Clearance for clients recording cover songs
- Snarl 12/8
- cryogenically thawing
- Posts: 3511
- Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 5:01 pm
- Location: Right Cheer
- Contact:
This, though IANAL. This is an important detail, since such things are decided amongst the lawyerly.joninc wrote:I don't see how you are liable in any way unless you are selling them.
I though maybe Apple was now making adult gifts when I first read this.JWL wrote:This, though IANAL. This is an important detail, since such things are decided amongst the lawyerly.joninc wrote:I don't see how you are liable in any way unless you are selling them.
Very true, and as an example, it's not necessary to "sell" something (in the traditional sense of the word "sell") to infringe on property rights.JWL wrote:This, though IANAL. This is an important detail, since such things are decided amongst the lawyerly.joninc wrote:I don't see how you are liable in any way unless you are selling them.
Think back to the Reagan campaign's use of "Born in the USA" ...
Or even the sound-a-like lawsuits, such as the recent ones brought by the Black Keys (whom Jack White seems to think cop his schtick), or the WWE, etc.
You as the mere recordist may be pretty safe from liability for infringment assuming that all you did was document, but that doesn't mean you couldn't be sued, just prob'ly not successfully.
The above is observational and not meant to be legal advice in any form.
- DrummerMan
- george martin
- Posts: 1436
- Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 12:18 pm
- Location: Los Angeles
- Contact:
Best thing on the internet today!lyman wrote:I though maybe Apple was now making adult gifts when I first read this.JWL wrote:This, though IANAL. This is an important detail, since such things are decided amongst the lawyerly.joninc wrote:I don't see how you are liable in any way unless you are selling them.
Awesome. Yet another market for Apple to recreate and rule.DrummerMan wrote:Best thing on the internet today!lyman wrote:I though maybe Apple was now making adult gifts when I first read this.JWL wrote:This, though IANAL. This is an important detail, since such things are decided amongst the lawyerly.joninc wrote:I don't see how you are liable in any way unless you are selling them.
- Gregg Juke
- cryogenically thawing
- Posts: 3544
- Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2010 10:35 pm
- Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
- Contact:
Back to the original question ( ), I know a lot of studios are using indemnity clauses regarding cover songs in their contracts/paperwork these days, so it might be helpful for you to get a few of these just as an FYI (probably a bunch you can download here on the old Internet). But I also think that's a bit of a grape-shot/extreme CYOA legal perspective, as it's unlikely that as an engineer working for an established label/entity, you'd be singled-out for a lawsuit. But just in case, you may want to CYOA.
And no, I am not an attorney and the above is not to be considered "legal advice."
GJ
And no, I am not an attorney and the above is not to be considered "legal advice."
GJ
Gregg Juke
Nocturnal Productions Music Group
Drum! Magazine Contributor
http://MightyNoStars.com
"He's about to learn the most important lesson in the music business-- 'Never trust people in the music business.' "
Nocturnal Productions Music Group
Drum! Magazine Contributor
http://MightyNoStars.com
"He's about to learn the most important lesson in the music business-- 'Never trust people in the music business.' "
- DrummerMan
- george martin
- Posts: 1436
- Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 12:18 pm
- Location: Los Angeles
- Contact:
Just out of curiosity, can anyone show an example of an engineer being sued for having been just a documentary part (meaning just the engineer) of any kind of copyright infringement, whether its in a studio or live setting, be it doing covers that don't have permission or songs that rip off previous songs?
I know this has come up in various places before, and we all want to cover our asses even if there isnt a precedent, but I can only remember artists, producers and venues being the targets of these kinds if lawsuits.
But I'd love to know if I'm wrong about that.
I mean, I can see the possibility for it. The engineer who uses their time an skill matching the cowbell sound on blurred lines with the Marvin Gaye track is part of what makes the groove so similar, that being the main argument. I just haven't seen engineers' names come up in these situations, unless they're just not "important" enough to mention in the article.
I know this has come up in various places before, and we all want to cover our asses even if there isnt a precedent, but I can only remember artists, producers and venues being the targets of these kinds if lawsuits.
But I'd love to know if I'm wrong about that.
I mean, I can see the possibility for it. The engineer who uses their time an skill matching the cowbell sound on blurred lines with the Marvin Gaye track is part of what makes the groove so similar, that being the main argument. I just haven't seen engineers' names come up in these situations, unless they're just not "important" enough to mention in the article.
Actually, in the OP's scenario, I think the "main argument" would be as to whether they knowingly participated in a scheme to deprive the proper property owner of their rights, whatever the mechanics of the recording.DrummerMan wrote: The engineer who uses their time an skill matching the cowbell sound on blurred lines with the Marvin Gaye track is part of what makes the groove so similar, that being the main argument. I just haven't seen engineers' names come up in these situations, unless they're just not "important" enough to mention in the article.
I have also not heard of any particular engineer being sued, and any involvement in such a suit was probably not in an individual capacity but rather as an employee, in that most such suits seem to either involve publicity, or substantial money (ex., television or other commercial use) or politics. In those instances, the engineer would not be the publicity or "pocket" target.
Bottom line, then, in my inexperienced head, would be concern that if as well as being the engineer there was substantial money being made or some other agenda present, and as long as the engineer was not also the promoter, etc., there seems little practical risk.
And certainly incorporation and/or business insurance would go a long way there for protection, absent some "intentional" act.
But again, the above is observational and not meant to be legal advice in any form; just shootin' the shite, like. And if the OP does see some reason for concern, by all means, getta lawyer!
- DrummerMan
- george martin
- Posts: 1436
- Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 12:18 pm
- Location: Los Angeles
- Contact:
My guess would be that the festival is responsible for making sure PROs are paid for the possibility of cover tunes being played/performed. I'm not sure if it's a blanket payment like cafe's and restaurants are supposed to pay to ASCAP, BMI and the like, or if they need to keep track of the songs and pay per. As a performer, I've both been in situations where each tune performed had to be submitted for this reason (though it was in Finland), and where we were told ahead of time that only original material was allowed to be performed.
After that, the next responsibility would be for whoever owns the masters of the recordings (your client, I suppose) to register those cover songs with Harry Fox and pay those appropriate fees before distributing them in any way, paid or not.
Since you are neither the festival producer nor the owner of the masters, the burden of those payments and consequences of ignoring them shouldn't be on your shoulders. I don't know if you sign a contract before doing such types of jobs (not a bad idea though) but in the future you could always throw in an indemnity clause specifically stating that those things aren't your responsibility. I'd be really surprised though if you were held accountable in any way.
but then again....
After that, the next responsibility would be for whoever owns the masters of the recordings (your client, I suppose) to register those cover songs with Harry Fox and pay those appropriate fees before distributing them in any way, paid or not.
Since you are neither the festival producer nor the owner of the masters, the burden of those payments and consequences of ignoring them shouldn't be on your shoulders. I don't know if you sign a contract before doing such types of jobs (not a bad idea though) but in the future you could always throw in an indemnity clause specifically stating that those things aren't your responsibility. I'd be really surprised though if you were held accountable in any way.
but then again....
-
- takin' a dinner break
- Posts: 156
- Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2012 7:05 am
- Location: Halifax, NS, Canada
That sounds exactly right (but I'm not a lawyer and we're not as litigatious up here in The Great White North). When my daughter recorded a CD of jazz covers, I learned more than I ever wanted to know about copyright, performance and neighboring rights, and mechanical rights. Mechanical rights are what dictate you pay the copyright owner(s) of the song - typically the composer and/or lyricist - and its is based on the number of pressings/CDs/downloads...It is the responsibility of the artist or the label to make the payment and get clearance. This is usually through Harry Fox in the US, CMRAA in Canada, although in some cases it may be necessary to go right to the copyright holder. If a cover song is performed, or even played from a recording, in public then the ASCAP (or in Canada, SOCAN) fee applies, hence the license that bars, cafes, etc purchase. Bottom line: the creator always (hopefully?) gets paid. The engineer is considered neither creator nor artist in the copyright wars...DrummerMan wrote:My guess would be that the festival is responsible for making sure PROs are paid for the possibility of cover tunes being played/performed. I'm not sure if it's a blanket payment like cafe's and restaurants are supposed to pay to ASCAP, BMI and the like, or if they need to keep track of the songs and pay per. As a performer, I've both been in situations where each tune performed had to be submitted for this reason (though it was in Finland), and where we were told ahead of time that only original material was allowed to be performed. After that, the next responsibility would be for whoever owns the masters of the recordings (your client, I suppose) to register those cover songs with Harry Fox and pay those appropriate fees before distributing them in any way, paid or not. Since you are neither the festival producer nor the owner of the masters, the burden of those payments and consequences of ignoring them shouldn't be on your shoulders. I don't know if you sign a contract before doing such types of jobs (not a bad idea though) but in the future you could always throw in an indemnity clause specifically stating that those things aren't your responsibility. I'd be really surprised though if you were held accountable in any way. but then again....
Jim Legere
Halifax, NS
Canada
Halifax, NS
Canada
- Nick Sevilla
- on a wing and a prayer
- Posts: 5595
- Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:34 pm
- Location: Lake Arrowhead California USA
- Contact:
Nope. because you are not profiting from the actual music. You are providing an ancillary service.DrummerMan wrote:Just out of curiosity, can anyone show an example of an engineer being sued for having been just a documentary part (meaning just the engineer) of any kind of copyright infringement, whether its in a studio or live setting, be it doing covers that don't have permission or songs that rip off previous songs
Cheers
Howling at the neighbors. Hoping they have more mic cables.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 215 guests