3 ms·

Covers are generally transformative, right? Edit: I guess even if they are SCOTUS recently decided that even transformative works can infringe if they compete

by dcow 3y ago

Covers are generally transformative, right? Edit: I guess even if they are SCOTUS recently decided that even transformative works can infringe if they compete commercially. So the question is not: “did the reciter make money performing”, it’s “did the reciter’s performance detract financially for the original artist”.

Retric 3y ago
No, covers aren’t considered transformative. I think a great deal of this discussion comes from people not understanding copyright. https://attorneyatlawmagazine.com/public-articles/intellectual-property/a-myth-cover-songs https://attorneyatlawmagazine.com/public-articles/intellectu...
- dcow 3y ago
  I personally think our law regarding covers has been heavily influenced by record labels and is wrong about them, in practice. I’ve already heard the original enough times that if I want to hear a string quartet perform Viva La Vida it’s because it’s a new refreshing piece of art. The whole compulsory license thing indicates the law got it wrong. Anyway…
  - Retric 3y ago
    The song is distinct from an artists performance of that song, but let’s move outside of music to books etc. Suppose A creates an epic poem, B does a poetry reading aka a performance of A’s poem. C records it, then plays that recording back in public. D reinterprets the poem making a new public performance. B can successfully sue C but not necessarily D if it’s sufficiently distinct. A however can potentially sue D, C, and B if none of them got the rights. [Substitute A making a painting and B making some needlepoint copy or whatever and the same principle applies.] This is why JK Rawling got paid by the people making Harry Potter movies, she could sue if they didn’t pay. Trademarks may also be involved, but even without that if you want to make an MMORPG based on The Dresden Files or whatever be prepared to fork over cash. Unless you follow the Disney approach and use public domain works.
wlesieutre 3y ago
Song covers are also a special case with something called a "compulsory license" where the copyright owner is required to license it to you, can't be denied. You just do it and and pay them preset royalty rates.
- sitkack 3y ago
  That is only if it is recorded. You can't get a "compulsory license" if you are going to perform that cover in front of an audience. That you have secure from the rights holder.
aldousd666 3y ago
'Covers' require the payment of ASCAP fees -- usually done by the facility, not the performer, but if the facility does not pay, the performer can be liable. You even need a license to put a jukebox in your bar, so that argument doesn't hold up.

by dcow 3y ago

Retric 3y ago

No, covers aren’t considered transformative. I think a great deal of this discussion comes from people not understanding copyright. https://attorneyatlawmagazine.com/public-articles/intellectual-property/a-myth-cover-songs https://attorneyatlawmagazine.com/public-articles/intellectu...

dcow 3y ago
I personally think our law regarding covers has been heavily influenced by record labels and is wrong about them, in practice. I’ve already heard the original enough times that if I want to hear a string quartet perform Viva La Vida it’s because it’s a new refreshing piece of art. The whole compulsory license thing indicates the law got it wrong. Anyway…
- Retric 3y ago
  The song is distinct from an artists performance of that song, but let’s move outside of music to books etc. Suppose A creates an epic poem, B does a poetry reading aka a performance of A’s poem. C records it, then plays that recording back in public. D reinterprets the poem making a new public performance. B can successfully sue C but not necessarily D if it’s sufficiently distinct. A however can potentially sue D, C, and B if none of them got the rights. [Substitute A making a painting and B making some needlepoint copy or whatever and the same principle applies.] This is why JK Rawling got paid by the people making Harry Potter movies, she could sue if they didn’t pay. Trademarks may also be involved, but even without that if you want to make an MMORPG based on The Dresden Files or whatever be prepared to fork over cash. Unless you follow the Disney approach and use public domain works.

wlesieutre 3y ago

Song covers are also a special case with something called a "compulsory license" where the copyright owner is required to license it to you, can't be denied. You just do it and and pay them preset royalty rates.

sitkack 3y ago
That is only if it is recorded. You can't get a "compulsory license" if you are going to perform that cover in front of an audience. That you have secure from the rights holder.

aldousd666 3y ago

'Covers' require the payment of ASCAP fees -- usually done by the facility, not the performer, but if the facility does not pay, the performer can be liable. You even need a license to put a jukebox in your bar, so that argument doesn't hold up.