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]

Here we go again

lspear76 said:

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

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

luv4u said:

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

toots 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.

toots said:

lspear76 said:

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

luv4u said:

hehe

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?

toots said:

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.

VickiWaiting 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?

lspear76 said:

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.

lspear76 said:

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]

lspear76 said:

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]

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.

Well, let's listen to the original shall we?

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.

copyright infringement is the new pornography.

VickiWaiting said:

Cuz he figures no one has the balls to stand up to him maybe?

Anxiety said:

the internet is for porn!

lspear76 said:

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?

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

bboy87 said:

It doesn't make a difference if it's myspace or youtube (it's not actually your "space" or "tube").

Now i'm more confused than ever.

lspear76 said:

Short answer... Yes. Prince does have the right to do that.

lspear76 said:

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.

luv4u said: