I heard this somewhere.
Yes, and the fees are standardised. However if you wanted to do the cover version to put it in a film or show, that would require permission.
Strictly speaking, copyright applies to a particular expression of an idea — in this case, a recording of a performance. Copyright also applies to the arrangement — you can’t (legally) sell copied sheet music.
As a practical matter, artists seek permission to cover (hah) their bases and because the recording industry is functioning like a cartel. Don’t cover our songs and we won’t cover yours without permission.
But we saw Taylor Swift cover her own songs. She didn’t seek permission (or did and it wasn’t given). She now owns the copyright to the covers, but not the originals. The owner of the originals is mad about it but she doesn’t care about maintaining a good relationship with the owner.
She might be on firmer legal ground since she wrote the songs and was the original recording artist, and will win in the court of public opinion, but labels hate that idea and will fight it anyway.
But you see why artists are much more prone to cover others’ music during live shows. They have a stronger legal defense since it isn’t a recording and would ruffle fewer record label execs’ feathers.
As someone who was a professional musician for several decades, from my experience, anyone seeking to record and release a cover of someone else’s song needs to specifically seek permission in writing from the artist, either through their label or legal rep. If they’re seeking to monetize that cover then contracts and/or agreements need to be signed. Just dropping a cover without going through those steps invites serious legal trouble.
Artists and labels retain the right to deny permission to anyone seeking to do a cover of any song still protected under copyright law. I recall a specific incident years ago between Weird Al and Coolio about this. (Although Weird Al does parodies and not straight covers, same laws apply.)
Edit: Amending my comment to add that as I’m talking to folks here, I’m getting a better understanding of how copyright law works with covers vs. parodies, and my original comment above isn’t accurate.
Although Weird Al does parodies and not straight covers, same laws apply.
My understanding has always been that satire is fair use but because there could be some grey area there, and because weird al is a decent guy, he always sought permission. I seem to recall the coolio incident being a misunderstanding.
Correct. It was a misunderstanding. From what I remember someone from Al’s label said he had the go ahead from Coolio to do the parody. Only after it was released did Coolio make public statements about it, and Al tried to apologize but I don’t think Coolio was having it.
I don’t know how copyright law applies to satire but in my head, a parody of a song uses enough of the original material that you’d still need permission.
So he had to pay royalties to Stevie Wonder?
Not necessarily. Parody allows for a “percentage changed vs original work” when deciding whether copyright was infringed. Al was always perfectly within his rights to do the parody, but he’s a stand up guy and tries never to do a song that the original artist didn’t approve.
Weird Al also wanted to riff on some Prince songs but he wouldn’t allow it.
I doubt they can stop people from making covers but if they start selling them, that is when they get involved.
A local band playing something at the local pub is ok. While if the pub records it and sells it as “Long John Pub mix volume 1” I bet the lawyers would swoop in.
Playing a cover song is not okay, and if someone from ASCAP, BMI, or SESAC happens to be in the bar, you’re paying a hefty fine. There are plenty of dive bars around here with big “No Covers” signs, because both the band and the venue get fined.
The days of playing a fun, drunk encore of your band’s favorite song went out the window when cell phone video starting ratting artists out to The Man.
Source: been a performing musician for decades. I’ve experienced the shift from “A cover? I LOVE THIS SONG!” to “Don’t play that, I can’t afford the fine!” happen to me and my friends firsthand.
Wait so if I’m at a house party and I play Wonderwall, I can get in trouble?
If there’s a BMI exec there and they want to be a complete dick, yup.
Noel Gallagher himself will show up and pee on your guitar.
Must be a regional thing. All the places I went to in Australia has no issues with covering music.
Yeah I live in the capital city for my state and hear bands cover songs all the time. Technically the bar is meant to pay a fee to One music which allows them to have bands cover pretty much all commercial music but unless it’s a proper pub venue I doubt they all do it.
BMI is specificslly the global version. If you live somewhere that never sees an enforcement member, that’s great for you, but the law still applies. You just don’t live somewhere where they bother to enforce it.
AFAIK, no.
It depends on the laws in your country. And IANAL.
But, usually, as long as you don’t publish (or play publicly), it’s fine. The lyrics, the arrangement, as well as the melody, and everything else, are subject to copyright. So if you want to publish a cover, you need permission to use the relevant parts. The usual exceptions of your country’s copyright law, like fair use in the usa, apply of course. But I haven’t yet seen anything that would allow covers.
Also, from what I’ve heard of people making covers, they usually first have to look if the original author has allowed covers. Often they allow non-commercial covers only, unless asked. On youtube, copyright is also not handled very strictly, and it has a feature where the original author can claim the copyright offender’s revenues, so the video stays online, but the money doesn’t (or only partially) goes to the coverer.
It depends. Many times: Yes.
