Cover Singers - Get Ready For YouTube Copyright School

You gotta be kidding

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/53178.html

That Really su*ks...you know.. I guess they were getting alot of pressure from the recording companies and artists....you would think it would benefit them in a certain way....

I have been curious about this. If I legitimately purchase a book of music for me to play (I assume that is why song books are sold), am only allowed to look at the music and not actually play/sing the song because I am then "covering" the song? Or does it mean I can play/sing the song, but no one is allowed to actually "hear" me "covering" the song. Or am I only violating the law if I record my playing/singing and then post it for someone else to hear? Or is it only illegal if I, or someone else, somehow profit from my "cover" of the song? What if I am singing along to a song on the radio and someone overhears my "cover?" What if I play a CD for a bunch of people at my pool party for all to enjoy. I am the only one, as the purchaser, who is allowed by law to actually listen to the music? I know these questions may seem silly, but they certainly seem reasonble after reading the article.

They're fighting a losing battle. Looking back at my favorites lists on Youtube, the vast majority of songs I love are by independent artists. Krabbers, mctrmt, RussBuss, etc.

If they wont' let me cover Prince or Van Morrison, I don't care. FEA, as they say.

I wouldn't have too much problem with this if not for the fact that Google/YouTube "violates" you for copyrights even when the infringement claim is completely bogus.

Record companies routinely claim copyright violation on things they don't own - usually because one of their artists has covered a song that's in the public domain. They have whole teams of lawyers and should know that when one of their artists covers something in the public domain they own only the copyright to the performance (and possibly the arrangement, if it is unique enough and different enough from what's in the public domain), not the song, but that doesn't stop them from trying to stifle independents, anyway. Maybe Google should require them to attend "copyright school" before they can submit a claim of infringement!

John

This is stupid. When a user called darksydephil did video coverage of some of Rockstars games they were taken down, and he got a strike against his account. Fair enough it their material but he was making the videos for no profit at all back then. So all he could be doing was giving the game more exposure, so whats the problem? Same with songs if someone covers one your giving more exposure to the artist. I agree if you make profit from their song you should pay some of what you make to the artist, but when you make no profit what so ever your only helping the artist.

Sorry for the rant.

Jeff Burton, YT user simpletunes2, has been hit several times by the copyright cops, once for covering "Michael Row the Boat Ashore". How ridiculous is that?

Sorry to say, but I have this bad feeling we're going to have to get used to it. 8-( It could drive a man to drink!

Kookaburra, that lovely Australian song is NOT out of copyright!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...tole-riff-from-Kookaburra-childrens-song.html

I guess the best thing to do is to CREATE TWO YOUTUBE CHANNELS - ONE with COVERS and a SECOND with FOLK SONGS or ORIGINALS. I read once that parodies are OK under the US copyright fair dealing.

Petey

Well, I just watched the four and a half minute copyright school video and took the four question test, all of which took 5 minutes.

Even while answering all four questions correctly the whole thing is still vague to me. Especially with the ridiculously FAST commercial small print style of the explanation of the FAIR USE RULE, starting at 2:43. And.. when I went back to the video to see where that part was, I noticed the questions had changed. No cheating! [waving the index finger in your face]

So... can I, or can I not sing a cover song on youtube? Is ukuleleboy going to copyright school detention for his "I'm Yours" video?

Even though I'm a graduate of Copyright School, I still don't know. That's the state of 'education' these days.. =)

ukuleletim said:

Even though I'm a graduate of Copyright School, I still don't know. That's the state of 'education' these days.. =)

Click to expand...

Hey Tim!

Congrats on your new diploma being a recent graduate of Copyright School! Can I copy you and sign up as well? ;-) hehe

Petey

King FarUke said:

I have been curious about this. If I legitimately purchase a book of music for me to play (I assume that is why song books are sold), am only allowed to look at the music and not actually play/sing the song because I am then "covering" the song? Or does it mean I can play/sing the song, but no one is allowed to actually "hear" me "covering" the song. Or am I only violating the law if I record my playing/singing and then post it for someone else to hear? Or is it only illegal if I, or someone else, somehow profit from my "cover" of the song? What if I am singing along to a song on the radio and someone overhears my "cover?" What if I play a CD for a bunch of people at my pool party for all to enjoy. I am the only one, as the purchaser, who is allowed by law to actually listen to the music? I know these questions may seem silly, but they certainly seem reasonble after reading the article.

Click to expand...

Here is the straight stuff on it...

You can learn the song and perform cover-songs in establishments that pay a licensing fee for SCAP and BMI (for example), in order to entertain their patrons with music. If you plan to record a song and use it for something other than a demo (to get gigs in establishments that pay a licensing fee), then you have to pay a licensing fee to record the tune before you can sell it. IF you have LICENSED the song for your album, you are allowed to promote the song on YouTube by performing on a video (with used by permission notations in the credits). If you want to play a cover and record it, then upload to YouTube, you need to license the song for that purpose. It is possible to do so.
If you play a CD at a pool party that is not a public venue, you do not need to license the CD. If you are a commercial establishment, say a resort hotel, you must license the music for "public entertainment".

Pippin said:

Here is the straight stuff on it...
If you want to play a cover and record it, then upload to YouTube, you need to license the song for that purpose. It is possible to do so.

Click to expand...

Can one do this easily like spending 99 cents on a iTunes song? Simplicity is the key in such a remuneration model. Otherwise, it's a red-tape nightmare.

Please outline the simple steps.

I.e. Petey would like to do a non-profit, simple ukulele cover of his own arrangment of "The Munsters theme song" for YouTube.

Thanks in advance!

Petey

IANAL (I am not a lawyer) although I have taken some legal classes that touched on copyright law.

To the best of my knowledge, youtube still operates under the "safe harbor" clause of the DMCA. They are not obligated to actively police what is posted (although I think they may have some agreements with outside forces in place) but are only required to act upon complaints of infringement.

When you post a cover tune on youtube, it is not the record company that has a right to complain, it is only the copyright holder for the song itself, usually the publishing company.

If you use a copyrighted recording in a video, then the holder of that copyright, usually the record label, is the one who would have to complain to have it removed.

I recall a big hoo-hah with some woman who posted a 30-second vid of her toddler dancing to a Prince song playing in the background. Supposedly it was Prince's camp who raised a big stink over it on his behalf as the songwriter.

There were a bunch of threads on the copyright isse a year or so ago, and we didn't solve it then either. I really just posted this as an update on the silly status of this issue. I think the consensus is that such a license does not exist. Even Ken Middleton said he could not get one through Ohana. I think YT simply does this stilly things to keep from getting shut down themselves.

Not a lawyer, don't even like lawyers. That said, I've done a bit of research on this (as applies here in the land of lawyers, the good ole' US of A). Basically, recording and performance fall under different licensing rules. If someone wants to record a cover of a song they need permission from the copyright holder of the song (i.e. lyrics and melody). This can be the individual songwriter but usually ends up being some faceless corporation. The agreement covers specifically what is to be recorded, how the recording is to be published or distributed, and so on. These are quite difficult to come by without either outright cash or an agreement for royalty sharing - this is why Ken would have had difficulty getting publishers to give him a license - he's not expecting revenue and it's pretty hard to convince a publishing company that twenty percent of nothing is a good deal. Neither publishing companies nor most songwriters are long-sighted enough to realize that if somebody like Ken is publishing covers and tutorials of their material thats going to translate eventually into increased revenues from performance licensing as armies of ukulele players take stage throughout the land.

Public performance of copyrighted songs rarely involves negotiation by the individual artist. Instead, venues are supposed to cover this issue by arrangements with ASCAP or BMI. Those arrangements fall into the nature of "on average we do X number of shows of Y number of songs for Z number of patrons." ASCAP and BMI periodically survey their member venues asking for detailed information about what songs are being played, and then distribute the money from dues-paying venues based on that sample data. The reason I know this is because this applies even to churches, though most Christian artists and publishers go through a different agency. Last year we got one of those survey requests where we had to report what songs had been performed in services during the previous month, what the average attendance was, etc.

I'm not sure what liability an individual artist might have if they played a venue that hadn't been paying their ASCAP or BMI dues. I suspect if the artist could reasonably show that they had a good faith expectation that the venue would be doing so (i.e. by playing at a venue that regularly presents musical programs) ASCAP or BMI would probably go after the venue and leave the artist alone.

In some cases the laws even protect the little guy, much as I hate to admit it. When a publishing company "publishes" music - allowing others to cover it via performance licensing, they don't really get to say, "everybody can cover the song except for this guy." There is a very good Beatles tribute band in our area. They are so good and so well known here that when Sir Paul was on tour a couple of years ago he tried to shut them down. Their lawyers told his people to take a hike, and made it stick. They were covered under the performance licensing of the venues where they played, not a recording license for specific material. I'm sure his people knew this, but figured they could throw their weight around and the local yocals would run for cover, at least while Paul was in town (I suspect that Paul realized that the guy who plays and sings his parts has a voice and skills at least the equal of what Paul had decades ago and he wasn't relishing any fresh comparisons with his "today" voice). Anyway, the singing knight didn't get his way, dear Paul ain't used to dealing with Texans, I guess.

The biggest problem is that nobody has figured out what kind of licensing should apply to online performances. Technically, it's a recording but you're never going to get a license for a YouTube recording. It's more like a performance, but it's a performance that goes on and on and may be for millions of people, yet there isn't significant revenue from it.

I think eventually ASCAP and BMI are going to have to come to some kind of "performance" licensing agreement with online "venues" like YouTube where they share revenues based on sample hit data. Both sides are going to have to give. ASCAP and BMI and the publishers they represent are going to have to acknowledge that the revenue stream from independent internet covers is very small when measured against the audience size and YouTube et. al. are going to have to recognize that member "indy" videos put them where they are - if they just blanket eliminate those videos they aren't going to have the kind of content that attracts as large an audience as they currently have.

@OldePhart...

Actually, ASCAP and BMI both have licensing agreements with YouTube and other online entities. The problem is that the YouTube sort of "venue" allows a subject to upload their performance which can then be replicated, linked, embedded, and otherwise carried via personal music devices to every corner of the globe, the same as if people bought CDs and dragged their music in little CD Walkman-like portable music players. The licensing of songs is somewhat arbitrary in that you are given a FEE based on the number of CDs you plan to produce. The song can be licensed based on anticipated sales, too. Now, in the case of a YouTube audience, the licensing FEE is not carved in stone because a song can sit with a few downloads a week for years and suddenly, for whatever reason, it goes viral. In this case, the licensing agreement would have to leave open that expectation.

In the case of a performer that licensed the song on CDs, promotional videos are allowed, but, still there are some gray areas that need to be addressed.

I'm curious about how they find the forbidden covers, do they look in the tags?, the title?
Seems like there should be a way to keep under the radar.

hoosierhiver said:

I'm curious about how they find the forbidden covers, do they look in the tags?, the title?
Seems like there should be a way to keep under the radar.

Click to expand...

There are search tools these days that recognize "key signatures" in songs, much like anti-virus software recognizes a particular virus or malware. Once flagged, a person checks the file and verifies that it is in violation. At that point, they contact YouTube or whatever other online entity and request that the content be removed.

hoosierhiver said:

I'm curious about how they find the forbidden covers, do they look in the tags?, the title?
Seems like there should be a way to keep under the radar.

Click to expand...

You bring up a good point in that a lot of people bring on the grief by the way they post the video. Posting the original artist's name in the video title or comments is almost certain to attract unwelcome attention. I think that's how some people have been "bitten" when they covered a song that is in the public domain but included the name of another artist who may have covered it recently or who had a hit with it. I.e "The Pogues - Whiskey Before Breakfast" is likely to draw a complaint even though "Whiskey Before Breakfast" is a trad tune that's in the public domain. The Pogues performances of that song are covered by copyright, which is probably held by Sony or some other music giant. The SONG however, is public domain. But, by including the artist's name you make it too easy for the music moguls to try to put a claim on it.

THe second thing that can be done when the song itself IS covered by copyright is avoid using the song title. Instead, you use clever "allusions" to the title. This is a time-honored (not saying necessarily right, just common) tradition in music publishing, where there are many music instructional books that contain the melodies to copyrighted songs but with clever titles that allude to the original title, rather than giving it outright. "Summertime" might become "Sunny Time" for example.

John

Pippin said:

There are search tools these days that recognize "key signatures" in songs, much like anti-virus software recognizes a particular virus or malware. Once flagged, a person checks the file and verifies that it is in violation. At that point, they contact YouTube or whatever other online entity and request that the content be removed.

Click to expand...

That works on copies of performances or recordings, I don't think that they can identify covers that way, though. That would take a tremendous amount of computing power and then it would only identify covers that were very close to the original (which would make me pretty safe).

John