whats right?
 

Say I shoot a video where a local band plays their own version of "Proud Mary". Then I would sell copies of the tape locally. Do I need to contact someone and pay a royalty? Who do I contact?
Thanks in Advance!
Ron

Here's a good article to start getting confused.

You might also do a search at the Harmony Central forums ... when they are up. Royalties and covers can be a hot topic over there.

Here's another good link:

http://www.digitalproducer.com/2004/02_feb/features/02_09/copyright_caveats.htm

Dennis Vogel

A couple of points.

A local band playing a cover of Proud Mary needs public performance rights. These are usually taken care of by the venue, i.e. the club, concert hall, etc., who has a yearly license from BMI and/or ASCAP.

The public performance rights do _not_ cover, nor permit, making copies, i.e. recording the performance. If the song has been previously released on a commercial recording, a new recording of the performance _may_ come within the compulsory license.

Selling copies of the audio recording would also come within the compulsory license.

The compulsory license would _not_ apply to making a video recording of the performance. Making and selling such a tape would infringe copyright.

I always have found it interesting how Harry Fox handles straight recording rights but not sync rights. It also looks like they used to though. Does anyone know the background on that, whether they ever allowed people to license sync rights in general and if so why they stopped?

Could it be the explosion of amateur videographers with VX2000 has been bugging the hell out of HFA with questions on a daily or hourly basis, but never follow thru, since they are amateurs, and HFA just feel that it is not worth answering endless questions with no sales?

Could be I guess. :)

I wish in some ways there was compulsory licensing for sync rights. On the other hand, I could see how a copyright owner would very much not want his music used by any old person to be synced with god knows what (porn, etc.)

I think they can lay down the conditions which people can buy sync rights w/o getting time-consuming individual approvals.

E.g. I want this song to be use in traditional weddings only.

Or, it can be used with anything except porn, soft porn, political ads or anything political, and definitely nothing to do with Steven Spielburg... :-)

If people accepts and follows the condition, they can buy and use it, else they will be in violation.

'twould be nice.

<<<-- Originally posted by Law Tyler : I think they can lay down the conditions which people can buy sync rights w/o getting time-consuming individual approvals.

E.g. I want this song to be use in traditional weddings only.

Or, it can be used with anything except porn, soft porn, political ads or anything political, and definitely nothing to do with Steven Spielburg... :-)

If people accepts and follows the condition, they can buy and use it, else they will be in violation. -->>>

Maybe. But everyone has their own definition of these things. Even when contracts are written in excruciating detail and teams of lawyers review them there are still disputes. There's no way a blanket condition like this could work. What, exactly, is soft porn anyway? (It's a rhetorical question. Let's not get into a debate. It's a thought experiment.)

Dennis Vogel

Agreed.

And I don't mind if the artist demands that we read a two-page conditions and definitions, etc, or as long as his lawyer wants it to be.

Some of us are willing to do that, and following the conditions, just so we can use that popular song, after paying the ongoing rate, of course.