For those that don't know this Amazing Acapella Group, They made ABC prime time news last Friday night and they are awesome. So I was wondering do they have to get with each artist and/or publishing company and get permission to do the cover songs that the do? Or those artis/ publishing co don't give a crap and don't mess (pg) with them the way Prince people would if they tried to cover one his songs. Lawd knows they couldn't do a cover of Prince without him shutting the ........ down!

The basic rule is that anyone can record a cover song, without any extra special permission, as long as they pay mechnical royalties for each copy sold to whichever songwriting association represents that particular composition.

Doing a song with a video is a little different though and you could say that the law is a little blurry now that the internet has come of age. Obviously it's childs play now to create and distribute a music video across the world. I've heard that most labels/publishers now allow cover versions on youtube etc because they have agreements with youtube to claim the songwriter royalties that youtube distributes to "monetized" clips.

I think they've also come to the conclusion that it's great publicity for the original artist, as their name is usually plastered all over the youtube page of the cover version and in the related clips.

So we get things like Pentatonix and this...

I think these internet cover videos have become a cool and interesting phenomenom of 21st century pop culture.

I'm no lawyer but I was of the belief that, in the US at least, anyone can cover a song on record without seeking the copyright holder's consent as long as they pay the set licensing fee. Approval by the copyright owner is only required for sampling, live performance, and public broadcast.

nd33 said:

The basic rule is that anyone can record a cover song, without any extra special permission, as long as they pay mechnical royalties for each copy sold to whichever songwriting association represents that particular composition.

Doing a song with a video is a little different though and you could say that the law is a little blurry now that the internet has come of age. Obviously it's childs play now to create and distribute a music video across the world. I've heard that most labels/publishers now allow cover versions on youtube etc because they have agreements with youtube to claim the songwriter royalties that youtube distributes to "monetized" clips.

I think they've also come to the conclusion that it's great publicity for the original artist, as their name is usually plastered all over the youtube page of the cover version and in the related clips.

So we get things like Pentatonix and this...

I think these internet cover videos have become a cool and interesting phenomenom of 21st century pop culture.

In response to the bolded part above....Too bad knucklehead Prince and his bytch arse lawyers don't see it that way!!!

TeeeeHaaaaHoooo said:

I'm no lawyer but I was of the belief that, in the US at least, anyone can cover a song on record without seeking the copyright holder's consent as long as they pay the set licensing fee. Approval by the copyright owner is only required for sampling, live performance, and public broadcast.

I don't think you have to get permission to perform a song in concert. If that was the case, cover bands and tribute bands & singers would have a hard time. You don't have to get permission to remake a song. Weird Al does when he records a parody, but just as a courtesy, it's not required by law. If they don't want him to do it, Al doesn't record it. But Al can legally do it if he wants to.

MickyDolenz said:

TeeeeHaaaaHoooo said:

I'm no lawyer but I was of the belief that, in the US at least, anyone can cover a song on record without seeking the copyright holder's consent as long as they pay the set licensing fee. Approval by the copyright owner is only required for sampling, live performance, and public broadcast.

I don't think you have to get permission to perform a song in concert. If that was the case, cover bands and tribute bands & singers would have a hard time. You don't have to get permission to remake a song. Weird Al does when he records a parody, but just as a courtesy, it's not required by law. If they don't want him to do it, Al doesn't record it. But Al can legally do it if he wants to.

You don't need permission to cover a song from a published work. You just have to pay the royalty.

However, you don't get publishing money from a song parody if the original composer doesn't agree to the new version. That is why we have never seen a parody of a Prince song.

Cover bands or the establishment they work in pays the royalties and they do not have to ask for permission-just pay the royalties.

I remember some TV shows would use specially recorded cover songs using session singers because using the recording of the original act was too expensive. This also happens today with DVD sets of old shows when the original song was used. They replace the song with some generic music. I've seen a DVD of Married With Children and the Frank Sinatra theme song was gone. But reruns still has the original theme.

[Edited 11/12/13 14:55pm]

How does it work with money made from youtube views? If you are a youtube partner, you get a cut of the advertising revenue from your channel. I've heard youtube pays $2.50 per 1000 views and some of the top youtubers can average 500,000 to over a million views. I've heard Psy made over $10 million and counting alone from youtube views of Gangnam Style.

It's interesting that a youtube artist could cover a song and potential make more money off the song than the original artist. I can't imagine the record industry would stand for that too long.

^^I don't know how Youtube payouts work, but Psy is a professional act on a label, not somebody singing or playing an instrument in their bedroom. I don't think they get that many views. I'm not sure if a bedroom act can get paid from singing someone else's song, no matter how many views it gets. It doesn't seem much different than fans uploading their record collection or TV shows, can't get paid for that. The labels (or publishers) either block it or put an ad on the video where you can purchase a download.

.

If someone gets paid from Youtube views, then it doesn't really matter if they perform music. There's cat videos with millions of views. I wonder if people who put up videos of school fights get paid. Fighting videos are popular.

MickyDolenz said:

^^I don't know how Youtube payouts work, but Psy is a professional act on a label, not somebody singing or playing an instrument in their bedroom. I don't think they get that many views. I'm not sure if a bedroom act can get paid from singing someone else's song, no matter how many views it gets. It doesn't seem much different than fans uploading their record collection or TV shows, can't get paid for that. The labels (or publishers) either block it or put an ad on the video where you can purchase a download.

.

If someone gets paid from Youtube views, then it doesn't really matter if they perform music. There's cat videos with millions of views. I wonder if people who put up videos of school fights get paid. Fighting videos are popular.

I was using Psy as an example of how popular a youtube video could get. Maybe a more appropriate example is violinist Lindsey Sterling who does covers of other songs and soundtracks. She did a cover of Radioactive with Pentatonix which got 43 million views.

In order to monetize a channel, you have to become a youtube partner which requires a legal and contractual process. The owner of the channel gets a cut of the advertisements that you see in the beginning of youtube videos. Some of these youtube vloggers are making six figure salaries because they built a large(in the millions), loyal core of youtube subscribers, but that is a rarity not the norm.

I have a friend that does do it yourself projects posted on youtube and she makes about 300 dollars a month in ad revenue.

I wonder if they will just end up on the Vegas stip one day. Not a bad gig. Too much like the show "Glee" for me to enjoy them though.