# Posting Covers on the Internets



## hollowbody (Jan 15, 2008)

My cover band wants to post some audio and video clips on our website. What is the absolute minimum required to do so legally?

I know of some people who have posted without permission, and I'm sure for the most part these things either go unnoticed, or people might receive a cease-and-desist before any action is taken against them, but I'd like to know what needs to be done in terms of paperwork and how much it will cost before we make a decision whether or not to post anything.


----------



## Guest (Nov 30, 2009)

Here's my $0.02 on the matter -- if you post on YouTube.com instead of your own site you give content owners a simple and effective means to have infringing content removed if they wish. YouTube makes the process painless. I've done it for TAE stuff -- someone used a TAE song in a weird video we didn't like so...poof! We made it go away.

YouTube itself has licensing agreements with a bunch of the major publishers and they get a portion of its revenue in return for blanket access to their catalogs so users can post without worrying about infringement.

Technically you have to pay per stream of the titles.


----------



## Skndstry (Jul 21, 2009)

My understanding is that if you aren't making money off them, you don't have to pay. If there were royalties to be had, they would go to the artist. Not sure how it works if you are looking to promote yourself in a money making venture though.


----------



## Guest (Nov 30, 2009)

Skndstry said:


> My understanding is that if you aren't making money off them, you don't have to pay.


Not true. If you broadcast another's song you owe them a broadcast/performance royalty. Whether you made money or not is immaterial. If that was the case bars and radio stations could simple continually declare losses and never have to pay for the songs they use. :smile:



> If there were royalties to be had, they would go to the artist. Not sure how it works if you are looking to promote yourself in a money making venture though.


The royalties go to the copyright owner. That may or may not be the artist. More likely than not it is not the artist, but a record label's publishing subsidiary.

They'd be collected by whomever is responsible for royalty collection for the publisher: ASCAP, BMI, SOCAN, etc. This helps a bit but it's for other's performance: http://www.boutell.com/newfaq/creating/musicrights.html -- you'd simply be omitting the performance royalty since you're the performer. Or they might, in some warped way, make you pay it anyways on the premise that it'd be redistributed to you at some point. It's bizarre sometimes...

And here's a thread specifically about getting rights for covers being posted to YouTube: http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/youtube/thread?tid=6b5520542489635b&hl=en

And here's a wonderfully succinct article on cover songs and the way it all works. Absolutely great read: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/290/must-you-get-permission-to-record-someone-elses-song

One last really good link about cover songs for musicians: http://www.musicianwages.com/the-working-musician/recording-releasing-performing-cover-songs/


----------



## hollowbody (Jan 15, 2008)

Thanks Ian, I'll have to read this stuff later, I actually have to do work at work today 

In the meantime, if our website wasn't hosting the content specifically, but it was embedded content from youtube postings, that's sort-of-but-not-really ok?


----------



## Guest (Nov 30, 2009)

hollowbody said:


> Thanks Ian, I'll have to read this stuff later, I actually have to do work at work today
> 
> In the meantime, if our website wasn't hosting the content specifically, but it was embedded content from youtube postings, that's sort-of-but-not-really ok?


This is strictly MHO (but I'll admit it's shared by a few guys like David Torn over on TGP) but I believe as long as you keep the content on YouTube it's fine. Doesn't matter if you embed that YouTube-hosted video in your web site. Just don't keep the video on your server. Two reasons I think this is the right and safest way to do this:

1) Major content owners have streaming agreements with YouTube already so views of your video are cataloged and paid out properly even if their through embedded views because it's all being served by YouTube infrastructure;
2) YouTube provides an easy mechanism for infringing content to be taken down. So you're providing the content owners with a one-button, easy out. They don't like, they'll let you know and you'll respect their wishes (right?).

YouTube went to great lengths to solve this nut of problem a few years ago. Both for content owners (with an easy way to have stuff taken down) and content uploaders (with blanket license agreements to make sure they could use media without having to think so hard about it).

Make sure the video is labeled well. That you identify the songwriters and publisher in the description. Be upfront about it.

Otherwise it's a very big PIA to get the licensing sorted out as you'll read. :smile:


----------



## keto (May 23, 2006)

Thanks for the useful info :wave:


----------



## hollowbody (Jan 15, 2008)

iaresee said:


> This is strictly MHO (but I'll admit it's shared by a few guys like David Torn over on TGP) but I believe as long as you keep the content on YouTube it's fine. Doesn't matter if you embed that YouTube-hosted video in your web site. Just don't keep the video on your server. Two reasons I think this is the right and safest way to do this:
> 
> 1) Major content owners have streaming agreements with YouTube already so views of your video are cataloged and paid out properly even if their through embedded views because it's all being served by YouTube infrastructure;
> 2) YouTube provides an easy mechanism for infringing content to be taken down. So you're providing the content owners with a one-button, easy out. They don't like, they'll let you know and you'll respect their wishes (right?).
> ...


Is there an audio-only equivalent to youtube, like does soundclick also pay SOCAN, etc fees?


----------



## Guest (Dec 1, 2009)

hollowbody said:


> Is there an audio-only equivalent to youtube, like does soundclick also pay SOCAN, etc fees?


I love Soundclick's FAQ entry for this. Check it out: http://www.soundclick.com/solutioncenter/default.cfm?subOf=134 -- that is such a beautiful summary of how amazingly obtuse music licensing, royalty collections and permission seeking has become.

To answer your question: I know of no streaming audio site where users contribute audio that has blanket licensing with publishers. You can try one of the create-your-own-internet-radio services. They at least track your plays and bill your appropriately.


----------

