whats the difference between a band 'covering' a song, and a band stealing lyrics from another band?
do you get what im asking?
do you get what im asking?
15 more years! 15 more years!
One has permission from the original creator, while the other does not.
WikiCover songs often fall under a mechanical license whereby the cover artist pays a standard royalty to the original artist, and is safe under copyright law even if they do not have any permission from the original artist.
Last edited by ebug9 (2009-03-15 08:13:14)
ebug9 wrote:One has permission from the original creator, while the other does not.What about cover versions that don't have permission when they're created, but are given permission later?
Answered in your edit.
Answered in your edit.
Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2009-03-15 08:14:03)
So in a sense anyone on youtube who is amatuerly covering a song should be paying royalties?ebug9 wrote:
One has permission from the original creator, while the other does not.WikiCover songs often fall under a mechanical license whereby the cover artist pays a standard royalty to the original artist, and is safe under copyright law even if they do not have any permission from the original artist.
15 more years! 15 more years!
Yes.Mitch wrote:
So in a sense anyone on youtube who is amatuerly covering a song should be paying royalties?ebug9 wrote:
One has permission from the original creator, while the other does not.WikiCover songs often fall under a mechanical license whereby the cover artist pays a standard royalty to the original artist, and is safe under copyright law even if they do not have any permission from the original artist.
Or rather, whilst they don't, they risk prosecution under copyright law.
No because they aren't making money off it.
If they start making profits from it, I imagine they should.Mitch wrote:
So in a sense anyone on youtube who is amatuerly covering a song should be paying royalties?ebug9 wrote:
One has permission from the original creator, while the other does not.WikiCover songs often fall under a mechanical license whereby the cover artist pays a standard royalty to the original artist, and is safe under copyright law even if they do not have any permission from the original artist.
It's still a breach of copyright law whether you make money from it or not.The Sheriff wrote:
No because they aren't making money off it.
(but, it's less a serious breach than if you were making money from it)
Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2009-03-15 08:18:27)
^^ this.The Sheriff wrote:
No because they aren't making money off it.
No charge, no problema.
Eateries however cannot so much as have a radio playing, that's why they have a subscription service. Cover bands playing in bars need to be part of ascap ( I think that's it ) and the establishment is required to pay a royalty to ascap.
Largely unenforced.
I suspect you know more about this than I, 'G, but I believe that's not correct.ATG wrote:
^^ this.The Sheriff wrote:
No because they aren't making money off it.
No charge, no problema.
The way I understand it, you're not at all likely to get prosecuted if you're not making money from it, but that's not the same as saying it's not a breach of copyright.
You can't sing happy birthday on TV.