songs. I understand how it comes back at them though...

here edge, heres €100. can i sing van diemens land now??

 

[BVS]

Re: Re: Snippet Copyright question

Yes your friend is correct. For every public performance of a song, a payment has to be made to the rights association of that country. Usually, it's the promoter/venue owner paying for the rights, not the artists themselves.

How is this possible? How would you regulate it? What about cover bands?

I'm not sure if this is correct.

 

[Niceman]

You do not need rights to play a song! It's as simple as that. To sell a recording of a song is another matter.

 

[Popmartijn]

Re: Re: Re: Snippet Copyright question

How is this possible? How would you regulate it? What about cover bands?

I'm not sure if this is correct.

http://www.ascap.com/licensing/licensingfaq.html

And I'm sure these answers are the same for other rights associations.

 

[~BrightestStar~]

I would imagine it would be similar to how radio stations pay?
I recall reading about a few years back (so it may be outdated now), that it was basically based on an honour system. A radio station would say we played your song approx X number of times, here's your cash.
Of course, this system was abused, which is what the article was actually about.

 

[U2DMfan]

They probably have some sort of blanket license that allows them to play next to anything for a flat rate. That's what I read once.

As far as cover bands, it wouldn't be worth the effort to collect royalties both from a PR standpoint and it would likely cost more to file for it than the royalties themselves. Besides the fact it can't legitimately be enforced. That's just a my guess.

 

[coolian2]

As far as cover bands, it wouldn't be worth the effort to collect royalties both from a PR standpoint and it would likely cost more to file for it than the royalties themselves. Besides the fact it can't legitimately be enforced. That's just a my guess.

And also, it would be poor form.

 

[mkdominatr]

You do not need rights to play a song! It's as simple as that. To sell a recording of a song is another matter.

People are confusing me.

This is how I thought it worked.....

 

[Popmartijn]

They probably have some sort of blanket license that allows them to play next to anything for a flat rate. That's what I read once.

True. In general a venue pays a flat rate per year for playing music (both recorded and live music).

 

[Niceman]

If I sing Window in the Skies as I want down the street do I owe someone money? This is just silly!

 

[~BrightestStar~]

If I sing Window in the Skies as I want down the street do I owe someone money?

Depends. Are you fond of your kneecaps?








No, because you aren't making money off of it.

When a band plays a cover at a concert, they are making money from the concert, and thus money from the song.
So technically, the artist of that song should recieve a portion of the profit.

But like other people said, it's not always black and white. Such as the discussion regarding collecting from cover bands.