When someone performs a Rolling Stones song
in public, and Abkco owns the copyright for that song...
then Abkco gets paid a royalty... right?

Does that also include when
those particular songs are performed in public by
the Rolling Stones themselves?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-12-08 01:09 by schillid.

yup - as far as i know when you buy a ticket for a gig, there's a %age that is earmarked for your local Performing Rights society. Then the money is divvied up between the persons entitled depending on the publishers. then the publisher passes on money, i believe, to the writer.

this, of course, gets ridiculous when you drill down to a micro level like a covers band in your local pub. In theory, if a cover charge is asked, then PRS should get some of that. And if you want to get REALLY REALLY REALLY ridiculous, you can mull over a job that my mum was given once.

She had to go to a number of pubs in the West of Ireland where she lives and bring along a tape recorder to these places WHERE THEY WERE PLAYING TRADITIONAL IRISH MUSIC. The idea was, it seems, that PRS believed that the original authors deserved compensation. My mum pointed out over the phone 'but it's traditional music; they'll all be dead'.

"mrs Textmonkey", they said "if you don't want the job and the £100 for an evenings work, we'll find soembody else to do it".

twats! Obv she took their money!

Great Story textmonkey. I could picture it now, Mrs Textmonkey sitting in the Blue Zone Pub in Dingle with her little tape recorder. Good times!

.....they do that here in NC too......although I'm pretty sure it's not Mrs. Textmonkey.

this is pretty much what 'textmonkey" said, but more detailed

Copyright, Cover Songs, and Loops



Now that you know all the basics about copyright and performance societies, you may be wondering about two of the basic questions concerning music – one that’s been around a long, long time, and one that dates back to the 80s. Namely:



Can I play cover songs when I play out live? Aren’t they copyrighted by somebody else? And, if so, can I also record a cover song on my album?

Can I use samples and loops in my recordings?





Here are the answers. Well, at least, the best answers we can give since, once again, this involves the law, where we might need more than three chords and the truth.



1. When playing live, you can basically play any cover song you want.

By definition, cover songs are owned by someone else. You may wonder how you have the right to play this music anywhere. Most bars probably didn't seem worried when you covered "Freebird," even though they can probably guess that you didn't write it.



Playing any music owned by others, whether live or on the radio, is covered by the "performance right" that the copyright owner has. The performance right is simply just one of the many copyrights a copyright owner has. The law is written such that no one can stop anyone from performing their music. That's right. Lynrd Skynrd can't stop you from playing "Freebird" even though they, and everyone else in the room, want to. Even if you play it on a kazoo with a reggae beat - they still can't stop you. The owner does have a right to get compensated for it, though.



Yes, thanks to performance societies, you can play any cover song you want live at any venue. Performance societies collect money from the place you’re playing for the rights to play anything in their catalog. So if you play "Freebird" at Benny's Burger Bar, it’s Benny’s responsibility to pay the licensing fee (usually a global, monthly fee) to the performance society for the right to have you play that song in his establishment. Benny also has to pay for the radio station playing songs at the bar, the jukebox in the corner, and the music that goes over the phone when he puts your booker on hold once again. These all count as "performances" in which copyright owners are owed.



Here's the goofy part: if Benny didn't pay the licensing fee and he gets busted, then he - and you - are liable. Now, being liable and actually being sued is a whole different thing. It is most likely that they will go after Benny and not all the bands that played at Benny's Burger Bar since (a) he's liable, (b) he should have known better, and (c) they know exactly where he is.



Of course, if you discover that the bar or venue is not paying a licensing fee, then ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC probably say somewhere on their website that they want to know. These societies have gotten increasingly aggressive in recent years. One of the more amusing examples is when they strong-armed the Girl Scouts to pay up because of their campfire songs, and songs like "Happy Birthday" which is still owned by someone. The Girl Scouts were using their own birthday song for a while until this got resolved. The main thing is: you probably won't owe anyone for your performance of a cover song. They are well aware that it's not worth it to sue indie bands: we're poor.



2. If you have covers on an album, you have to pay fees.

There are many copyright issues and fees involved with recording a cover song and placing it on your album. However, it certainly can be done. You just need to be careful and diligent in doing this legally. The following talks about what happens when you record a cover song and do not change the music or lyrics (there's a whole different set of copyright laws that come into play when you start changing things.)



Typically you need to ask the original copyright owner of the cover song for permission to include the song on your album. However, in this one case – the recording of a published copyrighted song not owned by you – you need not even ask. You simply just have to pay them. How much? Well, at the time this was written, the most they can ever charge you for the use of their song is 8.5 cents. This amount is set by law and is known as the statutory rate. Unfortunately, you'll have to pay this statutory amount for each copy of the LP, tape, or CD of the song - whether it's sold or not. So, it can add up. Plus, there’s the whole added headache of accounting, never a strong suit for musicians. Of course, it could pay off to contact the copyright owner. After all, they may decide to grant you permission to record and sell the song for free or they may give you a better deal than 8.5 cents. They're here to do business, and asking for a deal is a good idea if you want to include covers.



What if in contacting them they demand you don't record their song, revoke all permissions, and threaten to sue you? Ah, don't worry about it. US copyright law guarantees that even if they hate you, they are actually legally required to allow you record any published song of theirs you want. Of course, they'll probably charge you the maximum statutory rate, but at least you get to record their precious song.



If you’re thinking of recording a cover song, a very helpful and detailed guide as to the correct steps you need to take and forms you need to fill out is here.



3. When recording an album, adding loops and samples from other people’s recordings requires the payment of fees.

If you are the type of band that uses samples in your songs, you are at risk of violating a copyright owner's right in a loop or sample if you do not have permission to do so. This is true even if you substantially modify it. Courts have decided that a band that uses a sample or loop on a recording in an album is similar to a band that records a cover song on an album. In other words, you have to go through the same steps as #2 above to "clear the sample." Obviously, unlike recording a cover song, which would require one permission-one fee, using multiple loops typically requires multiple permissions with multiple copyright owners and multiple fees. Plus, since you’re using an actual recording as well as a snippet of notes and/or lyrics that are copyrighted, you now have to worry about who owns the rights in the recording (Form SR), as well as who owns the rights in the song itself (Form PA.) This is known in the legal world as “a legal nightmare.”



Solutions to this nightmare include:



Recording and creating your own loops. As copyright owner of your own loops, you can give yourself permission to use the loops royalty-free, if you're feeling generous that day.

Use loops created by bands and individuals that license their music under the Creative Commons licenses for sampling. Believe it or not, there is a large group of loop-creators who believe in sharing their loops royalty-free. Of course, you won’t necessarily find their loops on sale at your local music supply chain. For more info on where to find these individuals, go to [www.creativecommons.org].

Seek out the copyright owners and pay the requisite fees.

Risk it and cross your fingers.

[www.beatnikturtle.com]

Lukester Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> .....they do that here in NC too......although I'm
> pretty sure it's not Mrs. Textmonkey.

It'd f*cking well explain why i've not had a good dinner in over 3 months, mind!

I can 2nd what Donkey Girl Scout said about covers. When our band recorded 2 cover songs on our first CD, we pressed 1,000 copies. We contacted the Harry Fox agency who took care of the details and charged us about $200 including the fees stated above plus some handling. Then if you go digital, such as offering CD for download sales, then you have to do it all over again, but I think the minimum front money is only for 100 downloads. Everything is truly an education in this business.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-12-06 20:59 by BluzDude.

textmonkey Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lukester Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > .....they do that here in NC too......although
> I'm
> > pretty sure it's not Mrs. Textmonkey.
>
> It'd f*cking well explain why i've not had a good
> dinner in over 3 months, mind!


Come to think of it, I beleive it was Mrs. Textmonkey I saw in the corner of the bar looking very out of place with her tape recorder and her heavy Irish accent.

>> The main thing is: you probably won't owe anyone for your performance of a cover song.
They are well aware that it's not worth it to sue indie bands: we're poor. <<

that bit is really badly expressed. yes you'll owe someone, in the scenario described in the article;
the fact that someone might decide it's not worth suing you is a totally different matter.

anyway as others have already noted, the answer to schillid's serious question is:
sure, the publishers get their cut every time, just like the songwriters do.

ABKCO of course also gets a cut every time the numbers are released on a concert album -
and pondering how complicated and onerous that must be is a nice quick way to stop wondering
why the Stones have never done that "instant soundboard CD" thing that some other bands have done.
147 different releases, each of which would need ABKCO's involvement and earn ABKCO a cut ... ? nah.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2007-12-08 13:17 by with sssoul.

schillid Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> When someone performs a Rolling Stones song
> in public, and Abkco owns the copyright for that
> song...
> then Abkco gets paid a royalty... right?

RIGHT.

>
> Does that also include when
> those particular songs are performed in public by
> the Rolling Stones themselves?

OF COURSE IT DOES!

Wild Slivovitz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > Does that also include when
> > those particular songs are performed in public
> by
> > the Rolling Stones themselves?


> OF COURSE IT DOES!


Doesn't that seem odd or wrong ?
That the stones (or anyone else!)
would have to pay someone else
to perform their own material ?

if you take someone else's song and change it, at what point does it become a completley different song? Like "The Last Time" is a Jagger/Richards song, but its really a copy of the Staples Singers song.

>> Doesn't that seem odd or wrong ? <<

yep it sure does - i think you're starting to get an idea of why the Stones were so upset with Klein
(and with Oldham for his part in getting them involved with Klein).

>> if you take someone else's song and change it, at what point does it become a completley different song? <<

the definitions of that are extremely fluid - it fascinates me how fast our perceptions of it change,
and the weird thing is how we seem to imagine that our current perceptions of it are so obvious
that they must've always existed. Robert Johnson's oeuvre is a really good example of this:
a lot of the songs that we attribute to him are *very* closely based on his peers' and predecessors' music,
but when he recorded them no one (apparently!) minded him calling his versions his.
not that i'm encouraging anyone to think less highly of Robert Johnson - what i mean is:
norms in this area were different in the past (even the fairly recent past) than they are now,
and we can't apply our current perceptions of these issues retrospectively.

as for The Last Time: the refrain of the Stones' version is similar to the Staples Singers' version
(which the Staples Singers didn't write - they listed it as "traditional") but the rest is pretty different.
in 1965 it was clearly considered different enough to count as original (perhaps partly because
there were no other individuals around in a position to claim they'd written the original).

oh and in case it's relevant and/or enlightening: at least where i live, at least nowadays,
when a legal ruling is needed to determine who the songwriting rights belong to, "song" is defined as
the melody line + the lyrics (if there are any). other elements are considered arrangement, not compostion.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2007-12-08 02:57 by with sssoul.

why eagles ???"HOTEL CALIFONIA " ????????????

ryanpow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> if you take someone else's song and change it, at
> what point does it become a completley different
> song? Like "The Last Time" is a Jagger/Richards
> song, but its really a copy of the Staples Singers
> song.

I remember reading John Lennon saying in an interview(I believe Playboy?) that "George was smarter than that-all he had to do was change a chord or two" or something to that effect when discussing "MY Sweet Lord" and "He's So Fine" that George had to pay out over. So how did Zep get away with so much although they did have to pay Muddy Waters over 'Whole Lotta Love"(Muddys You need Love). They did give Memphis Minnie part credit for "Levee", but "Killing Floor" and so many others? And not to forget "Boogie W/Stu" just being Richie Valens' "Ooh My Soul".

I hate discussions about coping ... what the heck .... it's all about do re mi

They all did it before in the 20,30,40. 50ties and don't forget the 60ties

__________________________

Coping is hot always easy
for everyone.

schillid Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wild Slivovitz Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > > Does that also include when
> > > those particular songs are performed in
> public
> > by
> > > the Rolling Stones themselves?
>
>
> > OF COURSE IT DOES!
>
>
> Doesn't that seem odd or wrong ?
> That the stones (or anyone else!)
> would have to pay someone else
> to perform their own material ?

The Stones don't have to pay anyone else in order to perform their own material; it's the company which organizes the gig that has to pay a certain sum to the relevant "collecting society" in order to get authorized to set up a public performance of copyrighted material. This money will go partly to the authors (Jagger/Richards), partly to the publishing company (ABKCO) which has been granted the rights of the exploitation of the song (i.e. the publishing rights) by tha authors themselves. But of course it's not the Stones paying anything to ABKCO.

Thanks for clarifying that

eagles ???"HOTEL CALIFONIA " ????????????


sounds like ANGIE,,

with sssoul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > oh and in case it's relevant and/or enlightening:
> at least where i live, at least nowadays,
> when a legal ruling is needed to determine who the
> songwriting rights belong to, "song" is defined as
>
> the melody line + the lyrics (if there are any).
> other elements are considered arrangement, not
> compostion.



yeah thanks thats the definition im looking for. this question came up for me because im learning "the Nearness Of You" on piano and its clear Keith changed some things around, yet at the same time you can recognize it as the same song so it got me to thinking "what is it that keeps it the same song?" to me it sounds Some chords here and there are different and its a diffrent intro. also some of the lyrics are changed. but keith doesnt even sing his own songs same way twice!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2007-12-09 01:33 by ryanpow.

>> partly to the publishing company (ABKCO) which has been granted the rights of the exploitation of the song
(i.e. the publishing rights) by tha authors themselves. But of course it's not the Stones paying anything to ABKCO <<

well, given how ABKCO came to control the publishing rights, it's not quite that lovely in this case.
and if i understand schillid's question, he wasn't asking if the Stones personally write a check to ABKCO
but whether ABKCO gets a cut when the Stones perform their own numbers from the ABKCO-owned catalogue.
the answer is yes.

>> yeah thats the definition im looking for. <<

glad if it helped! obviously it can still be tricky to define, but those are the parts that "count", legally.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-12-09 15:43 by with sssoul.

What if a band records/covers an outtake that never made it on an official album? For example if a band records Fiji Jim or Yellow Cab, do they pay the Stones the same as an official release? Also, would outtakes have been copyrighted?

>> would outtakes have been copyrighted? <<

well ... if someone's written down and/or recorded a song they originated, it is copyright.
if you mean "has it been registered with the copyright office": that depends on the outtake.
some (at least some) Stones numbers that haven't been released officially have been registered.
one example is the track entitled Aftermath, which is not only formally copyrighted but also a registered ABKCO number.
i'd bet there are more like that as well - that's only speculation, but ABKCO seems to run a tight ship.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2007-12-09 16:41 by with sssoul.

Now with growing genetical engineered crops (whatever the fruit may be), it's different. If you once grew genetical engineered crops on your field, and revert back to traditional seeds, the producer and copyright holder of the patented genetically engineered crop can sue you for royalties on the on the assumption that your harvest contains some of their patent. And they will know when you grow something different, because you suddenly don't buy from them anymore. Genetically engineered crops can't be multiplied by the buyer. Then you must prove that your harvest doesn't contain their patent, and whatever is left is a leftover from last year when you were still growing their stuff.

If you know a bit about the history of the blues, that is nothing else the sharecropping system revisited, masked by a copyright law.

In fact, things are even more difficult in their intricate biological details, because infiltrated, patented genes can cross out on occasion, even from neighboring fields, etc.

And that is just one of the issues why biotech products for agriculture aren't as welcome in Europe as in the US, well, except if they are being produced by Bayer or BASF or other European companies, because they know how to lobby in Brussels for a favourable copyright law...

sow how do they do it (did it),

they had abco men at the concert for text message the setlist ?

And do they also whine if the setlist consist to much new songs wich are not abco ?

x

never mind



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-12-09 17:07 by open-g.

>> Gema, the german equivalent to Abkco <<

do you mean the German equivalent of ASCAP?
totally different entity than ABKCO!

oops

well wait a minute, open-g honey - it's not that big an oops!
ASCAP collects the money on behalf of the songwriters & publishers, so it's quite relevant.