Regarding cover tunes: I have been in the music business for over twenty years and I know that no artist (writer or copyright owner) can refuse the (cover) use of published music for a tribute/compilation CD - commercial, movie or otherwise as long as the fee is paid. You run into legal issues when you try to use or sample the original recording or change the lyrics or the arrangement. That absolutely requires the copyright owner's permission. Hence the Weird Al rejection - but you do not have to obtain permission to cover a published song. You just have to pay the fee.

I stumbled across this Volkswagen commercial where basically a valet guy in his boot gets woken up by three Volkswagens. Their headlights flicker, and the cars bump to the beat of Housequake. The guy mimics the words to the song and does quite a funny dance to it. Anyone seen this?

Are there any other commercials you guys know of where P's music is used?

MacDaddy said:

Ok, thanks and yes I agree, it's very well done.
Maybe Tampax can use 'I love U in me', would love to see someone have a go at that one

sgmusic said:

Isn't that 'compulsory license' limited? I have read that it doesn’t allow for broadcast. It would also not allow for use in a commercial. Even songs CLOSE to a real song have lead to law suits. Burse Springsteen sued a car company over a song that sounded a little too much like "born in the USA."

Also, Prince talked about this issue in an interview. I am thinking it was in Essence.


opps it was Ebony

http://princetext.tripod....ony04.html
[Edited 10/12/09 10:44am]

MacDaddy said:

I am thinking of a few others that are even more descriptive.

OnlyNDaUsa said:

Spill it, spill it

MacDaddy said:

"the Holy river"

Regarding cover tunes: I have been in the music business for over twenty years and I know that no artist (writer or copyright owner) can refuse the (cover) use of published music for a tribute/compilation CD - commercial, movie or otherwise as long as the fee is paid. You run into legal issues when you try to use or sample the original recording or change the lyrics or the arrangement. That absolutely requires the copyright owner's permission. Hence the Weird Al rejection - but you do not have to obtain permission to cover a published song. You just have to pay the fee.

I stumbled across this Volkswagen commercial where basically a valet guy in his boot gets woken up by three Volkswagens. Their headlights flicker, and the cars bump to the beat of Housequake. The guy mimics the words to the song and does quite a funny dance to it. Anyone seen this?

OnlyNDaUsa said:

There are basic fees to cover someone's song. Artist's can't price themselves out of the market in that regard, so it wasn't some exorbitant amount of money.

Remember also that Prince said no to Weird Al covering "Let's Go Crazy", so he does have some say so in it...

"Uh Huh." the jingle for Pepsi.

You run into legal issues when you try to use or sample the original recording or change the lyrics or the arrangement. That absolutely requires the copyright owner's permission. Hence the Weird Al rejection

Does Al get permission to do his parodies?

Al does get permission from the original writers of the songs that he parodies. While the law supports his ability to parody without permission, he feels it's important to maintain the relationships that he's built with artists and writers over the years. Plus, Al wants to make sure that he gets his songwriter credit (as writer of new lyrics) as well as his rightful share of the royalties.

Regarding cover tunes: I have been in the music business for over twenty years and I know that no artist (writer or copyright owner) can refuse the (cover) use of published music for a tribute/compilation CD - commercial, movie or otherwise as long as the fee is paid.

Basically, whenever music is used in a commercial project or public space, that music has to be licensed for a specific type of use. The rights to use music are bought and sold every day.

When music is recorded there may be more than one copyright owner having an interest in the recording. The music itself may be an original and produced by one person, the lyrics may be an original literary work produced by another person and the sound recording itself can be a copyright work by the studio. Also Performers' Rights may also exist in the recorded music.

When a song is used in a television program or on film, it is not only performed, but is also reproduced in film, video, and/or CD digital copies. Because performance and reproduction of copies are among the exclusive rights that come with copyright ownership, the film or television producers must obtain the proper licensing to use a song in an audio-visual production. The licensing of songs for audio-visual formats involves two separate copyrights: (1) the copyright in the underlying musical composition, which is owned by the publisher; and 2) the copyright in the specific recording of the composition, which is owned by the record company. A synchronization license (synch license) covers the right to use the composition and a master recording license covers the use of the recording.

Movies are made to be reproduced (as opposed to performed one time only), so filmmakers must obtain both a synch license and a master recording license to use copyrighted music. Commercials and television shows that will be reproduced in syndication also require both licenses. Certain television programs, such as live sports events and awards shows, may use a song with only a performance license from ASCAP, BMI or SESAC, because these programs are one-time performances that are generally not intended for reproduction.

There is no compulsory license (as in mechanical licensing) for synchronization and master recording licensing in audio-visual reproduction. Permission to use the song and the fee are at the discretion of the copyright owners, so an artist/publisher earns whatever he can negotiate for the use of his music on-screen. In television licensing deals, the negotiation issues include the type of media covered by the license (cable TV, network TV, home video, etc), the territory of the license (the U.S., North America, the world) and the term (length) of the license. Because of the greater permanence of movies, film producers will want to buy the rights to use the song in all types of media, throughout the world and in perpetuity, so the price of licensing music for films can be very substantial.

He wrote a song for Coca-Cola. But as far as I know it was never revealed if it really was "always coca-cola". It would make sense, because coca-cola was the sponsor of his concerts in 1993 and the "always coca-cola" ads were shown on video screens at the rock over germany festivals that year before prince performed.

I believe Prince penned "Uh huh", the song Ray Charles performed in the Pepsi Commercial, no?

ernestsewell said:

For fuck's sake: there's a FAQ on Weird Al's site and STILL PEOPLE PREFER TO SPOUT IGNORANT RUBBISH.

Weird Al doesn't have to do ZILCH, but he PREFERS to get the OK for the original artist.

ANYONE can parody ANY song that's ever been released WITHOUT CONSENT.

Sheesh, some of you think the music biz should be regulated like some fascist organisation. The rules are simple and anyone can google them, but nooooo, you'd rather make shit up. I've been pointing this out for more than ten years, but Prince fams rather spread ignorance, or repeat lies Prince told them, or make shit up. Why the fuck are you lot so proud to be so ignorant? Think, it ain't illegal yet.

Pizza Hut used "Cream" in a commercial. (All vocals were taking out) It was clearly Prince's version. It was in the year DP came out or the year after.