Does anyone know what is allowed in terms of sharing homemade cover-versions of copyrighted songs?
Here's what I want to do: I used BiaB and other programs to make a bunch of background tracks for songs that I like to play on my saxophone. I've put a lot of work into these tracks and thought it would be nice to share with others who might want to use them, maybe by putting my recordings on YouTube. I have no intention of making money off the recordings -- this is just a hobby -- but I also don't want to get sued.
Does anyone know if what I am wanting to do is legal, per copyright laws?
Copyright law says you can't legally do that. You need to get the license and the license covers the use you are planning.
It doesn't matter if you are not making any money and you're giving the songs away for free..... you can't legally do that.
Use of copyrighted material is limited to using it in educational settings such as music classes in a school, and for parody purposes. Aside from that.... nope.
There's a grey area in copyright regarding how it is treated by YouTube and other such media sites. It is essentially out of control on those sites and they are not about to shut down....so they have come up with a kind of compromise. They determine if your posted video is a copyrighted song and they monitize it and pay the copyright owner. If the copyright owner doesn't want it monitized, they will delete it from the site.
Does anyone know what is allowed in terms of sharing homemade cover-versions of copyrighted songs?
Here's what I want to do: I used BiaB and other programs to make a bunch of background tracks for songs that I like to play on my saxophone. I've put a lot of work into these tracks and thought it would be nice to share with others who might want to use them, maybe by putting my recordings on YouTube. I have no intention of making money off the recordings -- this is just a hobby -- but I also don't want to get sued.
Does anyone know if what I am wanting to do is legal, per copyright laws?
If a BIAB background track does not contain the covered melody then there are no copyright issues. Having said that there are thousands of covered songs with melodies on YouTube. I think that YouTube ignores them unless there is a specific complaint.
I would never cover a licensed song without buying a license. Licensed songs are intellectual property and other than the exceptions Herb mentioned all rights of use belong to the owner. Licenses can be obtained from the Harry Fox agency and it's not an expensive way to respect the ownership.
FWIW,
Be safe and well.
Bud
PS Perhaps I feel a bit strong about this as years ago we read on line a review of a song we wrote, recorded and released. But it was not by us. I spare the details of what happened after that.
PG Music's policy about posting covers on this site is based on YouTube. You have to post it there first and if YT doesn't take it down you're good, go ahead and post it here. Otherwise no. Guitarhacker's description of how it works with YT is what I've read as well. The rights owner controls it and that could be anybody, an agency, a huge corporation like Sony Music or anybody else who bought the rights, not just the original artist.
The concept here that so many miss is a song is property just like a lawn mower sitting in your yard is property. A neighbor can't simply come over to your yard and take it just because it looks like you're not doing anything with it, right? You have no right to do ANYTHING public with somebody else's song either. In your own house, fine but not publicly and posting it anywhere on the internet is called digital publishing which also means public. Money has absolutely nothing to do with it because it's not yours to give away no more than your neighbor can give away your lawnmower. He didn't make any money on it so why can't he give it away?
PG Music's policy about posting covers on this site is based on YouTube. You have to post it there first and if YT doesn't take it down you're good, go ahead and post it here...
Bob
Nope. All one has to do is visit the User Showcase forum and read the long standing rules at the top of the page (see below). You must own all rights to the song to post. It has nothing to do with YouTube. This is only in reference to the Showcase forum where many thousands of songs are posted.
Per forum policy: “The songs must be originals, no copyrighted or "cover" songs. You must have all of the rights to the songs.”
I think you are asking one question and our fellow forumites are interpreting it as another.
I think what everyone other than Tony thinks you are saying is “Hey, I recorded a bunch of YouTube videos of me playing my saxophone over a backing track I made with BIAB. Are there copyright issues with that?”
I think what you are actually saying is this: “I made a bunch of backing tracks that I generally use to back myself up when I play the sax. I think it would be cool to share these backing tracks on YouTube for other people to use.”
If I’m correct about what your inquiry actually is, then the answer is, if you are careful about how you do it, you can avoid infringing anyone’s copyright.
First, you can freely distribute recordings that you have created with BIAB, as long as you’ve not infringed on the copyright of a third party.
The next thing to consider is this: The chord progression of a song is not subject to copyright, so as long as you haven’t recorded the melody of a song or some readily identifiable riff, you have not infringed on a copyright by providing a backing track of chords created by BIAB. Tony has already made this comment.
But you are not home free just yet. It’s been my observation, that you can run afoul of someone’s copyright ownership by identifying your background track using the copyrighted title of someone else’s work. For instance if I use BIAB to create a backing track for the Beatles song, Yesterday, and say that here is a backing track for Yesterday, I probably have infringed on Lennon and McCartney’s copyright.
However, if I say something like, “Here is a song about the Day before Today by The Liverpool Four, I’ve probably done enough to communicate what the backing track can be used for without stepping on John & Paul’s rights.
YouTube may still mess with an upload even if you do as Keith suggested. Algorithms are people there. Clear instances of "fair-use" are still demonetized (or worse) on occasion. Some copyright holders are more "protective" than others, but covers still abound.
Don't worry so much about being sued. Nobody is going to come after any money that you didn't make on YouTube. Worry about having to keep up with YouTube's rules and enforcement. They may make what you are planning more hassle than fun. Probably NOT, but it might happen.
If you don't infringe, I'd say "Test the waters". See what happens. If you do, you shouldn't have, and you may find out. But you won't "get sued".
I feel I am opening up a can of worms here but here goes.
The content ID system on YouTube is VERY advanced. I have over 21 million views on my YouTube channel, 90 % of it is “other people’s material”. They get paid, I grow my YouTube channel and other things happen. It is a win win.
My advice, don’t let people make you feel bad for wanting to produce art and share that art.
You are welcome to pm me.
Edited to add: Check out www.wearethehits.com "Where video creators and songwriters get paid for their cover videos. Legally"
I've had a look at your Youtube site a number of times over the years. You've done a really great job! It wasn't all that long ago that you were sitting on 10,000,000 views! It's pretty awesome what you've accomplished.
The content ID system on YouTube is VERY advanced.
A bit, too advanced, actually.
I was "attending" my church's live streaming service on YouTube last night, when it stopped mid-song with a notice that the video was removed because it violated YouTube's Terms of Service.
Apparently the YouTube algorithm (correctly) decided that the songs were under copyright, (incorrectly) assumed they weren't licensed for broadcast, and applied a take-down notice during the live feed.
I guess that's what happens when the pianist follows the sheet music too closely. That wouldn't have happened if I had been playing piano.
Man, it just gets deeper and deeper with YT doesn't it?
When I talked about PG's policy about it's ok to post a cover on the forum if it's already on YT, I didn't mention the Showcase forum and I should have. Yes, that forum is strictly for originals you own. But for any other forum where you want to post a cover of whatever song for discussion, the YT policy is still there unless they're changed it.
I think you are asking one question and our fellow forumites are interpreting it as another.
I think what everyone other than Tony thinks you are saying is “Hey, I recorded a bunch of YouTube videos of me playing my saxophone over a backing track I made with BIAB. Are there copyright issues with that?”
I think what you are actually saying is this: “I made a bunch of backing tracks that I generally use to back myself up when I play the sax. I think it would be cool to share these backing tracks on YouTube for other people to use.”
If I’m correct about what your inquiry actually is, then the answer is, if you are careful about how you do it, you can avoid infringing anyone’s copyright.
First, you can freely distribute recordings that you have created with BIAB, as long as you’ve not infringed on the copyright of a third party.
The next thing to consider is this: The chord progression of a song is not subject to copyright, so as long as you haven’t recorded the melody of a song or some readily identifiable riff, you have not infringed on a copyright by providing a backing track of chords created by BIAB. Tony has already made this comment.
But you are not home free just yet. It’s been my observation, that you can run afoul of someone’s copyright ownership by identifying your background track using the copyrighted title of someone else’s work. For instance if I use BIAB to create a backing track for the Beatles song, Yesterday, and say that here is a backing track for Yesterday, I probably have infringed on Lennon and McCartney’s copyright.
However, if I say something like, “Here is a song about the Day before Today by The Liverpool Four, I’ve probably done enough to communicate what the backing track can be used for without stepping on John & Paul’s rights.
There's no misunderstanding here. He says he wants to create a BB track of a cover song and SHARE it with others. That is a copyright violation. It doesn't matter how "careful" you are. If it's a cover and you don't have the rights to it, you're infringing.
It's only legal to do that for PERSONAL use. As soon as you put it out for someone to hear or use, you have violated the copyright laws.
Chord progressions as you pointed out are not copyrightable (generally speaking) , but it doesn't sound remotely like that's his plan. If you record a chord progression and call it (as in your example) Yesterday, AND the chord progression is for the song Yesterday, you have in fact violated the law. A reasonable jury would slam dunk that for the writers faster than you could sing the old Hee Haw song, Gloom, dispair, and agony on me. Fancy verbage doesn't negate the law my friend.
The best option is if someone wants to record a cover, keep it under wraps or post it on YouTube where they will monitize it or remove it for you.
If you record a chord progression and call it (as in your example) Yesterday, AND the chord progression is for the song Yesterday, you have in fact violated the law.
IANAL, and this is the internet, but neither the chord progression nor the title can be copyrighted.
So what law has been violated in your example?
Of course, I'm not so foolish as to test this theory out myself.
Here's a cheap suggestion, assuming it's just the backing tracks and not your sax playing you want to share. Post your videos to YouTube. Name them innocuously. Post your links to videos elsewhere with more explicit and specific descriptions. Have fun. Trust me...nothing horrible is going to happen to you. There is a slight chance that something mildly annoying might happen. Heck, this thread may be the most mildly annoying thing that happens in the whole venture.
Joanne, what a great link! What will they think of next?
Joanne, Do you go through wearethehits.com for your play-along videos? Just curious since it seems he's wanting to offer essentially the same thing - he's just using play-alongs he created himself with biab tracks.
While the legal and technical differences between trying to steal someone's song and playing it for yourselves or others may be nonexistent, the reality is much different.
If Stephen Foster were alive today, I don't think he'd be b*tching or suing anyone for singing "My Old Kentucky Home" on youtube.
People need to lay off trying to scare people out of playing covers for youtube. I've watched hundreds of them and I've never heard of anyone getting sued for posting one.
Joanne, Do you go through wearethehits.com for your play-along videos? Just curious since it seems he's wanting to offer essentially the same thing - he's just using play-alongs he created himself with biab tracks.
Hi Josie Yes, I do use them for some of my play along videos. It is complicated but you are welcome to PM me. And yes wearethehits caters specifically for people who want to make money from covers on Youtube. (The OP said he wasn't interested in making money)
Originally Posted By: bobcflatpicker
While the legal and technical differences between trying to steal someone's song and playing it for yourselves or others may be nonexistent, the reality is much different.
If Stephen Foster were alive today, I don't think he'd be b*tching or suing anyone for singing "My Old Kentucky Home" on youtube.
People need to lay off trying to scare people out of playing covers for youtube. I've watched hundreds of them and I've never heard of anyone getting sued for posting one.
Before anyone takes a stick to me. I’m just tossing this out there.
It seems there is a line between its wrong and just do it and have fun. That’s really the line of principle.
Are you going to get in trouble most likely not. Is it really right to steal or violate another persons rights based on whether or not they will sue or punish you for it? I think Herb and Bob are speaking about what’s morally right, and the rest of you are speaking about what you can get away with legally.
Interesting subject in the least and sadly a classic example of where our society has headed in our lifetimes. We speak more of what someone can get away with more than what a person should morally do.
In most countries what is moral and what is legal are two very different things. It is like the so called justice system. We don’t really have one of those, what we have is a legal system where we debate what one can or can’t do legally or by law. Not a justice system as to what is just and right. Personally to me that’s the bigger picture. YMMV oh by the way I have no desire to debate, defend, or argue my views here. Just saying. I gotta run now my grass needs cutting and the neighbors lawnmower is just sitting there!
Hi Rob. Youtube has designed it so that the record company and/or publishing company gets the revenue. I cannot see how it is a question of morals at all.
There's a process that takes place before you "get sued". If someone posts a video of one of my songs on YT without a license/permission, they get sent what's called a take-down notice. Pretty obvious what that is, it's a notice that you've posted copyrighted material and you need to take it down. If you comply, and remove the video, there's no problem and that's where it ends.
If, on the other hand, you don't remove it, and if you were to have a substantial number of infringing videos posted, you start running the risk of getting sued...especially if the copyrights violated are owned by labels or publishers who keep an eye on that sort of thing.
The specific laws regarding take-downs, infringements, etc. vary from country to country. In the U.S., the process I described is what typically takes place. I've sent, or had someone else send, a few take-down notices. There is some of my stuff on YT that, while technically is infringing, I view as harmless and innocent and I don't worry about those. It's only if I see someone profiting from the infringed works that I get proactive about making it stop. Hope this is helpful to the discussion.
*by the way, you can do a search for "youtube takedown notice" and you'll find a page that describes the process.*
David, there is a certain flavor of the CCLI that lets you stream from sites under control of the holder of the site. I recommend your church obtain that CCLI then use Facebook Live streaming.
Hi Joanne. I respectfully disagree, every publisher I've ever written for (Warner Bros, Sony, Universal, etc.) absolutely send take down notices. Also, here's a link to an interesting article on the subject.
Hi Joanne. I respectfully disagree, every publisher I've ever written for (Warner Bros, Sony, Universal, etc.) absolutely send take down notices. Also, here's a link to an interesting article on the subject.
Hi Roger. My experience has been that the publisher seems to do that on instruction from the writer(s) and not across their catalog. What I mean is that the majority of the well-known writers don't do that. Perhaps they can see that it is a win-win situation to allow covers of their material on Youtube?
I am bowing out of this discussion now because I can see what the general opinion is on this forum. If anybody is interested in learning more from me they can pm me.
It all depends on what you're doing. If it's older obscure stuff fine but if it's really big name classic songs it will probably get taken down. Duke Ellington is an example. I had bookmarked several Ellington vids taken from old movies and early TV shows. They would last a month or so then disappear with the window saying it had been taken down. The take downs is the reason I had to start downloading the vids I really liked. Too many of the ones I bookmarked would not be available when I went back to watch them again.
However, this is not true for everything even some very big name artists. Here's a good test for this. On the Best of YouTube forum there is this:
This is a great vid, a good cover version of Come Together by the Beatles. This is as big as it gets, MJ bought the Beatles catalog then I think he sold it to Sony and then McCartney bought it back? This vid was uploaded today. I'm going to track it and see what happens.
I've been wary of posting covers on YT because years ago there were stories of people having their accounts banned after 2 or 3 take down notices even if they took them down. It sounds like that's not the way it works now? I've got some covers I would like to put up there and I agree with Joanne, if this is how it works now then there's no harm because the rights holder still has their full rights respected. They can allow YT to monetize it and they get paid or they decide to have it taken down. As long as the uploader isn't penalized for too many take down orders, I'm fine with it.
BTW, what happened to the OP? Is this another thread where a noob posts a question then disappears and we're talking to ourselves?
So far my experience with covers on YouTube has been benign from management.
I've posted a few cover tunes with some photos. I do credit the writer. I have not monetized my site.
I have posted a few cover songs on Soundcloud and done the same.
For media I plan to sell (a CD for example) I pay the royalties. Hey, If I make money, the guy writing the tune should get paid also.
I would post my covers on a BIAB forum but my read of the bylaws here it is strictly "No Covers". Is that currently true? I would love to get feedback on my work from forum members
mrgeeze - Post a link to your YT covers on the I heard BIAB on youtube forum NOT the users showcase and you're fine.
As far as this general discussion, I agree with Joanne. If I was new artist/songwriter trying to make it today, I'd want covers on YT. Any free promotion and publicity that I can get paid for in this day and age seems like a good thing to me.
After reading the above, it seems to me that posting covers on Youtube and then Youtube monetizes them for the copyright owner is pretty much equivalent to the old days where if I liked a song, I'd go and buy the sheet music.
In both cases the original copyright owner gains. I suspect that monetizing on Youtube would be a whole heap more beneficial to the original copyright owner than the sale of sheet music.
When I consider Joanne Cooper's site with its 21,000,000 views, I'm pretty sure that that's a big enough number for Joanne to be respected as a 'good financial opportunity' for the original owners of the songs that she posts. It's definitely a win-win situation.
Is it really right to steal or violate another persons rights based on whether or not they will sue or punish you for it?
No. It is not right. This is super simple. If you are using someone else's work you should 1) get permission and 2) pay for the use! If you decide to do it anyway without permission and paying you are stealing.
If the music hasn't been properly licensed, how exactly is YouTube supposed to know who to pay? There isn't some gigantic global database at their disposal. That's where this notion goes off-base.
Is it really right to steal or violate another persons rights based on whether or not they will sue or punish you for it?
No. It is not right. This is super simple. If you are using someone else's work you should 1) get permission and 2) pay for the use! If you decide to do it anyway without permission and paying you are stealing.
John's comment struck me as being correct but not at all super simple. I immediately thought of examples where a party's unique, one of a kind creation that is not easy for others to duplicate or replicate be it for cost or uniqueness. I found an example to research and it appears that stealing (if it is stealing) is rampant. Even in an instance I found where the artist secured audio from a legitimate source and paid royalties and gave proper credits, it isn't established the original source did the same to secure permission or paid for the use.
While reading John's comment I thought of the unique, one of a kind, privately owned sound of trains. Railroads are the only mode of transportation where the vehicle and the route are privately owned property. Railroads purchase the land they lay track on, and own and maintain bridges and the equipment at crossings.
So I think the use of a unique, privately owned, one of a kind sound being used in a recording should require permission and payment. In most cases it seems, one simply sets up recording equipment at a crossing and records the sounds of a passing train and crossing equipment, includes it in their record and that's the end of it. A google search turns up thousands of songs with train sound effects.
But in one famous and lucrative example, "Pet Sounds", The Beach Boys purchased a train sound effect from Brad Miller's 1963 release "Mr. D's Machines". The recorded track was "Train #58- The Owl at Edison California". That train was owned and operated by Southern Pacific - the locomotive was an EMD-F7... A locomotive engine today costs up to $6 million. My point is that it costs a lot of money to create the sound of a train at crossing. The Beach Boys had to pay for the use of #58-The Owl recording.
So, do you owe the railway for the use of their train sound if you make a recording of it and use it in your record? Do you need to secure their permission to record their train? Before reading the posts here on this thread, I doubt I'd ever have given a second thought to standing beside a train crossing with a Zoom H4N and capturing the sound effect.
Let’s use BiaB for an example. PGM owns the rights to this software. Let’s say I copy the software and post it on eBay, but I make arrangement for some of the money to go to PGM. Now I don’t ask PGM if that’s okay I’m just do it anyway. Sure they benefit, but that might not be inline with their marketing of profit structure. Maybe they make less on a sale on eBay than from their servers. It that right?
Okay let’s add sauce to the goose. There is a legal outlet for selling BiaB it is called a third party licensing agreement or resale license. (Hence Harry fox agency, BMI, ASCAP, ETC depends on type license is needed) So rather than asking and getting permission, or paying up front for a license, I just take it and post it and let eBay structure or monetize what they think is a fair price to pay PGM.
Sort of like taking the neighbors lawn mower, and leaving $5 on the door step when you return. You didn’t ask permission, and it is not yours to take, no matter what you leave in compensation.
If it was okay to do this companies like PGM or Norton music would include the melodies in their creation of styles. This is exactly why karaoke music is not free. There are license fee to pay for use.
Charlie, that was a fun example, but the train passing by on the track is not copyrighted property, at best it is noise pollution if you live by it. And recording the sound of a train going by can’t be compared to copying a song someone wrote and recorded, and legally filed documents to protect that property. Now if you and I hopped on that train fired the old gal up and went to Albuquerque by way of Cucamonga (obscure bugs bunny reference, hey “what’s up doc”) now that’s illegal, not to mention a really bad idea.
Apparently Tony interpreted runandwrite's question similar to me which is why I decided to offer my two cents. I thought that rather than continue to operate with two understanding of what the actual question was, it was important to get some feedback on what he meant. In point of fact , only the OP can tell us if his meaning was properly understood or it wasn’t.
Hey Rob, thanks for commenting. And yes, I posted an oddball example just for fun and not serious debate. However, when you state, "the train passing by on the track is not copyrighted property, at best it is noise pollution if you live by it. And recording the sound of a train going by can’t be compared to copying a song someone wrote and recorded, and legally filed documents to protect that property.", apparently music legal council in California disagreed with your theory, as did The Beach Boys and their production staff and I'm sure Mr. Brad Miller would take issue. Your theory doesn't explain why The Beach Boys chose to pay license and copyright fees for noise pollution they had the means, time and talent to get it themselves for free. It's indisputable "that" particular train I referenced passing by on the track "is" copyrighted property with legally filed documents to protect that property.
Think about it. If my neighbor's lawnmower makes a unique, one of a kind funny noise (noise Pollution)but I like the sound so I go borrow his mower without permission to make a HQ recording of the mower noise and use that in a record I make, copyright the song (with the mower sound effect included), isn't the mower sound the same as the train sound in "Pet Sounds"? Isn't the mower sound effect now copyrighted? Haven't I met John's criteria that "If you are using someone else's work you should 1) get permission and 2) pay for the use! If you decide to do it anyway without permission and paying you are stealing."?
What can be argued that remains murky is the 'work' which is intellectual property rather than the physical mower. The sound source belongs to another but with the mower and with the train, someone else has seen the intellect and art of the source sound. It's my contention If I'm using someone else's intellectual property I should 1) get permission and 2) pay for the use! If I decide to do it anyway without permission and paying, I'm stealing. Just because I see value in someone else's property that they don't see doesn't give me permission to use that intellectual property without just compensation to the rightful owner.
I gotcha Charlie. It want the train per se but the sound effect of the train on the album that mister Davis recorded and licensed that was paid for to use.
Rob is correct. The guy who made the recording does not hold a copyright on the sound that train made. He holds/held the copyright on the recording he made. I'm not even sure it falls under the category of "intellectual property". Maybe it does. Maybe it doesn't. I'm not a lawyer. The Beach Boys (or more likely and accurately, the record company) saved some money by licensing the recording instead of recording it themselves. That is at least a part of the value of the copyright.
It's the difference (in the old but still used model) between copyrights on a song and copyrights on the recording of said song. The former is held by the publisher of record. The latter is held by the "record company". The latter don't "own the song", just the recording. In fact, they pay the "owner of the song"...a statutory amount. Covers (no matter how closely they resemble the recorded version) have nothing to do with the latter...only the former.
I curious about how all this works in synchronization rights. I know you can't put a Led Zeppelin song in your film without explicit permission from either the publisher, record company, or both. And I'm pretty certain that the rates are not statutory, but negotiated and contractual. But I don't know who gets paid or how.
------
"You are right, Captain. I do babble." Data, Star Trek the Next Generation.
All this is very interesting but the original question is going off the rails, haha. To bring this train back on track...
Yes, we can post a cover on YouTube. Yes, YT may take it down. No, it doesn't appear that causes any problems with the uploader, the vid gets taken down, s/he moves on. No harm, no foul, right? Welll, not quite imho.
From Google's Help page concerning this:
It’s up to the copyright owners to decide whether or not others can reuse their original material. Copyright owners often allow their content to be used in YouTube videos in exchange for having ads run on those videos. These ads may play before the video or during it (if the video is longer than 10 minutes).
It's up to the copyright owner to decide. There is the moral rub because YT is forcing those owners to police YT looking for illegal uploads. It's also the answer to Rogers question that the owners do not get paid if YT doesn't have a huge database for that. According to this they don't need that because they simply wait for an owner to contact them first. Now they know who it is and now they know who to pay if they want to get paid. If they don't then YT will happily take it down.
If the rights holder is a huge corporation then I'm sure this is not an issue. They probably have some automatic algo that searches YT continually looking for this. But if it's an individual that's a burden to put on them but then maybe not. Maybe there is free or inexpensive software that can do that for them too. If not then they have to spend time maybe monthly to do YT searches and then the question is how to search?
If the uploader doesn't put the name of the song in the title, how do they search? YT itself apparently knows by their software that it's a copyrighted song but they don't automatically remove it, they wait for the owner to contact them. I may be wrong but it sounds like a catch 22 at that point. But OTH, if there's no or an incorrect song title then nobody else is going to hear it either except by accident. For the purposes of posting a cover just to show family and friends or for me perhaps to post a Biab version of a copywritten song just to demo how Biab works, I don't see any harm there because the link would need to be posted on this forum for example or to your friends only, the general public including the rights holder would never find it anyway.
Anyway, from a legal POV it seems like it's ok to post covers on YouTube and Soundcloud and probably others who use that same system. If someone is morally bothered by the fact that the burden is on the rights holder to catch it then don't do it.
I like the clarity that you bring to the table on this. Thank you.
I'm pretty sure that covers have often been played in situations such as weddings, coffee shops, small gatherings, etc., without the necessary copyright clearance always being obtained. With the aid of Google, I imagine it's much easier to search Youtube for covers than it is to police all the weddings, coffee shops, etc., around the world.
Another bit of info for YouTube users. As everyone has explained they will either monetize or take down your video if it gets reported by its owner. BUT, if you get multiple takedown requests YouTube can and will kill your account!
There is no doubt in my mind that there are coffee shops, wedding venues, even bars and such that do not acquire a license to play copy written material so as to pay royalties. (Bear in mind live cover music requires a different license from recording covers) I’m just as sure that for many that upload to YouTube feel that it’s fine to post others property, since it will either not be discovered, yet removed, or have ads embedded to monetize it. That is their business. Heck I have to admit I have played live music including covers. Not for pay but still. I will say I purchased my backing tracks from companies that carry a license. Everyone has a different view and happily each gets to decide what they want to do in this regard.
The only point I am making is, and the reason I used the term “morally” is that what is right and wrong is not defined by what one gets away with, or what other people, any organization, or group says. Right or wrong is defined by what is moral. What is legal, and fair. Stealing is stealing, taking what is not yours is theft. Using the lawnmower again, if I take my neighbors lawnmower use it, post it online sell it, and give the money back to my neighbor. I still stole it, because I did not have permission to use, post it, or resell it. This my view and while I respect that others is different, and I also respect their right to that view I am unlikely to change mine.
I can't help but wonder how many people technically violated copyright law by singing one of John Prine's songs as a tribute to him recently after we lost him.
I feel safe in saying that not all of them had paid rights to sing and post videos honoring him.
On the other hand, I can't imagine John being upset about it or wanting a take down notice to be issued to them or worse.
I can't help but wonder how many people technically violated copyright law by singing one of John Prine's songs as a tribute to him recently after we lost him.
I feel safe in saying that not all of them had paid rights to sing and post videos honoring him.
On the other hand, I can't imagine John being upset about it or wanting a take down notice to be issued to them or worse.
Hey, the guy just died, lets rip off his song..... Bwahahahahahahahahahaha.... yeah I know its not funny.... but it is a bit ironic.
If you record a chord progression and call it (as in your example) Yesterday, AND the chord progression is for the song Yesterday, you have in fact violated the law.
IANAL, and this is the internet, but neither the chord progression nor the title can be copyrighted.
So what law has been violated in your example?
Of course, I'm not so foolish as to test this theory out myself.
I have a book about the business and legal aspects of music law. It's over 600 pages and I did try to find the section that dealt with this. UNsuccessfully.
Essentially, what you say is generally correct. Titles and chord progressions are not copyrightable under most circumstances. All the rock and rollers and blues guys are thankful for that.... the 1-4-5 progression is a standard.
However..... there is a point where the progression can be problematic. When the chord progression to a song is so unique that simply playing the chords with no melody indicates immediately to the listener the song's name.... it can in fact be a copyrightable situation. The argument would be.... do the chords to yesterday amount to that point?
F Em7 A7 Dm Dm/C
Yesterday all my troubles seemed so far away
Bb C7 Bb F C Dm G7 Bb F
Now it looks as though they're here to stay oh I believe in yesterday
[Verse 2]
F Em7 A7 Dm Dm/C
Suddenly I'm not half the man I used to be
Bb C7 Bb F C Dm G7 Bb F
there's a shadow hanging over me oh yesterday came suddenly
[Chorus]
Em7 A7 Dm Dm/C Bb Gm C F
Why she had to go I don't know she wouldn't say
Em7 A7 Dm Dm/C Bb Gm C F
I said something wrong now I long for yesterday
That would be for a jury and judge to decide. Above my pay grade. To reply to the question you posed.... Using this unique chord progression and naming it Yesterday..... I think that's a little too much of a stretch to call it a random musical event. Especially when the timing also falls into place.
When the chord progression to a song is so unique that simply playing the chords with no melody indicates immediately to the listener the song's name.... it can in fact be a copyrightable situation.
You are correct, and I'm wrong.
Darned it, you made me do more research!
A legal entity doesn't own the "copyright" to the chords, in the sense that no one else can use the progression.
But they do have the right to prevent the song from being intentionally copied in a way that has "substantial similarity" to the song.
An infringement case has to prove two things: "access" and "substantial similarity."
If the defendant can prove that they came up with the progression on their own, there's no infringment, even if the two songs are identical. Which means their version isn't a "copy", so no rights were infringed.
So in your example, given how ubiquitous the song is, it would be fairly easy to demonstrate "access" as well as "substantial similarity."
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.
I don't know which is worse--David being wrong or Herb being right
That right there's funny, I don't care who you are..... wait that too might be a copyrighted phrase..... that fat redneck comedian guy who likes to say "poop" a lot.
Oh what the hey... have your lawyer call my lawyer and we'll see what we can work out.
When the chord progression to a song is so unique that simply playing the chords with no melody indicates immediately to the listener the song's name
Interesting. I wonder how does that affect nearly every twelve-bar blues ever written?
And what about 1-6-4-5 progressions?
Many of them sound exactly the same.
Well all the blues songs sound the same. Yesterday doesn't. Do you realize how many rock bands would never have released a single song if the 1-4-5-6 or 1-6-4-5 progressions were copyrighted....????
I think I will now go a plagiarize a C-F-G progression and claim it as my own. I might raise it a few steps to E-A-B to throw off the copyright claimants. You reckon they'll notice?
If you record a chord progression and call it (as in your example) Yesterday, AND the chord progression is for the song Yesterday, you have in fact violated the law.
IANAL, and this is the internet, but neither the chord progression nor the title can be copyrighted.
So what law has been violated in your example?
Of course, I'm not so foolish as to test this theory out myself.
I have a book about the business and legal aspects of music law. It's over 600 pages and I did try to find the section that dealt with this. UNsuccessfully.
Essentially, what you say is generally correct. Titles and chord progressions are not copyrightable under most circumstances. All the rock and rollers and blues guys are thankful for that.... the 1-4-5 progression is a standard.
However..... there is a point where the progression can be problematic. When the chord progression to a song is so unique that simply playing the chords with no melody indicates immediately to the listener the song's name.... it can in fact be a copyrightable situation. The argument would be.... do the chords to yesterday amount to that point?
F Em7 A7 Dm Dm/C
Yesterday all my troubles seemed so far away
Bb C7 Bb F C Dm G7 Bb F
Now it looks as though they're here to stay oh I believe in yesterday
[Verse 2]
F Em7 A7 Dm Dm/C
Suddenly I'm not half the man I used to be
Bb C7 Bb F C Dm G7 Bb F
there's a shadow hanging over me oh yesterday came suddenly
[Chorus]
Em7 A7 Dm Dm/C Bb Gm C F
Why she had to go I don't know she wouldn't say
Em7 A7 Dm Dm/C Bb Gm C F
I said something wrong now I long for yesterday
That would be for a jury and judge to decide. Above my pay grade. To reply to the question you posed.... Using this unique chord progression and naming it Yesterday..... I think that's a little too much of a stretch to call it a random musical event. Especially when the timing also falls into place.
If you were on that jury, how would you decide?
Interesting complicated stuff, So just wondering as there are third party Fake disks with the format outlined just as you have described above (in my humble opinion anyway) so what you are saying is, this could well fall into the Copyright Infringement trap, and to muddle the waters even further, if an end user was to buy this particular Beatles Fake disk knowing the above they could get into trouble too.
I know the above is 99.99 % unlikely to happen either for the creator of a fake disk or the customer buying it, but what once seemed clear cut as being totally within the law, ie, chords or a title can't be Copyrighted, now no longer seems so, particularly if its a unique set of chords to a particular song and the Title of the song is clearly shown in a disk.
