Basic copyright question: acquiring rights to cover a song?

[Aaron Bitman]

For the first time in my life, I'm reading copyright laws. I can be slow to learn new things, so
maybe you can give me a "dumbed-down" answer.

 

I composed a collection of songs which I want to copyright. Two of those songs in my collection
are not original, but instrumental arrangements of existing songs. Those are derivative works,
so I figured I need to contact the copyright holders to request permission to cover them.

 

One of the songs was copyrighted in 1964 (and renewed in 1992) by "Screen Gems - EMI Music Inc."
So I tried emimusicpub.com which doesn't seem to exist anymore. So I tried
https://www.sonyatv.com/en/synch where I found a form to start a new license inquiry.

 

Here's what confuses me: That form is geared toward using a song in advertisements, movies, and
the like. That's obviously not what I'm after. Furthermore, I'm not yet planning to profit from
my collection. I only want to post my work to YouTube, where people can listen to it for free.
Could I use the same form for that? Or am I looking in the wrong place? Because when I research
the matter, I keep seeing stuff about paying royalties for every copy SOLD, which doesn't apply
here.

 

I could just ask on the Sony/ATV site, of course, but I wonder if there's been any mistake in my
reasoning.

[Peggy]

Hi Aaron,

 

I always go to the US Copyright website to answer the questions I have. 

 

Peggy

[Samuel Lambert]

I agree with Peggy US Copyright is the place to go for information.

Using content from others works can make it hard to get your song on you tube and other sites. This is why I try to us only beats and music that I create.

Good luck

Samuel

[john]

Get permission before posting anything. You obtain permission from the music publishers.

 

If you have advertising enabled, by arrangement the copyright owner will get a large share of YouTube adverttising income.

 

Much of the advice you will get will be USA centric... ie obtain mechanical licenses from Harry Fox Agency. Even the advice you have above is USA centric, ie go to the US Library of Congress and ask. No doubt that the USA is the largest market, but you will want to make sure you conform with the legislation in a variety of jurisdictions... otherwise you might find yourself in breach and sanctioned by YouTube... or at best not streamed in countries like the UK, Australia, New Zealand etc.

 

Are you a member of a PRO? They should also offer advice. For a start they have agreements withe PROs in all countries and will collect nd distribute income from broadcasters to members and PROs in other juridictions.

 

In essence, some copyright owners are completely OK with YouTube covers. They generally promote the song and the original artist. Others most definitely do not like YouTube covers and will pursue YouTubers. Sometimes you can negotiate a deal post-complaint, but if you fail to negotiate, any video removal will count as a "strike" against your YouTube channel.

 

Something important to know...

Cover song videos are NOT protected by a mechanical license.

For your own works you can register an ISRC code so that advertisements will automatically pay you if your work is ued in a mashup or as a video soundtrack, or a fan lyrics video.( @fasstrack I meant to mention this to you. Do this via the YouTube Content ID system... which is simply a registered ISRC code. If you don't have ISRC code generation because you are not registered, you can get one via CD Baby or Reverbnation.)

 

To distribute and sell your own audio of a cover song, you have to have a mechanical license from the publisher of the song, and pay them the appropriate mechanical royalties.

 

But I repeat, that does not license the VIDEO fro your song.

 

Commonly YouTubers are not having videos removed, and not suing YouTubers for breach of copyright because of YouTube's monetization scheme.

 

That said, it is worth noting that copyright owners are suiing some YouTubers, and when they do, they are winning.

 

To stay legal you need a Sync (synchronization) license as well as the mechanical license. The sync license determines how the song can be used and the financial compensation for that use.

 

It all comes down to the negotiation with the publisher.... and how reasonable the publisher will be... and that can massively vary.

 

And that is a lot of hassle....

 

So often going the Content ID route is much better and perfectly serviceable for most artists.

 

Content ID gives music publishers the ability to:

• Block videos - you don't show up in search
• Restrict viewing according to territory/country
• Mute your video — so video plays but no audio
• Block specific platforms — so no video on mobile, or websites etc.

The only negative here is that you have recorded the song and now cannot use it. On a bright note, at least you are not being sued and being banned!

 

[Aaron Bitman]

Thanks everyone.  I decided to ask the copyright holders.  The Sony/ATV site responded "Provided that your content is (i) not branded, (ii) does not promote a company, non-profit, or any organization, & (iii) you are not planning to monetize your content then you are free to upload to YouTube."  I haven't gotten a response from the copyright holder of the other song yet.  (Certainly John's response makes me nervous and hesitant.)

[john]

13 hours ago, Aaron Bitman said:

Thanks everyone.  I decided to ask the copyright holders.  The Sony/ATV site responded "Provided that your content is (i) not branded, (ii) does not promote a company, non-profit, or any organization, & (iii) you are not planning to monetize your content then you are free to upload to YouTube."  I haven't gotten a response from the copyright holder of the other song yet.  (Certainly John's response makes me nervous and hesitant.)

 

Certainly no response comes under "has not obtained permission".

 

If I were you  I would certainly look at YouTube's Monetization Scheme

 

You might find this very useful:

 

 

It is produced by YouTube themselves.

 

and there is this:

 

https://www.youtube.com/music_policies

 

The link above is a directory of music publishers and content owners, and their KNOWN policy regarding cover songs

 

[Aaron Bitman]

Thank you for directing me to that "music policies" page (and to the video which also directed me there).  Unfortunately - since I have no intention of consulting a lawyer - I don't find that page very reassuring.  I looked up the second song, and found the following:

 

Playback: Viewable worldwide

Advertising: Ads can appear

 

But I'm not convinced that means the copyright holder won't sue me.

 

At the moment, my intention is to include the first song I mentioned - because the copyright holder replied to my question saying that it's OK for me to post as long as I don't brand, promote, or monetize.  But as for that second song, unless I get word from the copyright holder, I may have to sacrifice it from my collection.

 

I still intend to copyright my whole collection, even if I don't get the rights to cover the second song.  I could do that, right?

 

As I type this, I'm afraid I'm sounding foolish.  Am I making a mistake here?

 

[john]

54 minutes ago, Aaron Bitman said:

I still intend to copyright my whole collection, even if I don't get the rights to cover the second song.  I could do that, right?

 

When you say copyright, I assume you are meaning protecting the recording, as the song is already copyrighted?

 

Please don't worry about sounding foolish. It is wise, and professional, to be concerned about due dilligence on copyright.

 

Everybody starts from not knowing. Please feel comfortable asking questions. Maybe one day you will be passing on what you know and helping someone else. hell that could be next week! Later today

 

My point is, we are all learning all the way through our music career. All of us. Forums like Songstuff are all about musicians helping musicians. So please, don't feel embarassed.

[Aaron Bitman]

8 minutes ago, john said:

 

When you say copyright, I assume you are meaning protecting the recording, as the song is already copyrighted?

Yes.

 

And perhaps I'm reading more into the rest of your message than you intended, but it's making me feel that my logic - while hardly airtight - is... maybe... not unreasonable.

 

[Christie Ann]

To get the rights to publish a cover song on a music-only site, or cd, then you get what's called a "mechanical license," i personally use easysonglicensing.com/ for this purpose.

 

To post on YouTube you need what is called a "sync license" because you are syncing music with video. You have to go directly to the publisher to get this type of license, there are no services that will do this for you.

 

However, my experience has been that whenever I post a cover song to YouTube (I've posted several in the past, and never monetize them when I post) is that I will a month or so later get a message that my song was flagged by their content ID System, and every time time, the song owners did not give a strike and additionally, let me turn on monetization and shared a very small percentage with me.

 

So I'm not telling you personally to go and post the video without trying to get formal sync rights, but if I were in your shoes, that is what I would do, just post it!

 

 

[Glammerocity]

I agree with Christie Ann. Save yourself some time if you're just posting to Youtube without monetising, because it'll be decided there anyway. I post mashups, so have had experience of a couple of them being blocked, usually for the video rather than the audio. I get rid of the video and replace it with images and it'll be accepted. But I've used some big names  and they haven't been blocked, because they're monetising from Youtube. Some artists and copyright owners see it as a useful income stream.

 

You can appeal a blocking decision and it'll go to the copyright owner but few of them work. There are Youtube clips to tell you how to do this. Most of my blocks have been almost instant, so it looks like the copyright owners already have guidelines for their material, which Youtube refers to.

 

You might've noticed on some devices a clip is blocked but you can see it on another device. I read this is because some mobile devices block Youtube ads, which means the artist isn't getting the income. Sometimes they're just blocked in certain countries. I have one which uses video from a German TV show and it's blocked in Germany.

 

I post some of my mashups that were blocked on Youtube to Dailymotion, which has different rules. It's supposed to be looser, though I've had some blocked there that are still viewable on Youtube. But Dailymotion has far fewer viewers.

[MikeRobinson]

Also:  "after first acquainting myself with lawyers, in the settlement of a fairly-routine estate, but then in the fending-off of a lowly contractor who tried to be an idiot," I discovered for myself how important legal experts can actually be.  

 

"Don't leave home without them!™" 😨

 

A "routine clearances question" such as this should actually cost you very little in the hands of an attorney who practices in this field:  "they do this sort of thing for lunch-money."  But, "mind your P's and Q's."  "Does it matter, really?"  Yes, it does.

 

Now, in the United States, there are basically three PROs:  ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC.  An inquiry to each of them is quite likely to lead you to license-information that will clear your project.  (As I said, "lunch money.")  But still, I'd prefer to spend a few hundred bucks to have an attorney send me "a letter on his/her letterhead, which I can now keep forever," which says that.

 

"Just a second ... let me ask Tom."   ("George referred me to Tom ...")

 

"Tom just sent me a letter that says that ..."