New topic
Printable| Author | Message |
QUESTION:Where R The Prince Covers? I know that there are talented musicians on the org that share musical experience, advice, and tablature info. Every now and then you guys will link us to your own studio produced compositions. Well,...I've been on "the tube" and can find guitar/bass/keyboard covers to all musical artists' songs except Prince. Hence, my question...where are the Prince covers? Intelligent people talk about ideas. -->Average people talk about things. --> Small people talk about other people. | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
Prince has them removed most probably... You need a license to legally cover a song, even if you aren't making any money from it. Other artists don't care when no money is being made from the covers... but I guess Prince does. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
coolcat said: Prince has them removed most probably... You need a license to legally cover a song, even if you aren't making any money from it. Other artists don't care when no money is being made from the covers... but I guess Prince does.
Not exaclty. http://entertainment.hows...lties2.htm Copyright licenses By giving someone a license, you are giving him permission to use your song. Once the song has been recorded and publicly distributed, however, compulsory licensing kicks in and everyone who wants to cover (record) the song can do so without your specific permission. They are required by law to pay you a statutory royalty rate, however, as well as notify you that they're going to release it, and send you monthly royalty statements. They are NOT allowed to make any changes to the words or melody or change the "fundamental character of the song" without the copyright owner's approval. If the song is changed, it is considered a "derivative work." Record companies rarely use compulsory licensing because they don't want to have to provide monthly royalty statements. Instead, they go to the copyright owner and get a direct license so they can negotiate the terms more freely.  |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
GaryMF said: coolcat said: Prince has them removed most probably... You need a license to legally cover a song, even if you aren't making any money from it. Other artists don't care when no money is being made from the covers... but I guess Prince does.
Not exaclty. http://entertainment.hows...lties2.htm Copyright licenses By giving someone a license, you are giving him permission to use your song. Once the song has been recorded and publicly distributed, however, compulsory licensing kicks in and everyone who wants to cover (record) the song can do so without your specific permission. They are required by law to pay you a statutory royalty rate, however, as well as notify you that they're going to release it, and send you monthly royalty statements. They are NOT allowed to make any changes to the words or melody or change the "fundamental character of the song" without the copyright owner's approval. If the song is changed, it is considered a "derivative work." Record companies rarely use compulsory licensing because they don't want to have to provide monthly royalty statements. Instead, they go to the copyright owner and get a direct license so they can negotiate the terms more freely. That's true. But I think bigwillpreacher was referring to amateur covers that were probably done without obtaining even the compulsory license or paying the statutory rate. Those could still be removed by Prince's legal team. [Edited 6/21/07 12:38pm] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
coolcat said:
That's true. But I think bigwillpreacher was referring to amateur covers that were probably done without obtaining even the compulsory license or paying the statutory rate. Those could still be removed by Prince's legal team. [Edited 6/21/07 12:38pm] [/quote]  Intelligent people talk about ideas. -->Average people talk about things. --> Small people talk about other people. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
coolcat said: GaryMF said: Not exaclty. http://entertainment.hows...lties2.htm Copyright licenses By giving someone a license, you are giving him permission to use your song. Once the song has been recorded and publicly distributed, however, compulsory licensing kicks in and everyone who wants to cover (record) the song can do so without your specific permission. They are required by law to pay you a statutory royalty rate, however, as well as notify you that they're going to release it, and send you monthly royalty statements. They are NOT allowed to make any changes to the words or melody or change the "fundamental character of the song" without the copyright owner's approval. If the song is changed, it is considered a "derivative work." Record companies rarely use compulsory licensing because they don't want to have to provide monthly royalty statements. Instead, they go to the copyright owner and get a direct license so they can negotiate the terms more freely. That's true. But I think bigwillpreacher was referring to amateur covers that were probably done without obtaining even the compulsory license or paying the statutory rate. Those could still be removed by Prince's legal team. [Edited 6/21/07 12:38pm] If you sell it..... but just posting it on youtube isn't selling it. i guess it's more a matter of youtube not having permission to show that stuff. i don't think the copright laws really address internet streaming. but i don't know |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
They're in litigation. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |