I wonder how Tommy James would feel about "Wild Thing" being incorporated into his song?

muirdo said:

I wonder how Tommy James would feel about "Wild Thing" being incorporated into his song?

Maybe that's why Prince is claiming songwriting credit on ASCAP. He took two songs written by other people and combined them together. Thus it becomes a Prince song.

electricberet said:

muirdo said:

I wonder how Tommy James would feel about "Wild Thing" being incorporated into his song?

Maybe that's why Prince is claiming songwriting credit on ASCAP. He took two songs written by other people and combined them together. Thus it becomes a Prince song.

That may be a fair assumption.

Would doing something like assure him the royalties?

muirdo said:

electricberet said:

Maybe that's why Prince is claiming songwriting credit on ASCAP. He took two songs written by other people and combined them together. Thus it becomes a Prince song.

That may be a fair assumption.

Would doing something like assure him the royalties?

Not sure, but I'm working on a new song of mine. It will be a mash of Prince's "Manic Monday" and Rebecca Black's "Friday." I will be claiming songwriting credit. Since I have no musical talent, Prince may not like it, but it doesn't matter because it becomes my own unique song when I combine the two.

[Edited 4/26/11 9:33am]

electricberet said:

muirdo said:

That may be a fair assumption.

Would doing something like assure him the royalties?

Not sure, but I'm working on a new song of mine. It will be a mash of Prince's "Manic Monday" and Rebecca Black's "Friday." I will be claiming songwriting credit. Since I have no musical talent, Prince may not like it, but it doesn't matter because it becomes my own unique song when I combine the two.

[Edited 4/26/11 9:33am]

Legally it does.

And thereby the song has its own copyright too, apart from the copyrights on each of the seperate songs.

Prince likely got the necessary permission from the copyright owners to do so tho', as well as not to give them credit for writing the original songs.

[Edited 4/26/11 11:43am]

Tremolina said:

electricberet said:

Not sure, but I'm working on a new song of mine. It will be a mash of Prince's "Manic Monday" and Rebecca Black's "Friday." I will be claiming songwriting credit. Since I have no musical talent, Prince may not like it, but it doesn't matter because it becomes my own unique song when I combine the two.

[Edited 4/26/11 9:33am]

Legally it does.

And thereby the song has its own copyright too, apart from the copyrights on each of the seperate songs.

Prince likely got the necessary permission from the copyright owners to do so tho', as well as not to give them credit for writing the original songs.

[Edited 4/26/11 11:43am]

I'm thrilled to hear it. By the way, if anyone wants to hear my new song "Manic Four-Day Weekend," just email me your credit card number, and I'll give you the secret password to my new website, www.lettuceflow4.com. The song will be posted there soon along with a lot of other cool stuff that you're sure to like but I can't mention here.

^^ lol I bet Prince will be waiting in delight for you to publish it...

with a subpoena

Tremolina said:

^^ lol I bet Prince will be waiting in delight for you to publish it...

with a subpoena

Don't worry. I am sending Prince a formal request for permission. It is in the middle of page 27 of a long handwritten letter in which I give him a piece of my mind about his recent work, tell him how much I like his hairstyles over the years, and ask interesting questions such as whether "Sister" is a true story. I'm sure he will write back and grant his permission, because he loves his fans so much, but if he doesn't reply I'm going to just go ahead and launch the website. That is, assuming I can get permission from whoever wrote the Rebecca Black song.

electricberet said:

Tremolina said:

^^ lol I bet Prince will be waiting in delight for you to publish it...

with a subpoena

Don't worry. I am sending Prince a formal request for permission. It is in the middle of page 27 of a long handwritten letter in which I give him a piece of my mind about his recent work, tell him how much I like his hairstyles over the years, and ask interesting questions such as whether "Sister" is a true story. I'm sure he will write back and grant his permission, because he loves his fans so much,

lol

lPoeticl said:

NouveauDance said:

He did a cover as the lead track from his last widely commercially released album (Crimson & Clover) so his stance is pretty hypocritical.

This is just about Prince's usual BS - control and money. Something obviously put a bee in his bonnet and rather than dealing with, he does an interview where he makes some out of context bratish comment. If he was inspired by anything enough to make even a half decent album and promote it, he'd be concentrating on that rather than bitching about nickel and dime stuff. It's no different to past crusades, they're a distraction from his current artistic void.

I'm sure he got permission or we'd hear about that lawsuit.

There is no lawsuit possible because it isn't against the law. That's why he's pissed. You don't have to ask for permission, you just have to pay the songwriter his/her royalty fee.

Having listened to the discussion I have to say that I am very glad that the origins of the compulsory license were discussed. Assuming that everything that guy said was true I think that Prince has a point. At the very least the law should be updated. I do not necessarily think it is just to apply a law that was originally about piano rolls and player pianos to covering other people's songs in the 21st century. That law has got to be a hundred years old, with the many, many changes in the world of music since then surely there is some room for improvement?

rialb said:

Having listened to the discussion I have to say that I am very glad that the origins of the compulsory license were discussed. Assuming that everything that guy said was true I think that Prince has a point. At the very least the law should be updated. I do not necessarily think it is just to apply a law that was originally about piano rolls and player pianos to covering other people's songs in the 21st century. That law has got to be a hundred years old, with the many, many changes in the world of music since then surely there is some room for improvement?

Updated to what?

Tremolina said:

rialb said:

Having listened to the discussion I have to say that I am very glad that the origins of the compulsory license were discussed. Assuming that everything that guy said was true I think that Prince has a point. At the very least the law should be updated. I do not necessarily think it is just to apply a law that was originally about piano rolls and player pianos to covering other people's songs in the 21st century. That law has got to be a hundred years old, with the many, many changes in the world of music since then surely there is some room for improvement?

Updated to what?

Honestly I don't know. I have to plead ignorance as I am not familiar with what exactly the law does. However, if this is a law that was enacted roughly a hundred years ago, when recorded music was in its infancy, there must be some aspects of it that should be tweaked. From the little I do know it appears that one law was taken and applied to an area that it was never intended to cover. That seems a bit wrong.

rialb said:

Tremolina said:

Updated to what?

Honestly I don't know. I have to plead ignorance as I am not familiar with what exactly the law does. However, if this is a law that was enacted roughly a hundred years ago, when recorded music was in its infancy, there must be some aspects of it that should be tweaked. From the little I do know it appears that one law was taken and applied to an area that it was never intended to cover. That seems a bit wrong.

I don't think it can all be brought back to "piano rolls", but whatever its true history, what compulsory licensing in music has achieved, is that it has encouraged the recording of popular music and that it has made public broadcast by radio or TV possible.

All without permission.

For real, how many covers do you think have been made by popular artists, especially in the 60's and 70'sd? And how IMPORTANT do you think this is for the recording industry?

No way, the laws on this will ever change.

Tremolina said:

rialb said:

Honestly I don't know. I have to plead ignorance as I am not familiar with what exactly the law does. However, if this is a law that was enacted roughly a hundred years ago, when recorded music was in its infancy, there must be some aspects of it that should be tweaked. From the little I do know it appears that one law was taken and applied to an area that it was never intended to cover. That seems a bit wrong.

I don't think it can all be brought back to "piano rolls", but whatever its true history, what compulsory licensing in music has achieved, is that it has encouraged the recording of popular music and that it has made public broadcast by radio or TV possible.

All without permission.

For real, how many covers do you think have been made by popular artists, especially in the 60's and 70'sd? And how IMPORTANT do you think this is for the recording industry?

No way, the laws on this will ever change.

I'm certainly not of the opinion that there should never be another cover song but at the same time I can see Prince's point. Are covers still vitally important to the recording industry? I would say that no they are not. Obviously something like Glee would indicate that I am wrong but aside from that over the last forty years or so cover songs have become less and less prevalent. In the '60s it was common to have competing versions of the same song climbing the charts at the same time but today that is something of a rarity.

Can you give me a good reason why music should be different than any other art form? If you can't copy a book or a film why should you be able to copy a song? That is one big question that I have yet to hear a good answer to.

rialb said:

Tremolina said:

I don't think it can all be brought back to "piano rolls", but whatever its true history, what compulsory licensing in music has achieved, is that it has encouraged the recording of popular music and that it has made public broadcast by radio or TV possible.

All without permission.

For real, how many covers do you think have been made by popular artists, especially in the 60's and 70'sd? And how IMPORTANT do you think this is for the recording industry?

No way, the laws on this will ever change.

I'm certainly not of the opinion that there should never be another cover song but at the same time I can see Prince's point. Are covers still vitally important to the recording industry? I would say that no they are not. Obviously something like Glee would indicate that I am wrong but aside from that over the last forty years or so cover songs have become less and less prevalent. In the '60s it was common to have competing versions of the same song climbing the charts at the same time but today that is something of a rarity.

Can you give me a good reason why music should be different than any other art form? If you can't copy a book or a film why should you be able to copy a song? That is one big question that I have yet to hear a good answer to.

To be fair, I gave you a good reason already, two actually.

1) Without compulsory licensing in music, thousands of popular covers couldn't have been made. Whether covers were better (in your opinion) or more frequent before than these days, doesn't really matter, does it? People worldwide couldn't have enjoyed the many popular covers that made, otherwise relatively unknown songs, the well known hits that they are today. And I don't think neither me, you, Prince or anybody else would have liked that, would we?

2) Without compulsory licensing in music, there wouldn't be any popular music on the radio and TV. The music industry, hell the entire world, would have looked VERY differently without it. And I don't think neither me, you, Prince or anybody else would have liked that, would we?

3) (yeah I can give a third one too): Without compulsory licensing in music, artists wouldn't be able to play other people's songs live, including Prince. Cover bands would be illegal. Intentionally covering a song in concert would constitute copyright infringement, in essence a federal crime, and could get the artists fined or even emprisoned, and that's aside from the mega high, statutory damages the copyright owner could demand..

I get the argument about why books and films etc cannot be 'covered' legally without permission, but it doesn't hold up, because those are very different types of works, with different kind of histories and industries behind it. Can you imagine a 'cover version' of 'The Catcher in the Rye' for example? Or a cover of 'Pulp Fiction'? I don't think anybody ever even seriously contemplated such a thing, let alone has ever seriously done it...

I also want to stress that you may only cover an already legally published song and that a cover isn't exactly a 'copy', but - legally speaking - a 'derivative work', like every sound recording (recorded musical performance) of a song actually is. And that the author of a song isn't totally helpless, nor without rights in the case of a compulsory license either. If they fuck up your work or your name and reputation you can still sue. If they don't give you credit, also. (except when you gave up all those rights too, when you signed with that music publisher who was going to make you 'rich and famous'...)

I think that for Prince it's just hard to accept that he doesn't always have FULL control over his work and that he sometimes has to accept only standard royalties, especially when others take full advantage of it (like SOC). That's understandable, I probably wouldn't like it myself much either, but that's not a good reason to go and change the law, just for Prince's sake to always have full control and get his way. There is much more at stake with this issue than just that.

[Edited 4/29/11 8:47am]

I see no difference between a movie being remade and a song. But I am not sure I am opposed to there being such a law for movies.

OnlyNDaUsa said:

I see no difference between a movie being remade and a song. But I am not sure I am opposed to there being such a law for movies.

Besides the occasional old movie remake would you like to pay to see ten different versions of all kinds of movies? Do you think there is a market for it or film studios waiting in line to do it?

Also, in copyright law, a movie is basically the same as a sound recording. A derivative work.

The movie is a independent copyrighted work based on a movie script, which may or may not be based on a book, which are both seperate copyrighted works.

As is the sound recording, which is based on the song, which is a seperate work with an independent copyright.

If you want to talk about 'covering movies', you are therefore actually talking bout covering movie scripts and/or books the movie was based upon.

Tremolina said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

I see no difference between a movie being remade and a song. But I am not sure I am opposed to there being such a law for movies.

Besides the occasional old movie remake would you like to pay to see ten different versions of all kinds of movies? Do you think there is a market for it or film studios waiting in line to do it?

I would pay for the ones that I was interested in seeing. So the market would decide what movies were worth remaking. Keep in mind like songs they would have to be pretty much shot for shot and line by line copies.

Also, in copyright law, a movie is basically the same as a sound recording. A derivative work.

I have not delved that deep into copyright law in years. But I believe you are correct.

The movie is a independent copyrighted work based on a movie script, which may or may not be based on a book, which are both seperate copyrighted works.

Same with songs: lyrics and music each that may come from some different sources.

As is the sound recording, which is based on the song, which is a seperate work with an independent copyright.

right, in fact if memory serves, it was the separate sound track copyright that pulled the movie "it's a wonderful life" out of an assumed public domain and back into copyright protection.

If you want to talk about 'covering movies', you are therefore actually talking bout covering movie scripts and/or books the movie was based upon.

Yeah, it is more complex and something the film makers and various holders of copyrights would have to keep in mind when they choose to make a movie. As it is today for songs.

and it is not that I am really all that interested in very many remakes but there are a few I would not mind seeing made.

^ Right

Like you said: you *may* be interested in "a few remakes". There's simply not enough market for it, like there is in music, nor are the studios waiting in line to do it. OCCASIONALLY they do, but then it's usually just about some age old master piece and an individual bidding war. No compulsory licenses needed. Nor has it ever been a tradition in film to do so.

Keep in mind, a song is something very different than a movie. ALL popular artists LEARNED to make and play their music by playing other people's music. Practically all bands have done covers or started as such. Very few exceptions, even when an artist has a vested carreer going, like Prince. hell, the older he gets the more covers he does!~

Do you think somebody like George Lucas started out doing 'covers'?

Tremolina said:

^ Right

Like you said: you *may* be interested in "a few remakes". There's simply not enough market for it, like there is in music, nor are the studios waiting in line to do it. OCCASIONALLY they do, but then it's usually just about some age old master piece and an individual bidding war. No compulsory licenses needed. Nor has it ever been a tradition in film to do so.

Keep in mind, a song is something very different than a movie. ALL popular artists LEARNED to make and play their music by playing other people's music. Practically all bands have done covers or started as such. Very few exceptions, even when an artist has a vested carreer going, like Prince. hell, the older he gets the more covers he does!~

Do you think somebody like George Lucas started out doing 'covers'?

and I only buy the covers of songs I am interested in. I am sure there are people that would do more if there was more of a market. The cost of recording gets in the way.

As far as market demand goes, I agree, it would be limited (i would love a remake of say star wars) but that is not a legal reason not to allow them. Let the film makers decide.

who exactly are the "film makers" that should "decide"?

and on what really?

a movie remake of a script or a story/book, that isn't the same as the original movie?

Tremolina said:

who exactly are the "film makers" that should "decide"?

assuming the law was changed to allow them, then whoever wanted to make one.

and I am not saying it is a viable way to make money, just that IF the law was to change I would be okay with it. or at least as okay as I am with the one for songs.

the market issues or logistics and cost and all the rest is not an issue for me... if someone makes a movie that peeks my interest I will go see it (well rent it at the red box for a dollar) MAYBE....

Tremolina said:

and on what really?

a movie remake of a script or a story/book, that isn't the same as the original movie?

I am thinking the law would be similar to what it is with songs. that it has to be pretty much the same lyrics and similar arrangement. So the movie would have to pretty much a shot for shot remake. But would have different actors or visuals. I think I get what you are saying. But that is not a legal reason to not allow them.

maybe more like plays. A director has some leeway to make some changes but not many. *at least with playwrights like Beckett.

OnlyNDaUsa said:

Tremolina said:

and on what really?

a movie remake of a script or a story/book, that isn't the same as the original movie?

I am thinking the law would be similar to what it is with songs. that it has to be pretty much the same lyrics and similar arrangement. So the movie would have to pretty much a shot for shot remake. But would have different actors or visuals. I think I get what you are saying. But that is not a legal reason to not allow them.

maybe more like plays. A director has some leeway to make some changes but not many. *at least with playwrights like Beckett.

Can you SERIOUSLY see THAT happening?

OnlyNDaUsa said:

Tremolina said:

who exactly are the "film makers" that should "decide"?

assuming the law was changed to allow them, then whoever wanted to make one.

and I am not saying it is a viable way to make money, just that IF the law was to change I would be okay with it. or at least as okay as I am with the one for songs.

the market issues or logistics and cost and all the rest is not an issue for me... if someone makes a movie that peeks my interest I will go see it (well rent it at the red box for a dollar) MAYBE....

The point is that there are compulsory licenses in music, because there is an ENORMOUS DEMAND for it.

Not for remaking movies.

Let alone books.

Tremolina said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

I am thinking the law would be similar to what it is with songs. that it has to be pretty much the same lyrics and similar arrangement. So the movie would have to pretty much a shot for shot remake. But would have different actors or visuals. I think I get what you are saying. But that is not a legal reason to not allow them.

maybe more like plays. A director has some leeway to make some changes but not many. *at least with playwrights like Beckett.

Can you SERIOUSLY see THAT happening?

once again I am not speaking to there being a market for them. just that I would be okay with a change to copyright law allowing them. That is all.

OnlyNDaUsa said:

Tremolina said:

Can you SERIOUSLY see THAT happening?

once again I am not speaking to there being a market for them. just that I would be okay with a change to copyright law allowing them. That is all.

Yeah, but seriously: What's the point of changing a law when there is NO NEED for it?

Tremolina said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

once again I am not speaking to there being a market for them. just that I would be okay with a change to copyright law allowing them. That is all.

Yeah, but seriously: What's the point of changing a law when there is NO NEED for it?

oh i thought it was a theoretical discussion