Professional Musicians

[muzicman144]

Originally Posted by ddouglass

"If you plan to hire your own musicians and singers and create an original recording of a copyrighted song, then you need the permission of only the music publisher."
That right there says that the #1 scenario is illegal if he did not obtain permission to create his own recording. It says nothing about selling or giving it away, but just the fact that you record someone else's song without obtaining permission. You may not need a license but you do need their permission to do so.

my very point, at any point you re-create copy righted music for reuse in a commercial venue, you need to obtain the rights from the copyright owner to do so, or play the club fees, no matter how you use it.
Maybe some one can explain why they could possibly not need to do so.
muzicman144

[George]

Not so sure about that permission bit, at least at the recording artist level.

I find it hard to believe that performing artists who've had a recording of theirs "covered" by a more popular artist gave their permission to be knocked off the charts, and that happens all the time.

Little Richard had trouble early in his career with that very thing. He'd come out with a song, and suddenly there was Pat Boone and other more conservative singers with a toned down release of the same song.

Got so bad Little Richard finally came out with songs that were so way out there that Boone and the others didn't dare touch them for fear of looking foolish.

This all came out on an interview I saw a year or two back.

You wouldn't think the artists publishers would have agreed to it either. Wind up with an empty stable pretty fast. I think it's a very ambiguous area.

[mindonstrike]

Originally Posted by George

Not so sure about that permission bit, at least at the recording artist level.

I find it hard to believe that performing artists who've had a recording of theirs "covered" by a more popular artist gave their permission to be knocked off the charts, and that happens all the time.

Little Richard had trouble early in his career with that very thing. He'd come out with a song, and suddenly there was Pat Boone and other more conservative singers with a toned down release of the same song.

Got so bad Little Richard finally came out with songs that were so way out there that Boone and the others didn't dare touch them for fear of looking foolish.

This all came out on an interview I saw a year or two back.

You wouldn't think the artists publishers would have agreed to it either. Wind up with an empty stable pretty fast. I think it's a very ambiguous area.

From the FAQ at Harryfoxagency:

What is a Compulsory Mechanical License and the Statutory Rate?
If a composition has already been commercially recorded, and you wish to record and distribute that composition yourself (and you are not the original songwriter), you can obtain a compulsory mechanical license. This is outlined in section 115 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act. The Harry Fox Agency mechanical license is a written variation of the compulsory license. The royalty rate (what gets paid to the music publisher) is set by law, and is known as the "statutory rate." Effective January 1, 2006 the statutory mechanical rate is $.091 for songs 5 minutes or less, or $.0175 per minute or fraction thereof per copy for songs over 5 minutes.

If you can't negotiate a deal with the rights holder to record and distribute a song you can force them with this license. Unfortunately you can't do this with karaoke since there is no compulsory license dealing with the reproduction of written lyrics.

In a small atempt at thumbing there nose at Henley and Frye (who reportedly hate karaoke), SC put out a CDG of Eagles songs they titled "Read between the lines" - There were no lyrics, just the music and Henley/Frye couldn't stop them. The singer either had to know the lyrics or have KKHPro .

Even when I SEE old clips of Pat Boone singing Tutti Frutti, I can't picture it - LOL

Sam

[mindonstrike]

Well I heard back from the Harry Fox Agency and it looks like you guys were right and I was wrong.

As illogical as it seems to me you can not recreate and record a copyrighted work for replay in a public place even if even if it's just a backing track and the club has paid their ASCAP fee's. Maybe explains why I've been having trouble finding a US company to custom make some backing tracks for me, however since their are several UK company's that will do it maybe the laws are different there.

Well if you'll excuse me I've got a plate full of crow I need to get working on.

Sam

[Lonman]

Originally Posted by mindonstrike

Maybe explains why I've been having trouble finding a US company to custom make some backing tracks for me, however since their are several UK company's that will do it maybe the laws are different there.

Probably why Sound Choice moved their custom discs overseas to Austrailia & some songs are appearing & 're-appearing' that haven't been available - or available in a while.

[mindonstrike]

I had assumed that was why although I still don't see any of the infamous Eagle songs from 8125 - of course seein's how mine was kind of pricey I guess that's a good thing .

Sam

[mindonstrike]

Originally Posted by muzicman144

my very point, at any point you re-create copy righted music for reuse in a commercial venue, you need to obtain the rights from the copyright owner to do so, or play the club fees, no matter how you use it.
Maybe some one can explain why they could possibly not need to do so.
muzicman144

I've sent an email to the Harry Fox Agency who handle the recording licenses aspect of things. Hopefully they will respond.

Sam