independent and unofficial
Prince fan community site
Wed 20th Nov 2019 9:08pm
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Prince: Music and More > "Copyright Infringement" of a Cover Song
« Previous topic  Next topic »
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Author

Tweet     Share

Message
Thread started 04/29/08 6:25pm

lspear76

avatar

"Copyright Infringement" of a Cover Song

Is "Prince"/"NPG Records" really coming correct when:

A person records a cover of a Prince song, using their own guitar and voice, and puts it on Youtube. The video is then removed because of a copyright claim by NPG Records. I just came across a "cover" song of "Take Me With U" and the guy was only playing an acoustic guitar. But guess what? It was taken down because of a "copyright claim by NPG Records."

Is that legal? Is that ethically or even morally correct?
[Edited 4/29/08 18:26pm]
[Edited 4/29/08 18:26pm]
[Edited 4/29/08 18:27pm]
"Don't you think one of the charms of marriage is that it makes deception a necessity for both parties?"
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #1 posted 04/29/08 6:26pm

luv4u

Moderator

avatar

moderator

Here we go again lol
Edmonton, AB - canada
Mod Goddess of the SNIP & BAN Making Moves - OF4S
Ohh purple joy oh purple bliss oh purple rapture!
REAL MUSIC by REAL MUSICIANS - Prince
"I kind of wish there was a reason for Prince to make the site crash more" ~~ Ben
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #2 posted 04/29/08 6:26pm

toots

avatar

lspear76 said:

Is "Prince" and "NPG Records" really coming correct when:

A person records a cover song of a Prince song, using their own guitar and voice, and puts it on Youtube? I just came across a "cover" song of "Take Me With U" and the guy was only playing an acoustic guitar. But guess what? It was taken down because of a "copyright claim by NPG Records."

Is that legal? Is that ethically or even morally correct?

Another video is about to go bye bye and another poor guy gets sued rolleyes

Didnt you learn anything in the other thread? shoosh darn it shoosh!
Smurf theme song-seriously how many fucking "La Las" can u fit into a dam song wall
Proud Wendy and Lisa Fancy Lesbian asskisser thumbs up!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #3 posted 04/29/08 6:27pm

toots

avatar

luv4u said:

Here we go again lol

I was just saying that and you replied first darn it! razz
Smurf theme song-seriously how many fucking "La Las" can u fit into a dam song wall
Proud Wendy and Lisa Fancy Lesbian asskisser thumbs up!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #4 posted 04/29/08 6:27pm

lspear76

avatar

toots said:

lspear76 said:

Is "Prince" and "NPG Records" really coming correct when:

A person records a cover song of a Prince song, using their own guitar and voice, and puts it on Youtube? I just came across a "cover" song of "Take Me With U" and the guy was only playing an acoustic guitar. But guess what? It was taken down because of a "copyright claim by NPG Records."

Is that legal? Is that ethically or even morally correct?

Another video is about to go bye bye and another poor guy gets sued rolleyes

Didnt you learn anything in the other thread? shoosh darn it shoosh!


Read my post. The VIDEO was already REMOVED. I'm asking if Prince is correct when he claims ownership of a person just playing his song on his own guitar.
"Don't you think one of the charms of marriage is that it makes deception a necessity for both parties?"
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #5 posted 04/29/08 6:28pm

luv4u

Moderator

avatar

moderator

toots said:

luv4u said:

Here we go again lol

I was just saying that and you replied first darn it! razz



nana giggle
Edmonton, AB - canada
Mod Goddess of the SNIP & BAN Making Moves - OF4S
Ohh purple joy oh purple bliss oh purple rapture!
REAL MUSIC by REAL MUSICIANS - Prince
"I kind of wish there was a reason for Prince to make the site crash more" ~~ Ben
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #6 posted 04/29/08 6:29pm

toots

avatar

lspear76 said:

toots said:


Another video is about to go bye bye and another poor guy gets sued rolleyes

Didnt you learn anything in the other thread? shoosh darn it shoosh!


Read my post. The VIDEO was already REMOVED. I'm asking if Prince is correct when he claims ownership of a person just playing his song on his own guitar.

yes he already has done so AndI read the post so did luv4u that is why you got our responces.
Smurf theme song-seriously how many fucking "La Las" can u fit into a dam song wall
Proud Wendy and Lisa Fancy Lesbian asskisser thumbs up!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #7 posted 04/29/08 6:29pm

toots

avatar

luv4u said:

toots said:


I was just saying that and you replied first darn it! razz



nana giggle

razz razz razz razz booty! hehe
Smurf theme song-seriously how many fucking "La Las" can u fit into a dam song wall
Proud Wendy and Lisa Fancy Lesbian asskisser thumbs up!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #8 posted 04/29/08 6:30pm

VickiWaiting

To that point, how is Prince able to remove his performance of Creep? Not his song. He just performed it.

What is up with this double standard?
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #9 posted 04/29/08 6:30pm

lspear76

avatar

toots said:

lspear76 said:



Read my post. The VIDEO was already REMOVED. I'm asking if Prince is correct when he claims ownership of a person just playing his song on his own guitar.

yes he already has done so AndI read the post so did luv4u that is why you got our responces.


What are you talking about? I can't even understand your response.

The video was already removed. It's not like I "found a video" of someone doing a cover song and then I come here asking if Prince is a straight shooter by going after the video. The video was already removed, and now that I see it has been removed, I'm asking if Prince is in the right or wrong.
"Don't you think one of the charms of marriage is that it makes deception a necessity for both parties?"
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #10 posted 04/29/08 6:32pm

lspear76

avatar

VickiWaiting said:

To that point, how is Prince able to remove his performance of Creep? Not his song. He just performed it.

What is up with this double standard?


Exactly. NPG Records claimed copyright on Prince's live performance of "Creep."

However, some regular dude sits at home playing his acoustic guitar, covering "Take Me With U," and NPG Records again claims "ownership."

How is the above scenario legal, or even possible?
"Don't you think one of the charms of marriage is that it makes deception a necessity for both parties?"
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #11 posted 04/29/08 6:34pm

VickiWaiting

lspear76 said:

VickiWaiting said:

To that point, how is Prince able to remove his performance of Creep? Not his song. He just performed it.

What is up with this double standard?


Exactly. NPG Records claimed copyright on Prince's live performance of "Creep."

However, some regular dude sits at home playing his acoustic guitar, covering "Take Me With U," and NPG Records again claims "ownership."

How is the above scenario legal, or even possible?


Well the baby video sued and won the right to repost theirs. This guy will have to do the same. I'm not sure why Prince gets it both ways.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #12 posted 04/29/08 6:35pm

toots

avatar

lspear76 said:

toots said:


yes he already has done so AndI read the post so did luv4u that is why you got our responces.


What are you talking about? I can't even understand your response.

The video was already removed. It's not like I "found a video" of someone doing a cover song and then I come here asking if Prince is a straight shooter by going after the video. The video was already removed, and now that I see it has been removed, I'm asking if Prince is in the right or wrong.

I meant by he already has means that he already pulled someones video of them playing their own guitar and singing his songs he claims its copywrite infringement as well.
[Edited 4/29/08 18:36pm]
Smurf theme song-seriously how many fucking "La Las" can u fit into a dam song wall
Proud Wendy and Lisa Fancy Lesbian asskisser thumbs up!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #13 posted 04/29/08 6:37pm

toots

avatar

lspear76 said:

VickiWaiting said:

To that point, how is Prince able to remove his performance of Creep? Not his song. He just performed it.

What is up with this double standard?


Exactly. NPG Records claimed copyright on Prince's live performance of "Creep."

However, some regular dude sits at home playing his acoustic guitar, covering "Take Me With U," and NPG Records again claims "ownership."

How is the above scenario legal, or even possible?

Because its Prince song that is the point! BUT Creep IS NOT Prince song its Radiohead's song so really he CANT claim a copywrite to that its a double standard on his part.
[Edited 4/29/08 18:44pm]
Smurf theme song-seriously how many fucking "La Las" can u fit into a dam song wall
Proud Wendy and Lisa Fancy Lesbian asskisser thumbs up!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #14 posted 04/29/08 6:40pm

Xcalibre

avatar

actually, whoever owns or controls the publishing copyright for the song has control over it.

i don't believe that's NPG Records. but it is whatever his current, personal publishing company is called (it used to be called Paisley Park, Controversy, PRN, ecnirp... or some of those anyway) and Universal.
I don't want this to end
I'm missing my best friend
Yes it was Incredible
There's no reason to pretend
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #15 posted 04/29/08 6:42pm

wildgoldenhone
y

Well, let's listen to the original shall we?
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #16 posted 04/29/08 8:29pm

emesem

you have a right to record another person's song. you can even press it and sell it as long as you pay the mechanicals. You cannot however "perform" it with out a license of some sort. The performer however does not usually pay the license but rather the "venue." here the venue is the website and it has not paid Prince's publishing the right to perform the song on demand.

There is a compulsory license for radio play where as long as the radio station pays the per performance fee (a few cents IIRC) the person holding the song rights cant stop it.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #17 posted 04/29/08 9:53pm

Anxiety

copyright infringement is the new pornography.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #18 posted 04/29/08 11:18pm

Nikademus

avatar

VickiWaiting said:

lspear76 said:



Exactly. NPG Records claimed copyright on Prince's live performance of "Creep."

However, some regular dude sits at home playing his acoustic guitar, covering "Take Me With U," and NPG Records again claims "ownership."

How is the above scenario legal, or even possible?


Well the baby video sued and won the right to repost theirs. This guy will have to do the same. I'm not sure why Prince gets it both ways.


Cuz he figures no one has the balls to stand up to him maybe?
Facebook, I haz it - https://www.facebook.com/Nikster1969

Yer booteh maeks meh moodeh

Differing opinions do not equal "hate"
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #19 posted 04/30/08 12:16am

syble

Anxiety said:

copyright infringement is the new pornography.



lol the internet is for porn! lol
walk with crooked shoes www.myspace/syblepurplelishous
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #20 posted 04/30/08 3:33am

cathys

lspear76 said:

VickiWaiting said:

To that point, how is Prince able to remove his performance of Creep? Not his song. He just performed it.

What is up with this double standard?


Exactly. NPG Records claimed copyright on Prince's live performance of "Creep."

However, some regular dude sits at home playing his acoustic guitar, covering "Take Me With U," and NPG Records again claims "ownership."

How is the above scenario legal, or even possible?


Because copyright in music performances is complex. There are lots of aspects to a music video clip: the song lyrics, the music, the performance itself, the sound recording and the video (moving image) recording. All of these aspects are the subject of separate copyright protection.

Prince owns the publishing rights for the songs he wrote. So he can get videos of his own songs pulled from YouTube for violating his copyright in those songs, even if performed by someone else. That's without question.

It's also arguable that his version of Creep altered the original enough to be entitled to copyright protectin in its own right, in which case Prince could get clips of that pulled as well. This is less clear-cut.

If they wanted to, Radiohead could get the clips of 'Creep' taken down off YouTube because they own the rights to the original song, regardless of the fact that it was performed by Prince.

Make sense?
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #21 posted 04/30/08 11:59am

bboy87

avatar

What about if someone posted their cover of a Prince song on MySpace?
"We may deify or demonize them but not ignore them. And we call them genius, because they are the people who change the world."
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #22 posted 04/30/08 12:37pm

ElCapitan

avatar

bboy87 said:

What about if someone posted their cover of a Prince song on MySpace?


It doesn't make a difference if it's myspace or youtube (it's not actually your "space" or "tube").
"What kind of fuck ending is that?"
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #23 posted 04/30/08 2:01pm

wonder505

Now i'm more confused than ever.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #24 posted 04/30/08 3:47pm

BorisFishpaw

avatar

lspear76 said:

Is "Prince"/"NPG Records" really coming correct when:

A person records a cover of a Prince song, using their own guitar and voice, and puts it on Youtube. The video is then removed because of a copyright claim by NPG Records. I just came across a "cover" song of "Take Me With U" and the guy was only playing an acoustic guitar. But guess what? It was taken down because of a "copyright claim by NPG Records."

Is that legal? Is that ethically or even morally correct?


Short answer... Yes. Prince does have the right to do that.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #25 posted 04/30/08 5:55pm

Jestyr

lspear76 said:

Is "Prince"/"NPG Records" really coming correct when:

A person records a cover of a Prince song, using their own guitar and voice, and puts it on Youtube. The video is then removed because of a copyright claim by NPG Records. I just came across a "cover" song of "Take Me With U" and the guy was only playing an acoustic guitar. But guess what? It was taken down because of a "copyright claim by NPG Records."

Is that legal? Is that ethically or even morally correct?
[Edited 4/29/08 18:26pm]
[Edited 4/29/08 18:26pm]
[Edited 4/29/08 18:27pm]


Lou? LOU!

Prince owns the publishing of his written material which basically means he owns the composition of every song he writes as opposed to the original recording of that song. So when a person or group uses one of his songs to re-record and release, they must pay royalties (in accordance with the musician's guild rules) to the publisher responsible for collecting on behalf of the artist. In this case, it is Universal Music Publishing which administers the publishing rights to his Controversy publishing catalog (among others). However, when a person or group simply record a song Prince composed and never pay the publisher royalties, they have the right to request the material be removed.

Simple as that.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #26 posted 04/30/08 6:03pm

nurseV

luv4u said:

Here we go again lol



falloff
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Prince: Music and More > "Copyright Infringement" of a Cover Song