copyright and indie CDs

Is it prohibitively expensive to record covers of big names like Dylan, Cohen, Prine, Waits, etc.? I wonder why there are so few of their songs covered, and so many covers of Mickey Newberry, Hoyt Axton, etc.

That is a really interesting question Darryl.

If I recall our earlier discussions about copyrights from last year we got into a related area that impacted our LTG compilations, which unfortunately dropped off the map.

So, what I recall is that performing a song publicly is not an expense to the performer, but rather an expense to the performance hall, which is supposed to pay dues or something to ASCAP. In other words, cover bands aren't worried about this when they perform live.

From a layman's (me) point of view, it's hard to understand why that's different in any way than recording/distributing covers, but clearly it is. To record someone's music, I think you (the performer) do have to get permission (and indeed pay royalties) to the composer. Am I right?

So, I'll bet the answer to your question is almost certainly "yes."

Final comment, I seem to recall in copyright law (or maybe this was for patents -- I work in high-tech) that the copyright holder is obligated to sell you the rights to use their song for some fair value. I may have this totally wrong, but I thought that you (the holder of a copyright) can't refuse to let someone use your material. But how does anyone decide what a fair value is. Again, I'm probably washed up in my interpretation of this, but I did delve into it when I was involved in the open software community a few years ago. I daresay that it's much more difficult to actually prove some sort of copyright infringement in software than it is for music. A song is a song, right?

Recordings of copyrighted music are licensed through the Harry Fox Agency (in the US):
http://www.harryfox.com/index.jsp
Not sure of cost, but I think it is tied in to the number of recordings produced.
Brad

Brad Little said:

Recordings of copyrighted music are licensed through the Harry Fox Agency (in the US):
http://www.harryfox.com/index.jsp
Not sure of cost, but I think it is tied in to the number of recordings produced.
Brad

Click to expand...

It's not extremely expensive. I looked at the figures once. But, yes, it is tied to the number produced. Even if you distribute it for free, it costs for the number produced.

If you make a CD with a cover on it through CDbaby or similar online platforms, there is an on-site application that will guide you through the steps and basically file all the necessary paperwork digitally for you.

Are the artists that Darryl mentioned on this site?

Compensating anyone for the use of their intellectual property costs money and almost by definition, that is something most indie performers lack. So the mere fact that the cost is non- zero may be enough to discourage. My limited experience with folks who go the indie route is that they are passionate about their own music and performing and recording covers does not feed their passion.

Finally copyrights have not really adapted well to technology. Thus we have separate licensing schemes for public performance and recording. (Have fun trying to record a live performance of covers). And we have the opportunity for lawsuits or reform when digital recording and distribution is added to the mix.

However, if the underlying question is "Why don't indie bands record and release covers?" I'd bet the answer has more to do with a passion for their own original material and not just the costs of being legal.

Chazmo said:

Are the artists that Darryl mentioned on this site?

Click to expand...

AFAIK, virtually all published work is licensed through Harry Fox, but I don't know if some artists have different rate schedules. Some may also be able to withhold their material. I'm only familiar with the process second hand, but there's probably somebody on the list who has used the agency and might be able to add more hard information.
Brad

Interesting topic again. I'm a bit less confused than I was before we discussed the topic here a couple years ago: viewtopic.php?f=36&t=20131&hilit=copyright&start=0

The Indie movement is very big in these parts. As frono mentions above, technology has had a large effect on the music industry and, as I understand, anytime we put a cover tune on the internet (ReverbNation, SoundClick, SoundCloud etc.) we do so at risk. Most music sites, for example, have you agree to a statement that says you have the copyright/authority to play/post the tune. This is particularly true if you provide the opportunity for a listener to download the cover song at profit.

I've stopped posting covers on the Internet and doing covers when I gig out at a local restaurant (background noise as folks eat a meal in a screened room setting). Sometimes, people ask to hear a cover tune, and if I happen to know it, I have to make a decision whether to play it or not because I'm sure this venue does not license with anyone to cover themselves. As stated, the restaurant owner is at risk, not me.

Open mic settings are another thing. As I understand, the open mic venue is also at risk if they are making profit from drinks or food purchased during the session. We had two places closed in the hill country for this reason last year. If no one is making money, consider the setting as a bunch of pickers doing well known folk tunes around a campfire.

Example: Our yearly LTG jam at the Arlington Guitar Show is OK as no one makes money when we get-together at the Yacht Club. Step inside and play at the indoor Arlington Sheraton Bar, located just thirty feet away, and the host is subject to the ASCAP requirements...

Scratch said:

I've stopped posting covers on the Internet and doing covers when I gig out at a local restaurant (background noise as folks eat a meal in a screened room setting). Sometimes, people ask to hear a cover tune, and if I happen to know it, I have to make a decision whether to play it or not because I'm sure this venue does not license with anyone to cover themselves. As stated, the restaurant owner is at risk, not me.

Click to expand...

Youtube covers are totally different as well.

As for the restaurant, even if artists only play original tunes ASCAP comes knocking. I know. Both of the restaurants I play at here were both strongarmed by ASCAP directly when they began having live music at their establishments. For that place you play, they probably have paid. ASCAP isn't one to rest on its laurels.

Stirlander said:

As for the restaurant, even if artists only play original tunes ASCAP comes knocking. I know. Both of the restaurants I play at here were both strongarmed by ASCAP directly when they began having live music at their establishments. For that place you play, they probably have paid. ASCAP isn't one to rest on its laurels.

Click to expand...

So if the only performances allowed at the venue are originals and ASCAP comes looking for their fees, and the venue pays, what does the composer/performer have to to to get their rightful share of those fees? It would be too much to hope that ASCAP followed up by knocking on your door and offering you money ;-)

The little restaurant where I occasionally gig does not have a license; nor have they 'subscribed'. It's a family owned restaurant owned and run by close friends. That's why I won't play covers there.

Because I'm Indie (Independent), as long as I can produce my copywritten song as original, ASCAP will not/cannot interrupt nor can they prevent me from playing my originals. They don't recognize me nor do I recognize them. I can sing my songs. make up a song or sing nonsense and they are powerless to stop me... If I try just one George Strait tune...lookout...

fronobulax said:

Stirlander said:

As for the restaurant, even if artists only play original tunes ASCAP comes knocking. I know. Both of the restaurants I play at here were both strongarmed by ASCAP directly when they began having live music at their establishments. For that place you play, they probably have paid. ASCAP isn't one to rest on its laurels.

Click to expand...

So if the only performances allowed at the venue are originals and ASCAP comes looking for their fees, and the venue pays, what does the composer/performer have to to to get their rightful share of those fees? It would be too much to hope that ASCAP followed up by knocking on your door and offering you money ;-)

Click to expand...

Yeah, something's not following logically here. My suspicion would be that ASCAP was actually seeking some kind of verification that absolutely no covers are being played, but the verification procedure is onerous and perhaps it was easier to simply pay licensing fees?
Ah, I see Scratch posted while I was composing. His observation seems to corroborate my guess about ASCAP's true "legal purview".

adorshki said:

fronobulax said:

Stirlander said:

As for the restaurant, even if artists only play original tunes ASCAP comes knocking. I know. Both of the restaurants I play at here were both strongarmed by ASCAP directly when they began having live music at their establishments. For that place you play, they probably have paid. ASCAP isn't one to rest on its laurels.

Click to expand...

So if the only performances allowed at the venue are originals and ASCAP comes looking for their fees, and the venue pays, what does the composer/performer have to to to get their rightful share of those fees? It would be too much to hope that ASCAP followed up by knocking on your door and offering you money ;-)

Click to expand...

Yeah, something's not following logically here. My suspicion would be that ASCAP was actually seeking some kind of verification that absolutely no covers are being played, but the verification procedure is onerous and perhaps it was easier to simply pay licensing fees?
Ah, I see Scratch posted while I was composing. His observation seems to corroborate my guess about ASCAP's true "legal purview".

Click to expand...

True - true. In fact; if an ASCAP representative tried to impose on my (Indie) right to play an original tune, I have right to seek restitution from ASCAP or the offending ASCAP representative via first amendment. My free speech; however, cannot impose on another artist's copyrighted works.

If you got caught singing a Dylan song in a restaurant, what would it cost you?

Darryl Hattenhauer said:

If you got caught singing a Dylan song in a restaurant, what would it cost you?

Click to expand...

As I understand it, it would cost you nothing. The establishment that you are at would be the one in trouble.
I don't know what would happen to them though.

The bureaucrats who police this should wear hats labeled "Ass Cap."

Darryl Hattenhauer said:

If you got caught singing a Dylan song in a restaurant, what would it cost you?

Click to expand...

You nothing. The folks that hired you or let you play would get a reprimand or a fine and perhaps even a cease and desist.

Darryl Hattenhauer said:

The bureaucrats who police this should wear hats labeled "Ass Cap."

Click to expand...

If you are trying to be funny then I'd like to express my personal opinion that you did not even reach your usual standard for humor.

If you are expressing an opinion about the enforcement of licenses to use copyrighted music then I'll just disagree and leave it at that.

I'm solidly on the side against ASCAP. I've played some really "small time" venues, where the revenue generated by my playing live has been in the neighborhood of a couple hundred dollars at best. In those cases, I'm playing out because a bunch of the patrons are friends and they want me to play at their favorite dive, adding a little more fun and excitement to the evening then if a sound system was playing recordings.

Its outrageous that ASCAP should try to get these venues to pay between $1000 and $2000 for having me play. But that's the situation. I still play out, but only at venues that regularly have live music and generate enough revenue to make it worth what they have to pay to ASCAP.

I know all the arguments for and against protecting the rights of recording artists, and in principle I agree with protecting guys like Stevie Ray Vaughn, and the Beatles from guys like me who want to play "Pride and Joy", and "I saw her standing there" when they play out. But ASACAP does more harm then good in this capacity.

Jake

Interesting debate. I'm not sure which side I lean to in this one and haven't formed an opinion. But I can understand why this is a very real issue for some of you. Kudos to you for thinking about the issue and entering the debate.

The question I am asking myself, as I always do, is "where is the money going?" I suspect the answer is muddy. If it were really going back to the artists to be compensated for usage of their songs, then I would be in favor of this, at least to some degree. Instead, though, I would guess most of the money is self-serving and gets paid to ASCAP itself in order to provide enforcement and legal fees. That would anger me, but be least surprising.