4 ms·

Marvin Gaye's estate is one of the most notorious copyright trolls in the music industry. We've only heard about the big songs (Sheeran, Blurred Lines) but they

Marvin Gaye's estate is one of the most notorious copyright trolls in the music industry. We've only heard about the big songs (Sheeran, Blurred Lines) but they've gone after a number of indie musicians as well.

juliusdavies 4y ago
I'd love to hear more about these cases, but probably they all settle with non disclosures. :-( Are you aware of any specific instances?
masklinn 4y ago
I recently learned that the Eagles is also a big one: they will copyright-strike any cover, no ifs, no buts. Not share earnings, not demonitize, straight to strike.
- LegitShady 4y ago
  I mean, you're supposed to ask permission to make a cover. That's kind of their choice?
  - vr46 4y ago
    You don't need permission to make a cover, in America, there's a thing called a compulsory mechanical licence that anyone can obtain. Prince was notorious for "denying" people permission to cover his songs, but in reality it seemed that people were just being polite, and/or afraid of his general power in the industry (said with the full awareness that he both took a battering from Warner Bros and also meted out much battering to his own fans).
  - masklinn 4y ago
    > I mean, you're supposed to ask permission to make a cover. No, that’s actually a specific carve-out in US copyright law dating back to the Copyright Act of 1909. It’s certainly a nice thing to do (like weird al and parodies), but it’s not required, and it’s completely useless for a budding singer to “ask permission” to do a cover from a popular artist or group, the request will go straight to the bin unread. > That's kind of their choice? Of course it is, but a copyright strike is a heavy handed and damaging choice. The Eagles are apparently notorious for this behaviour.
    - tigeroil 4y ago
      Keep in mind that whilst you don't need to ask permission, you do need to obtain a mechanical license and I have a sneaking suspicion that many of the artists covering (particularly on YouTube) haven't done this. Keep in mind that a mechanical license wouldn't cover you on YouTube anyway - once you're making a video for your cover you now need a sync license which you do need permission for.
      - hgsgm 4y ago
        The concept of a sync license is insane.
  - bmitc 4y ago
    Only if you sell it. The Eagles will copyright claim an hour long video with 5 seconds worth of a cover of their songs. So you either take the video down, send all monetization to the Eagles for the entire video, or remove the 5 seconds.
    - masklinn 4y ago
      > send all monetization to the Eagles for the entire video From the last instance I’ve seen that wasn’t even an option, the video was struck down and that was it. Granted that was a cover not just a small bit of cover inside a longer video, but the cover-er specifically noted the Eagles opted to neither revenue-share (which was the cover’s state as it’d been properly content-id’d as a cover) nor demonetise, just take down the video entirely. He also cites Rick Beato as having repeatedly had analysis of Eagles songs taken down. Though maybe it’s because YouTube only has revenue sharing, you can’t send 100% revenue to the eagles?
      - bmitc 4y ago
        It's possible I am wrong on the specifics there. I was going off memory of a video that covered this topic.
      - Applejinx 4y ago
        Given their experience in signing off on a bad, exploitative deal at the inception of their careers, and the fight they had to get control of their songwriting catalog from David Geffen, I really can't be surprised. Once (at least!) burned, forever shy. And they're not wrong: what YouTube does is also exploitative. Anybody on YouTube who's building a career on publicising the reprocessing of other people's music in any way, is building on sand. In no way are they any better off than the Eagles were under their original contracts. Leaving the question, is it better to do react videos on Creedence because the owners aren't issuing copyright strikes, when you know that Creedence was robbed?
        masklinn 4y ago
        Ah yes, “we’ve been burned therefore we’ll be taking the risk of getting you banned from the platform you’re trying to make a following and money on”. That sounds so nice of them.
  - kelthan 4y ago
    There is an automated system for requesting and getting approval for covers, if you want to "cover" your ass while covering a song. (Ahem.) It basically says "yes" and logs the fact that you requested it so you have proof that you fit in the cover carve out you reference. NOTE: This was explained to me by a musician/producer. I don't have firsthand knowledge of the system.
h0l0cube 4y ago
> Marvin Gaye's estate Not precisely (or at least not in this instance), from TFA: > The claim over Thinking Out Loud was originally lodged in 2018, not by Gaye’s family but by investment banker David Pullman and a company called Structured Asset Sales, which has acquired a portion of the estate of Let’s Get It On co-writer Ed Townsend.
agumonkey 4y ago
I think Sheeran was lazy and lifted Gaye song too close. But since it's the estate trying to milk everybody without real respect to Marvin Gaye's legacy[0] .. I'm ok with them losing. [0] personal opinion but still
UncleMeat 4y ago
This suit was from Ed Townsend’s estate.

juliusdavies 4y ago

I'd love to hear more about these cases, but probably they all settle with non disclosures. :-( Are you aware of any specific instances?

masklinn 4y ago

I recently learned that the Eagles is also a big one: they will copyright-strike any cover, no ifs, no buts. Not share earnings, not demonitize, straight to strike.

LegitShady 4y ago
I mean, you're supposed to ask permission to make a cover. That's kind of their choice?
- vr46 4y ago
  You don't need permission to make a cover, in America, there's a thing called a compulsory mechanical licence that anyone can obtain. Prince was notorious for "denying" people permission to cover his songs, but in reality it seemed that people were just being polite, and/or afraid of his general power in the industry (said with the full awareness that he both took a battering from Warner Bros and also meted out much battering to his own fans).
- masklinn 4y ago
  > I mean, you're supposed to ask permission to make a cover. No, that’s actually a specific carve-out in US copyright law dating back to the Copyright Act of 1909. It’s certainly a nice thing to do (like weird al and parodies), but it’s not required, and it’s completely useless for a budding singer to “ask permission” to do a cover from a popular artist or group, the request will go straight to the bin unread. > That's kind of their choice? Of course it is, but a copyright strike is a heavy handed and damaging choice. The Eagles are apparently notorious for this behaviour.
  - tigeroil 4y ago
    Keep in mind that whilst you don't need to ask permission, you do need to obtain a mechanical license and I have a sneaking suspicion that many of the artists covering (particularly on YouTube) haven't done this. Keep in mind that a mechanical license wouldn't cover you on YouTube anyway - once you're making a video for your cover you now need a sync license which you do need permission for.
    - hgsgm 4y ago
      The concept of a sync license is insane.
- bmitc 4y ago
  Only if you sell it. The Eagles will copyright claim an hour long video with 5 seconds worth of a cover of their songs. So you either take the video down, send all monetization to the Eagles for the entire video, or remove the 5 seconds.
  - masklinn 4y ago
    > send all monetization to the Eagles for the entire video From the last instance I’ve seen that wasn’t even an option, the video was struck down and that was it. Granted that was a cover not just a small bit of cover inside a longer video, but the cover-er specifically noted the Eagles opted to neither revenue-share (which was the cover’s state as it’d been properly content-id’d as a cover) nor demonetise, just take down the video entirely. He also cites Rick Beato as having repeatedly had analysis of Eagles songs taken down. Though maybe it’s because YouTube only has revenue sharing, you can’t send 100% revenue to the eagles?
    - bmitc 4y ago
      It's possible I am wrong on the specifics there. I was going off memory of a video that covered this topic.
    - Applejinx 4y ago
      Given their experience in signing off on a bad, exploitative deal at the inception of their careers, and the fight they had to get control of their songwriting catalog from David Geffen, I really can't be surprised. Once (at least!) burned, forever shy. And they're not wrong: what YouTube does is also exploitative. Anybody on YouTube who's building a career on publicising the reprocessing of other people's music in any way, is building on sand. In no way are they any better off than the Eagles were under their original contracts. Leaving the question, is it better to do react videos on Creedence because the owners aren't issuing copyright strikes, when you know that Creedence was robbed?
      - masklinn 4y ago
        Ah yes, “we’ve been burned therefore we’ll be taking the risk of getting you banned from the platform you’re trying to make a following and money on”. That sounds so nice of them.
- kelthan 4y ago
  There is an automated system for requesting and getting approval for covers, if you want to "cover" your ass while covering a song. (Ahem.) It basically says "yes" and logs the fact that you requested it so you have proof that you fit in the cover carve out you reference. NOTE: This was explained to me by a musician/producer. I don't have firsthand knowledge of the system.

h0l0cube 4y ago

> Marvin Gaye's estate Not precisely (or at least not in this instance), from TFA: > The claim over Thinking Out Loud was originally lodged in 2018, not by Gaye’s family but by investment banker David Pullman and a company called Structured Asset Sales, which has acquired a portion of the estate of Let’s Get It On co-writer Ed Townsend.

agumonkey 4y ago

I think Sheeran was lazy and lifted Gaye song too close. But since it's the estate trying to milk everybody without real respect to Marvin Gaye's legacy[0] .. I'm ok with them losing. [0] personal opinion but still

UncleMeat 4y ago

This suit was from Ed Townsend’s estate.