PG Music Home Forums General Discussion Off-Topic I'm no expert, but what is copyrightable in a song? [Resolved]

I'm no expert, but a few years back I and a friend wrote several songs that were copyrighted with the Library of Congress. This man that I knew had written several songs and collected royalties off of them. Even in Spain, he tutored me on the copyright law, but "I am no expert," by any means; that is why I titled this post this. This guy had way more experience than I did and I learned practically everything he knew about the copyright law. So, he was always against people doing cover songs. For the longest time I believed a person could get you put in jail or you could suffer being find or from being taken to court and sued. So, I never did any cover songs at that time that were copyrighted by other people before. Otherwise I would've been on YouTube a long time ago. Then one day I just decided to start doing cover songs; and I had a fairly successful YouTube channel because there was a up and coming YouTube star that put me on their channel which almost generated over 1 million hits. So, I got real worried about this. So I pulled down my YouTube channel that had that many hits and I had over 200,000 subscribers. I kind of felt bad about this because the person had put me on their YouTube channel was let down and I feel like I let those 200,000 people down. Well, I decided to create another YouTube channel and asked the person if they would put a link back up to my other YouTube channel and they said no! Not because I was doing cover songs, but because I let a lot of their subscribers down and they wouldn't post a link to my channel anymore. I know that this has nothing to do about the copyright law. But, one day, I got curious and I did call the copyright office and I asked them if you were allowed to do a cover song and they told me that you were allowed to do a cover song, not only that I called ASCAP and they also told me that you were allowed to do cover song's he said "Unfortunately yes you are" what he said was that a lot of the songwriters don't like this, but on the other hand a lot of them don't want the headache of suing you because it cost a lot and it is a long and drawn out process. The one thing he did say was that was if the band or the person or the publishing company that owns the rights to that song made a protest you would have to take it down, were I have no protest to that; That is what I would do. So I asked him; "this was at the copyright office" what was copyrightable in a song and they said it is the lyrics and the tune even if you do a cover songs or a parody. Because when you do a parody you're still breaking the copyright law because you're using the tune that was created by the said band. Now, there have been a few people have told me that I'm breaking the copyright law When I do covers on here. And those people know who I'm talking about. I'm not trying to be on ornery, mean, or start any type of controversy, and a lot of you people that are on this form are experts somewhat about the copyright law. Well, the person that told me that I shouldn't be doing cover songs and that I should just delete the cover song that I did and get a license for it, have essentially done the same thing by creating a parody song to the song called purple haze, well, they were not using the words; or shall I say he was not using the words, but he was using the melody and that is breaking the copyright law. The melody is copyrightable in copyright law. When I talked to the copyright office They told me the two elements that are copyrightable in a song are the melody and the words. You can't copyright the music but you can copyright the melody and the words. So doing what I did by posting a link to my cover song was no different than what he did by posting a link to his parody cover song. I responded after he posted the link to his cover song but never got a response back, HMM I wonder why? But anyhow, I wanted to make it clear and known on this form that it is not illegal to do a cover song as long as you email the publisher and this is what I did every single time I've done a cover song and notified them that I was going to be doing a cover songs of their artists song. It is against the law If you are making money using somebody else's material and it is against the law. If the publisher or the songwriter protest to you using their song. If they protest to it. You have to pull it down or you will get sued. But other than that, simply doing a cover songs and posting it is not against the law If you let the publisher and the artist know what you're doing and they don't protest to it. Besides when you create a song you would be crazy not to let a person do a cover song of it because if they were really popular on any digital platform your song sales would just blow up. The YouTube star that I talked about a while ago, well, her mother was a music attorney and she gave me this advice some time ago because I was very scared that I would get sued if I posted a cover song, and she told me that as long as you send an email with your intention to record a cover song and they don't protest to it. You don't have to pull it down. You just can't make any money off of it. I would like your guys input on this. But please don't post any nasty or mean comments because that would be up against the forms, rules. And I know what the terms of service says on this forum that you're not allowed to post a link to a cover song and I have done that, but the very people told me that have done that same thing.So please give your input in a nice way. Thank you! Also, let's all follow the forum rules by not posting links to any said cover song even parody if you are using the tune.

I'm not an expert either but, I've been looking into this and here's what I've learned.

Royalties is an extremely complex subject.

There are two types of copyrights on music.
1.Sound recording .......whoever owns the sound recording
2.Composition.......the song writer and/or the publisher

There are different types of royalties.
-Performance royalties
-Mechanical royalties

Simply stated, if you write a song, you own the composition copyright.
The challenge is, pursuing your rights and any associated royalties.

To do a cover you need a licence.
That could be a mechanical license "like what is used for live performances" and/or a sync licence to put the music with a video.

I believe some artists/publishers allow YT covers, while others don't.


If you write a song and somebody else uses it, what will you do about it?
Will you hire a lawyer to sue somebody?
At what cost?
If the party has made money on your song, lawyers may what to get involved so they can benefit.
If No money was made, who's going to chase this copyright infringement?

The flip side is teams of attorneys are combing through the internet to look for opportunities to make money.
Some publishers want complete control over the songs they own and do not want anyone using the material.
Also, big labels are hiring people to find anything that even sounds like the copyrighted material.
YouTube is using algorithms to find and block content they see as copyrighted.

Recently,there have been law suites won on pretty slim grounds, such as, It feels like the original.



All I can say is it's complicated.

A couple of things. At least three issues have been raised here.
You Tube went through a stage of development in which copyright
holders were looking the other way, so to speak. That started to
change around 2013. One of the leading lights in that change was
the Harry Fox agency, who worked it out with You Tube to provide
You Tube licenses. They are the people I suggest you be talking to.
Your Copyright connection seems less than helpful, though I am far from an expert, or even up to date.
https://www.harryfox.com
I've used HFA, though not for YouTube. What I am posting here
is hearsay. I'd like to hear how this works for you if you try it,
the You Tube license.

Usually I will post my songs to YouTube. I.E. They allow it, just recently soundcloud. I make no money at all off of this, yes some publishers don't want you using it. That is percisly why I e-mail the publisher, record company, and artist if available that way if they protest to it I can either not post it, or pull it down right away if there is a problem. I can understand some bands don't want their music being used like "The Eagles" I got a video blocked all over the internet because they are against that, this is their bread winner even today. I pulled it down, and no problem. I am just saying that if you let them know ahead of time they can either say yes or no; But if they say no you better pull it down! That way you don't even have to post the fair use law because they are not protesting and therefor there must be no problem.

I usually post all my songs to YouTube, but I get an e-mail telling me it's third party and I don't have to do anything. If I happen to protest I could get sued. I just do my craft because I enjoy sharing my talent with singing. I love to share it in my preference in music. You would use an origination like "Harry Fox" If you want to sell it. Like I mentioned, if you email the publisher, artist, and record company chances are that you are not going to get into trouble if they don't have a complaint with it.

Getting a license isn't that hard, because cover songs fall under what is called a compulsory license - which means exactly what it says, they have to give it to you. Consider it a courtesy to the songwriters/publishers to let them know there is money out there to be collected from youtube.

How do you get a compulsory license and how much does it cost? Never knew about this.

Write to Harry Fox. When I was making CDs the amount was based on the number of CDs you manufacture. I don't know how it works for digital distribution.

Trapper you've said time and time again, you're not making money off this. That has NOTHING to do with it so just stop writing that. You are correct with your thinking the rights holder controls this, they do.

See the brand new thread with the person asking what to do because he just got a take down notice from YouTube. The point there is apparently you can get a take down notice just because the YT computer thinks it could be a violation and not only because the rights holder complained about it. That's what I thought all along but other people have been saying no, it doesn't work that way so now I'm confused too. Maybe the other poster didn't explain exactly what happened correctly, I don't know.

Understand what YT does is their thing, they're a private company and can do anything they want. It's not necessarily what copyright law says. That's the same thing here on PG's forums. PG decides how to handle the posting of covers and the last I heard they defer to YouTube. If it's up on YT then it's ok to post it here but not on the Songwriters forum. That forum is for originals only but if you want to post something in this thread it's ok as long as it's on YT.

Bob

OK I'll go with that; but what I am just trying to get across in simple terms, is that if you send out a letter of intent to put up a song you are giving the copyright holder, either publisher, or writer, or record company a chance to say no! you can't so that. Then you just move on to another song. But, if they send you an email saying go ahead then you can do it. If they don't get into contact with you about it just assume that it's OK. If they later decide to tell you to take it down, you take it down. I just had a Michael Jackson song removed without any notice I am not going to protest it, throw a fit about it, or re-post it because it is their property and with something like this you just don't want to tempt fate. They were kind enough not to sue so don't give them a reason to. I also got permission from a songwriter named "Jason Blume" that wrote a song called "Change My Mind" he gave me permission to record, and post his song on YouTube. He gets any ad revenue off of this, he said it was OK and he even thanked me for recording it, and posting it. I had a YouTube strike one time because I recorded and posted the song by "Supertramp" "Take The Long Way Home" I got this strike one time for 15 months, OK they did not want their song redone by anyone. But, I know that you are really taking your chances when you do this, but most of the time they will usually have you take it down or they will take it down because it is a lot of money to sue someone and they probably don't want the headache. As far as that other poster if you post anything tell him to take it down and don't complain about it because then you are opening yourself up to a possible law suit and maybe even getting your you-tube channel taken down, YouTube takes things a little more serious than people may think because like you said they have their own rules and they can do what they want. I know people that have posted cover songs and their entire channel decimated over night. As far as posting the song's I only do that because I am becoming better, and better with "BIAB" and I like to show off my skill and talent. I will keep in mind though not to post my links to the songwriters forum unless it is original. I will post it in the to the other forums that are dedicated to that, Thanks for that bit of wisdom!

P.S. If I want more traffic I will from now on promote my songs with YouTube.

The Harry fox agency is easy to navigate and license songs. While we only release songs we wrote or public domain songs (for which we own all rights) we would never consider covering a song w/o a license. A properly published song is intellectual property. Whether the owner makes virtually nothing off it or they make millions it is still their property and to cover it it one buys the right. Because it is hard to enforce doesn’t change that.

Several years back I literally stumbled across a glowing review of one of our songs. Unfortunately it was not our recording. A gospel group recorded it and when I contacted them a member said they had tried to reach us. Hmmmmm. We settled on a one time blanket license fee for which we made a charitable donation. It was a weird feeling. Sorta like somebody had stolen my bike!

FWIW, IMHO, etc.,

Be well.

Bud

This same question about YouTube is going on right now on the Keyboard Corner Forum. The Harry Fox Agency came up and this was the answer from one guy:

Sorry but this does not apply to video. The license HFA can issue is a mechanical license for using the music like recording and distributing a cover. But when you put it to video it requires a Sync license, which HFA does not cover. That has to be negotiated directly with the artist.

Is this correct? I don't know but it should be easily answered with a phone call or check HFA's website. It does sound like exactly what you're talking about Trapper.

Most on the KC forum are saying don't worry about it and a lot of the people there are music biz insiders. You're allowed three strikes before anything bad happens, the strikes only last for 6 months and you have every right to dispute it as was explained here. You lose the protest, take it down. No harm, no foul. Here's an interesting vid by Rick Beato. If you don't know him he has a great YT channel, he's a killer musician, producer, recording engineer and knows all kinds of music biz related things:



It really boils down to what songs you're covering. Huge mega hits by superstars almost certainly won't fly but if you're doing 40-50 year old blues, folk, jazz, country it's probably not a problem. But if you want to cover the big name superstar rock acts from the 70-80's's good luck. Journey, the Eagles, the Stones, Led Zep, Michael Jackson, probably won't work.

The best suggestion I read over there is simply do a search of the song title. If you can't find anything other than the original artist or another big name artist where it's obvious they got permission like Willie Nelson does Sinatra or something like that don't bother uploading a cover, it's probably a waste of time.

Bob

Harry Fox re sync licenses:

...You want to include a musical work as part of an audio-visual project (e.g., music video, film, commercial, karaoke, or “CD+G”). The right to include a pre-existing musical work in time-relation with an audio-visual project is typically known as the “synchronization” or “synch” right, and it requires permission from the copyright owner of the musical work. If you are a music distribution company seeking assistance in obtaining and administering synchronization licenses for commercial use or are distributing a video for non-commercial use that includes music you don’t own or control, HFA’s Rumblefish may be able to assist.

“ But when you put it to video it requires a Sync license, which HFA does not cover. That has to be negotiated directly with the artist.”

If anybody knows how to do this at scale I would be very interested to find out how. I have tried all sorts of things...

Maybe the HFA FAQ on Synch Licenses will help -
https://www.harryfox.com/#/faq

From FAQ:
Synchronization rights do not include the right to publicly perform music if your audio-visual project is transmitted to the public. In that case, you may need a public performance license from one of the performing rights organizations:
SESAC
ASCAP
BMI
GMR
--------------
Seems like it's somewhere to start.

Got really excited this morning as Rumblefish offers a $100 pm blanket license for the synch licenses to the two million songs in their catalogue. One small problem! I don’t recognize one of those two million songs!

This might be of some use to you Joanne.

How do I get my
synchronization license?
Synchronization License: This is the right to synchronize a song or a piece of music with your visual image. It must be obtained from the copyright owner of the music, which is usually the publisher. You can find out who the publisher is by using ASCAP's Clearance Express (ACE) at www.ascap.com/ace.

By "he" I think you mean me.... since you did refer to a recent parody I did of Purple Haze that I named Yello Hayz.

So, yes, you can record covers and post them to You Tube. They have digital spiders that roam the newly posted stuff and determine if it's a cover some from the melody according to their algorithms. They check if that artist allows covers and if so they monitize it giving the revenue to that artist. If the artist doesn't allow it then they take it down. This apparently was the only workable solution for them and agreeable with most artists. If you have the HFA license, you can tell them and YOU can collect the revenue.

You are correct.... melody and lyrics are copyrightable. HOWEVER, there is a provision in the copyright law that excludes in-the-classroom/educational-use of songs that allow teachers to use music without worrying about the copyright. The other provision is to use the song in a parody. The forces to be realized that in order to use the song as a parody to deliver the message, with the words being changed to covey the new parody message, it would be necessary to allow such use to use the original melody without running into a legal road block. It is for this reason, I was able to legally use the melody of the original Purple Haze in the song without being a scofflaw. I'd recommend a book I have in my library called THIS BUSINESS OF MUSIC as it explains this and other things about copyright law in more detail than you probably want to hear, and with examples from the past (case law) as to why the law is written like it is.

BTW, I had a few things going on and never was able to get back in time to reply to the last several folks including you. When I was able to get back it had fallen off the first few pages and was forgotten by me. My apologies. Life has a way of intruding when you least expect it. I'll leave it at that.

One more request.... please use paragraph spacing and breaks to make large posts like that easier to read. That was killer on the eyes.

I looked this information up on the copyright law in fair use: As far as I can see, there is no provision in Section 107 of the copyright law for Parody's.

Here is the information that I found.


107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use40

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

By the way I do have that book that you are talking about, I just have not gotten round to reading it though. My music teacher is using BIAB to teach me music and he told me to post the result's so he can see what I am doing as far as chord structure;

I am learning the guitar and the piano and voice. and music theory at an older age so I can eventually get around to composing my own music.

Most of the time I am using YouTube also and YouTube has a provision like you said, were the artist of the songs can collect the revenue off of their song's; whenever I do post something they always tell me that the claimant's of the copyright claim will be collecting the ad revenue; I am not collecting anything for myself or my talent's.

We are all doing the same thing when it comes to posting a cover, or a Parody, it's all the same thing; except I am getting music lessons and my music teacher is keeping tabs on my progress. so, if a parody is allowed for criticism then educational purposes are also allowed