I'd love to do a version of "In All My Dreams". What is the legal stance on covering songs that were never officially released? Is it at all legally possible?

(oh and I don't care how many of y'all want to correct me, my copy of Charade says In All My Dreams, so that's what it is. )

MrSquiggle said:

You can't do a cover of an unpublished song. That is direct copyright infringement.

in all ur dreams

Eleventeen said:

Right. Does that song belong to Warner Bros because it was recorded under their reign, or Prince because he never released it?

MrSquiggle said:

You will be sued promptly. You cannot legally cover unreleased songs, unless you have the copyright holders permission. Whether or not Prince owns the copyright depends on the terms of the contract at the time it was created, and if it was ever officially "delivered" to WB.


S

is "In All My Dreams" registered with a copyright? If not... what legal recourse does Prince have?

curious....

How can there be copyright when he never released it ??!!
[Edited 9/28/04 13:45pm]

Dewrede said:

Copyright and releasing do not go hand in hand. "In All My Dreams" has a copyright just for the fact that Prince wrote and recorded it. And the only way for someone to perform or record and release that song would be if they could prove they wrote it before he did.

That happens all the time.

MrSquiggle said:

it belongs 2 Prince.



Hey i say that u shouldve posted this and that u should have just recorded it and let a couple prince.org friends hear it, but dont actually go about selling it or making it avaliable.

I did a version of "Do U Wanna Raide" for myself and i listened 2 it 3 times and now it is just collecting dust.

I say if ya do it, do it 4 private use only, otherwise dont do it at all.

One of his many valued songs that I've never heard, I'm now sad.

Dewrede said:

Once your creation has been "fixed in a tangible medium," it is automatically copyrighted. So once you tape it or write it down or whatever, you have a copyright. You only have to fill out paperwork and send it in to register your copyright if you actually want to sue someone for copyright infringment, and you have to do that in a timely manner once you first find out about the infringing work (I can't remember the exact time period, it's been a while), or you may not be able to sue them. If you record it, I wouldn't ever let a bunch of people hear it or perform it live in any remotely public place. You'd be amazed at how quickly lawyers can find out about this kind of thing. There are whole firms dedicated to finding copyright infringers.




S
[Edited 9/28/04 14:32pm]

perform live? I am sure he can cover it live, do you need permision to cover a song live? I dont think so.

7salles said:

You need permission to cover an unreleased song live. You can cover all the released songs live you want.


S

oh please.

If it's live, you can cover whatever you want. Unless you're Bono on tour with U2, and hell, even then, you've got the lawyers and accountants to make sure the stuff is cleared up. I've played crap from "Witness" to "the sex of it". If it's a live performance, yes, legally, you're tip-toeing into dangerous territory. But if you're playing at a bar for 50 people, it's nothing too risky. If you're recording it, for a CD, you will (and CAN) get clearance on ANY published song. Google Harry Fox Agency.

That one agency handles copyright clearances.

Good luck and dont forget to listen to my version of LIFE CAN BE SO NICE

link down there VVVVV

Redayh said:

I wrote the Harry Fox Agency an e-mail specifically asking about this point. You need permission, (legally) to cover any song, released or not. Where are you getting your information?

otan said:

Statutes and case law. And by the way, when I say cover, I mean perform live NOT make your own recording.

S
[Edited 9/28/04 15:16pm]

on the other hand, parodies are okay (for whatever reason)

scandaloussex said:

otan said:

Eh, in the US that is not necessarily the case.

One can record a cover of a song and put it on their album without permission of the original artist, but royalties must be paid to the original artist regardless.

Spinlight said:

[ EDIT: to be specific, you are correct, you don't need permission from the ARTIST. You need permission from the entity that holds the copyright. It CAN be the artist, or in the case of the Beatles catalog, it could be Michael Jackson. ]

Again, where are you getting this?

Have you heard of a band called the Verve? Bittersweet Symphony? They recorded a song with a sample from the Rolling Stones, without their permission, even though the Verve had tried to contact the stones prior to releasing their album. When the song hit number one, the Stones sued them for EVERY DIME THEY MADE off of the album.

And won.

And that's why the Verve no longer exist.

I wrote an article on copyright permissions and registration, and infringement, for Performer Magazine. Unless the laws have changed in the past 2 years, you are mistaken.

Here's the article.
http://www.blindslim.com/...c=articles

Not to get picky or whiny about this, but unless you are positive, (you ARE a lawyer or you've CONTACTED a lawyer) I wouldn't recommend posting your theories about copyright law.
[Edited 9/29/04 6:12am]

otan said:

Sampling a song and recording a cover version of a song are not the same thing.

Hole did not need permission from Stevie Nicks to record Gold Dust Woman.
Prince did not need permission to record I Can't Make You Love Me, One Of Us, Everyday Is A Winding Road, A Case Of You, etc.
Nirvana did not need permission from The Melvins to record Molly's Lips, Son Of A Gun, or permission from Devo to record Turnaround.

A cover and a sample are not the same and THAT is why The Rolling Stones won that case.

Spinlight said:

You are SORELY mistaken. A sample and a cover are BOTH using a copy of that song. Go read my article. Those artists DID need the permission to do those cover songs.

You all seem to be confused about what is legal and what is not.

Simply put, it is not legal to profit from someone elses work without their permission. Whether it is copyrighted or not, the fact is it is someone elses intellectual property.

Covering a song in the confines of your own space for private use is not illigal. Just as playing a song live is not illigal unless you then go and sell the live footage or sell it on CD.

Taking a sample from a song has the same rules applied. Lifting a segment, sound, screech or beat from a song and using it in a track of your own is ok unless you profit from it.

However, the lines are not so clear when it comes to recreating a tune or sound from someone elses song and creating a completely different song (Ie not sampling but recreating). Ice Ice Baby by Vanilla Ice, way back in the day, caused a stir regarding the use of the Queen riff from Under Pressure. The question was how much of the substance of the Queen song was utilised to make the Vanilla Ice track?

The judge ruled that it was taking too much of the substance of the Queen song, and so ruled it illigal.

But suppose you took the guitar riff from Kiss and played it in a slightly different way, or a different key or with a different guitar sound. Are you stealing Princes property? After all it is is a bunch of chords on a guitar. At what point do you call it stealing or just using the same chords?

I dont think anyone can copyright or claim ownership to a sequence of chords or keys completely, unless the uniqueness is so close to the substance of your own song.

THE LAW:

You can cover someone's song in a live performance WITHOUT any permission or payment of royalties.

this is how wedding bands, bar acts, and even top performrs get away with singing other poeple's stuff live.

You HAVE to get permission and pay to RECORD or BROADCAST it, or make it permanant in some way.

My lawyer - Lionel hutts (Attorney of law). Says that "It is perfectly legall for you to peform or record the work of another artist alive or dead as long as they don't find out about it".

Isn't playing a song live still a performance for profit?