4 ms·

They outright covered songs in those early albums, but refused to pay royalties. I don't remember what their argument was.

bobbles 7y ago
Since when do cover artists pay royalties?
- slothtrop 7y ago
  There's a difference between covering a song in a recording and being a cover artist. With the latter I don't find a consistent answer. I've read venues pay a licensing fee, and that depending on prop use it could cost more, etc. If you cover a song in recording, re-arrange it, whatever, you pay royalties to the original songwriter.
  - wahern 7y ago
    > With the latter I don't find a consistent answer. I've read venues pay a licensing fee.... IIRC, the licensing fee paid by the venue doesn't necessarily grant the performers any rights, it just waives the venue's liability. The nature of the relationship between the performer and venue is context dependent and it isn't always clear if the performers are covered or even could be covered by the venue's license, anyhow. In practice the licensor associations will leave the performers alone as long as the venue has a license, because what's the point of the venue license if artists face legal jeopardy for playing there. Alot of copyright works this way: the edges are very blurry and the incredibly broad scope of claims and defenses effectively corrals everybody into quasi-legal arrangements. Were it not for criminal liability and potential for ruinous monetary damages, this would definitely be a feature more than a bug. It's certainly deliberate. No law could ever be precise enough to properly balance such interests a priori.
- fzzzy 7y ago
  Anyone can cover any song without permission as long as they pay compulsory royalties. https://www.thebalancecareers.com/what-is-a-compulsory-license-in-music-2460357 https://www.thebalancecareers.com/what-is-a-compulsory-licen...
acomjean 7y ago
Actually listening to a Robert Johnson album, I was surprised to discover a some Zeppelin rifs were taken from him. Its not the same though (Robert Johnson is a hard listen.). Blues is slightly harder as the chord progression is similar across songs, similar scales. Its seams that sometimes they gave writing credit to the original song writer, sometimes not. (Songwriters get paid per radio play, which mattered a lot before streaming..) Wikipedia has a list of Zepplin song "inspired by others": with a list of listed song writing credits. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Led_Zeppelin_songs_written_or_inspired_by_others https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Led_Zeppelin_songs_wri... The Beatles covered a lot of songs in the early days. (I think they must have paid royalties). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_songs_covered_by_the_Beatles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_songs_covered_by_the_B...

bobbles 7y ago

Since when do cover artists pay royalties?

slothtrop 7y ago
There's a difference between covering a song in a recording and being a cover artist. With the latter I don't find a consistent answer. I've read venues pay a licensing fee, and that depending on prop use it could cost more, etc. If you cover a song in recording, re-arrange it, whatever, you pay royalties to the original songwriter.
- wahern 7y ago
  > With the latter I don't find a consistent answer. I've read venues pay a licensing fee.... IIRC, the licensing fee paid by the venue doesn't necessarily grant the performers any rights, it just waives the venue's liability. The nature of the relationship between the performer and venue is context dependent and it isn't always clear if the performers are covered or even could be covered by the venue's license, anyhow. In practice the licensor associations will leave the performers alone as long as the venue has a license, because what's the point of the venue license if artists face legal jeopardy for playing there. Alot of copyright works this way: the edges are very blurry and the incredibly broad scope of claims and defenses effectively corrals everybody into quasi-legal arrangements. Were it not for criminal liability and potential for ruinous monetary damages, this would definitely be a feature more than a bug. It's certainly deliberate. No law could ever be precise enough to properly balance such interests a priori.
fzzzy 7y ago
Anyone can cover any song without permission as long as they pay compulsory royalties. https://www.thebalancecareers.com/what-is-a-compulsory-license-in-music-2460357 https://www.thebalancecareers.com/what-is-a-compulsory-licen...

acomjean 7y ago

Actually listening to a Robert Johnson album, I was surprised to discover a some Zeppelin rifs were taken from him. Its not the same though (Robert Johnson is a hard listen.). Blues is slightly harder as the chord progression is similar across songs, similar scales. Its seams that sometimes they gave writing credit to the original song writer, sometimes not. (Songwriters get paid per radio play, which mattered a lot before streaming..) Wikipedia has a list of Zepplin song "inspired by others": with a list of listed song writing credits. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Led_Zeppelin_songs_written_or_inspired_by_others https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Led_Zeppelin_songs_wri... The Beatles covered a lot of songs in the early days. (I think they must have paid royalties). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_songs_covered_by_the_Beatles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_songs_covered_by_the_B...