I don't know which is worse--David being wrong or Herb being right.

(Do not copy/paste that comment anywhere. All rights reserved.)

I don't really have a dog in this race. I don't usually care for covers, unless whoever does it takes ownership (creative, not legal). I don't play an instrument well enough to benefit from "backing tracks"--and I certainly don't want to sing along. *shudders*. It's just that there are a lot of terms being inserted that may or may not apply to the OP's request (remember him/her?) and a lot of ambiguity in the request itself.

TECHNICALLY, YouTube is a video sharing site. You can't upload an .mp3 or other recognized audio file. TECHNICALLY, the license required would be a Synch license for music included in a video or film.

PRACTICALLY, there is no way for essentially any less-than-professional entity to secure a Synch license. So PRACTICALLY, YouTube resorts to other options, and responds to Copyright holders. Lawyers are not hippies. Lawsuits are not going to be filed if there are no damages to collect.

I have done two covers for inclusion on a standard CD release. I paid (through HFA) license for inclusion in a limited run to Bill Withers for Ain't No Sunshine. I did not sell enough CD's to pay for a stack of Blank CD's, but am happy that MR. Withers got a few dollars up-front. I attempted to locate the copyright holder of the other song, but it/they were not listed at HFA. So I sent a letter with my intentions* to the publisher of record and asked where I might send a check. I received no reply. Why not? Because is just wasn't worth the trouble and angst.

In neither case did I release the CD for streaming.

Perhaps I should not have included that second cover. Less than 10 individuals purchased a recording of me covering that song. There must be a special place in Hell for such as me. Anyway, just wanted to confess my sins.

I've done a small number of covers besides those only available at free streaming services. My only payment was listens and comments. Copyright holders and their lawyers can have them all. I did no damage to those copyrights, and may have even helped sell a few downloads or hard-copies of the originals, if only to wash out the bad taste of my cover from their ears.

Intent is important, both in law and morals. Read the YouTube terms of service and abide by it. Do all possible to see that Song-writers are compensated for their contribution to your hobby.

And I hereby swear that never again will I publicly perform whether in person or via recording someone else's creative work to an audience beyond my long-suffering family and/or close friends (of which I would expect to have fewer in the event of said performance) without implied consent and due compensation. So help me God.





* Yes, "intentions". Right or wrong, you don't need explicit permission to cover and release a song in a song format unless it is a "derivative" work. Take that, hippies. smile

http://ostrowesq.com/no-you-dont-own-your-arrangement-of-that-hit-song/

BIAB 2021 Audiophile. Windows 10 64bit. Songwriter, lyricist, composer(?) loving all styles. Some pre-BIAB music from Farfetched Tangmo Band's first CD. https://alonetone.com/tangmo/playlists/close-to-the-ground