Can Prince and his lawyers mess with u (in other words take ones youtube cover down) if u do a cover of his cover of somebody elses Song???

Prime example would be "One of Us" on the Emancipation Album/CD.

"One of Us" is a song written by Eric Bazilian (of The Hooters) and originally released by Joan Osborne. Released in March 1995 on the album Relish and produced by Rick Chertoff, it became a Top 40 hit in November of that year. The song is the theme song for the American television series Joan of Arcadia.

Can you prove it is a cover of his cover?

Or will anybody hear a cover version of the original?

I don't believe you can do a cover of a cover.

You could do an impersonation of Prince doing a cover.

Yes. Especially if Prince (or the NPG) have rearranged that song and you are using that arrangement.


And, by the way, it's not only "Prince and his lawyers" who can "mess with u". Anybody can, if you try to make money using their work (even if it's just lyrics, just chord progressions, just melody lines, or parts of a unique arrangement).

Plus, in either case, you first need the permission of the publisher of said song to make a cover and generate money with it.

Are you talking exclusively about youtube-content, though?

They can't "mess with you" in that they can successfully sue you, but your video can be taken down just the same. The same rule applies here. If you use somebody's creative content (even if it's "just" an arrangement), they have the copyright.

yes

Did youtube remove your video? Did you get a cease and desist??

One can cover ANY song they wish...record it and sell it. Just pay the appropriate fees and licensesing fees. Also be sure he gets the correct royalties or whatever. Samples need to be cleared and recieve approval but a cover cannot be stopped.

Im CERTAIN Mick and Keith would have stopped Brittany from doing her satisfaction cover if they could have...buyt alas...covers cant be stopped.

Well I guess if you jack the lyrics up to it like Prince did then maybe?

But you do have to have permission to sync it to a video.

BobGeorge909 said:

One can cover ANY song they wish...record it and sell it. Just pay the appropriate fees and licensesing fees. Also be sure he gets the correct royalties or whatever. Samples need to be cleared and recieve approval but a cover cannot be stopped.

Im CERTAIN Mick and Keith would have stopped Brittany from doing her satisfaction cover if they could have...buyt alas...covers cant be stopped.

you are wrong about covers. if you do a straight cover without changing lyrics and arrangement there are certain rights, but if you change lyrics or arrangement an artist can seek approval first, so if you make a god damned awful abortion of a cover that completly changed the track, the artist can say no. such as bruce springsteen preventing thunder road to be released by kevin roland (it was on the promo copy of the album but not the retail release). however as rights holders make money from cover versions, many of them are happy to allow even the bad ones as they generate money

/

in regards to satisfaction, mick and keith has no say other that track as allen kliens (he is now dead btw) ABKO owns the rights to the track, and it was klien who got the 100% royalties of bitter sweet symphony that used a sample of former stones manager andrew loog oldhams cover version of the track, without prior approval. so mick and keith got added to the credits even though they had nothing to do with the track and allen klien took all the royalties

/

however all of this is irrelevant when it comes to prince as he will get his laywers to mess with anything he asks them to, regardless of the legal status. whether he is successful or not is irrelevant, but messs with things he will if he wants to, and there is plenty of evidence of that in princeland

[Edited 1/6/14 14:22pm]

Never underestimate the sneakiness of Prince's lawyers... bwahahahaha!

BobGeorge909 said:

One can cover ANY song they wish...record it and sell it. Just pay the appropriate fees and licensesing fees. Also be sure he gets the correct royalties or whatever. Samples need to be cleared and recieve approval but a cover cannot be stopped.

Im CERTAIN Mick and Keith would have stopped Brittany from doing her satisfaction cover if they could have...buyt alas...covers cant be stopped.

I'm afraid you are not speaking the truth and you are missing a couple of important points. OWNERSHIP is one cue, for instance.

Dave1992 said:

BobGeorge909 said:

One can cover ANY song they wish...record it and sell it. Just pay the appropriate fees and licensesing fees. Also be sure he gets the correct royalties or whatever. Samples need to be cleared and recieve approval but a cover cannot be stopped.

Im CERTAIN Mick and Keith would have stopped Brittany from doing her satisfaction cover if they could have...buyt alas...covers cant be stopped.

I'm afraid you are not speaking the truth and you are missing a couple of important points. OWNERSHIP is one cue, for instance.

what part is not accurate? Compulsory License

OnlyNDaUsa said:

Dave1992 said:

I'm afraid you are not speaking the truth and you are missing a couple of important points. OWNERSHIP is one cue, for instance.

what part is not accurate? Compulsory License

... doesn't work with making covers (especially not if you try to change lyrics etc.). A radio station pays a fee to be able to use a song, that's some sort of compulsory licence, but if you're an artist and you want to cover someone else's song, it gets a bit more complicated than that.



unique sums some of it up pretty well, as I've just spotted!

Dave1992 said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

what part is not accurate? Compulsory License

... doesn't work with making covers (especially not if you try to change lyrics etc.). A radio station pays a fee to be able to use a song, that's some sort of compulsory licence, but if you're an artist and you want to cover someone else's song, it gets a bit more complicated than that.



unique sums some of it up pretty well, as I've just spotted!

yeah BobGeorge909 may have not been as detailed but what he said was over all true.

Didn´t Ginuwine did a cover of WDC and Prince didn´t like it but couldn´t do a thing about it?

Think bobGeorge is right, just as long as you pay fees and it's ok.

Dave1992 said:

nextedition said:

Didn´t Ginuwine did a cover of WDC and Prince didn´t like it but couldn´t do a thing about it?

Think bobGeorge is right, just as long as you pay fees and it's ok.

Warner Bros had/have the rights to that song. Has nothing to do with Prince.

errant said:

Dave1992 said:

Plus, in either case, you first need the permission of the publisher of said song to make a cover and generate money with it.

No, you don't. Royalties are mechanical

As far as I know, the publisher has the last say, especially if you change up the song in some way, at least over here in Europe. I've heard U.S. copyright law has become quite shaky in that aspect, but over here you actually do need permission.

Many publishing companies work in a way that they work by a set fee by which another permission can cover a published song, provided they pay it. But if no such thing is agreed upon, they can say no, if a cover version doesn't suit them.

I think it would be very difficult to prove that you are covering a certain cover and not the original. If you're using the arrangement of the cover and not of the original, you may have problems, but that would be really difficult to prove, unless the arrangement of the cover you're covering is really distinctive and makes a great difference with regard to the original.

---

It would be quite warped, wouldn't it? At the end of the day, you're covering the original, not the cover of the original, unless your cover copies blatantly the other cover and is far away from the original's arrangement. But that would be an unlikely case.

---

[Edited 1/7/14 2:11am]

[Edited 1/7/14 2:12am]

unique said:

just curious ... what if you refuse the ads so its just a cover of a prince song and zero money is generated off of it? shouldn't be a problem I would think.

BobGeorge909 said:

unique said:

you are wrong about covers. if you do a straight cover without changing lyrics and arrangement there are certain rights, but if you change lyrics or arrangement an artist can seek approval first, so if you make a god damned awful abortion of a cover that completly changed the track, the artist can say no. such as bruce springsteen preventing thunder road to be released by kevin roland (it was on the promo copy of the album but not the retail release). however as rights holders make money from cover versions, many of them are happy to allow even the bad ones as they generate money

/

in regards to satisfaction, mick and keith has no say other that track as allen kliens (he is now dead btw) ABKO owns the rights to the track, and it was klien who got the 100% royalties of bitter sweet symphony that used a sample of former stones manager andrew loog oldhams cover version of the track, without prior approval. so mick and keith got added to the credits even though they had nothing to do with the track and allen klien took all the royalties

/

however all of this is irrelevant when it comes to prince as he will get his laywers to mess with anything he asks them to, regardless of the legal status. whether he is successful or not is irrelevant, but messs with things he will if he wants to, and there is plenty of evidence of that in princeland

[Edited 1/6/14 14:22pm]

I am not wrong. I said a cover. I didn't say anything about changing by he lyrics and thearrangemtns and ...well...makijg a different song. U r correct. Changing the song all that much requires consent like a sample...it also is no longer a simple cover.

you are wrong. instead of asking on the org, why don't you google up the subject matter and read up on it, and then you will see you were wrong

TrevorAyer said:

just curious ... what if you refuse the ads so its just a cover of a prince song and zero money is generated off of it? shouldn't be a problem I would think.

the royalty still must be paid. And as it is on youtube that seems to be syncing to video and to do that you must obtain permission.

for recording you intend to distribute (no matter if it is at a loss, for free, or for profit) the royalty must be paid (or due diligence preformed) for them. And there is a set minimum number of copies and the rate is based the length of the recording.

Hell, if you record the song with your own money and don't make anything from it yourself Prince might even owe you!

unique said:

BobGeorge909 said:

unique said:

Without taking the measures of obtaing a law degree, this is what I found in Wikipedia in the copyright section under cover song. -->

Since the Copyright Act of 1909, United States musicians have had the right to record a version of someone else's previously recorded and released tune, whether it's music alone or music with lyrics.[7] A license can be negotiated between representatives of the interpreting artist and the copyright holder, or recording published tunes can fall under a mechanical license whereby the recording artist pays a standard royalty to the original author/copyright holder through an organization such as the Harry Fox Agency, and is safe under copyright law even if they do not have any permission from the original author. Other agents who can facilitate clearance include Limelight, the online mechanical licensing utility powered by RightsFlow. The U.S. Congress introduced the mechanical license to head off an attempt by the Aeolian Company to monopolize the piano roll market.[8] Although a composer cannot deny anyone a mechanical license for a new recorded version, the composer has the right to decide who will release the first recording of a song. Bob Dylan took advantage of this right when he refused his own record company the right to release a live recording of "Mr. Tambourine Man."[7]

Now i suppose this is where u tell me to go get said law degree and get back to u. However...I'm not that invested in proving my case. [Edited 1/7/14 6:30am]

are you aware that act doesn't cover the planet?