There are actually 2 rights associated with a recorded song:
1. Master Right, or Phonoright (p) - this is the physical recording of the song. Typically owned by the record label (EMI, in this case).
2. Copyright (c) - this is the music and lyrics . Typically owned by the publisher/song writer (mostly Sony, in this case).
EMI generally doesn't license the Beatles' Master Rights. But...
...this is where it gets tricky.
US law allows for a compulsory mechanical license to be granted without the publisher's explicit consent, provided the royalties are properly paid and accounted for.
In other words, anyone can go out and cover any song that has been released to the public, provided they get a license from the US Copyright Office. The publisher doesn't get to say "no" - it is compulsory on the part of the publisher (they HAVE to grant it) and the rate is statutory (set by Congress - currently $0.091/use).
As an example, look at how many thousands of covers there are of "Come Together". Neither EMI nor Sony nor The Beatles "approved" many of those covers - but they are legal.
An .mp3 is generally considered eligible for a compulsory mechanical license, even though there is no physical media involved. This is where it gets dicey, because there are very specific things you can and can not do with an .mp3 when you license it in this matter. For example, it can't be streamed, it can't be synchronized with moving images, it can't be used for karaoke, etc. In any case...
IF the recordings were truly created by him (i.e., he did not sample the Master Recording but rather used his computer to recreate the recording) then he didn't need a Master Use license from EMI and...
IF all he did with these new recordings were sell them via a physical media or via a non-interactive download and...
IF he paid Sony/ATV (the publisher) the statutory compulsory license rate (currently $0.091 per use)...
THEN he has a case. His defense would argue that is no different than doing a cover, and they would have precedent on their side.
Granted, it's not a case I would want to argue, but it's not like he doesn't have a defense.
OK, that's probably way more than anyone wants to know about US Copyright Law and music licensing. #riaa
@B3ND3R: You have disgraced your namesake by being helpful, polite, and refraining from using any of the following words "Bite" "my" "shiny" "metal" "ass" #riaa
@B3ND3R: Excellent explanation of some of the issues.
I think Hank will lose, as Bertone77 below states, because what he created was a derivative work. There's not even a creativity aspect to what he did - he started with the originals, processed them and developed something new. Classic derivative work.
@B3ND3R: Interesting interpretation actually! The only thing I found an issue with that there is one copyright only, which belongs to the original composers. This is denoted by (c). The publishing rights "(p)" are a part of the intellectual properly law and can be granted to certain parties, and also full ownership can be given to another party. This is done during the copyright registration.
This caveat is also why you may see a song is a registered to the record company or publisher instead of the artist themselves. #riaa
@emorottie: Without getting too far into it... ha ha!
There are 2 rights associated with a song that has been recorded:
1. The copyright is designated as (c) and belongs to the author, which is typically the songwriter(s).
The songwriter(s) assigns a portion of this copyright to a music publisher in return for the publisher exploiting (in a good way) the copyright.
There is always only one (c) per song. Period. But the (c) only covers the words and music, not the Sound Recording (SR) or "Master" recording or phonoright (p).
2. The (p) covers the actual recorded interpretation of the song. It belongs typically to the record label, although artists who are powerful enough can negotiate to own the (p) in their recording contracts. There can be multiple (p) but only one per recording.
I know that sounds confusing, but here is an example:
"Come Together"
writers: John Lennon/Paul McCartney
(c) breakdown:
25% John Lenon (writer)
25% Paul McCartney (writer)
25% EMI Blackwood (*publisher)
25% Sony/ATV Tree (*publisher)
*Don't confuse these parties with EMI Records or Sony Records - for the purposes of this discussion they are different parties. If it helps you to keep it straight, substitute Blackwood Publishing" for EMI Blackwood" and "ATV/Tree" for Sony/ATV Tree.
Every time a copy of that song is sold in a mechanical form (CD, .mp3) $0.091 is split among those 4 parties equally or about $0.023 cents each.
So when The Beatles recorded "Come Together" on the Abbey Road, every time that album sold/sells the 4 parties listed above get about $0.023. But George Harrison gets nothing, nor does Ringo Starr, nor does the record label (EMI Records).
So how do those other parties, who clearly had a hand in making the Sound Recording getting paid?
OK, so hang with me...
Remember the other right associated with the song - (p)?
EMI Records owns the (p). They agree to share the income earned from the (p) with The Beatles.via a record contract.
I won't get into the breakdown, but when a record sells EMI Music is going to packet about $0.60 on the dollar, the distributor is going to pocket about $0.30 on the dollar and The Beatles are going to pocket about the remaining $0.10.
To recap, when Abbey Road sells, the income earned only from the song "Come Together" is:
John Lenon - $0.023 (c) + $0.025 (p) = $0.048
Paul McCartney - $0.023 (c) +$0.025 (p) = $0.048
Blackwood publishing - $0.023 (c) *only
ATV/Tree publishing - $0.023 (c) *only*
EMI Records - $0.025 (p) *only*
George Harrison - $0.025 (p) *only*
Ringo Starr - $0.025 (p) *only*
Multiple these monies out for multiple songs/record.
But what happens when another band, such as Big Mountain does a reggae cover of Come Together?
Well, there is a new (p) involved because Big Mountain re-recorded the song - they didn't use the same tracks as The Beatles for their reggae version - they made new tracks and thus a new (p)... which Big Mountain's record label likely owns.
These parties still get paid, because it is still their (c) - it is just a recorded different interpretation of John Lennon & Paul McCartney's words & music. I.e., it's the same song with a different track. Continuing:
Big Mountain's record label (whomever they may be) - $0.025 (p) *only*
Big Mountain - - $0.10 (p) *only*
Clearer?
Honestly, I come across people every day in the music industry who should know better, but still don't understand the difference between (c) and (p). Look on the back of any CD or at the liner notes and you will see both symbols.
It's why artists lose their shirts signing away publishing and or masters ownership. Because record companies *do* get this and use that knowledge to their advantage.
@B3ND3R: Hrrrm yeah you're right about the use of the (p) and (c) symbol. I am mistaken on that.
Technically, however, all rights including the sound recording and composition can be covered under SR.
This is where copyright law gets a bit murky there (it took me a long while to fully understand the limitations and paperwork involved with obtaining a compulsory license). #riaa
@emorottie: If you are the owner of both the copyright & the phonoright, you can file your ownership for both rights simultaneously using Form SR or Form CO.
Without getting into all the nuances, filing doesn't "give" you copyright it only provides you with prima fascia evidence in a dispute.
Regardless, (c) & (p) are treated differently when it comes to licensing them.
As you can deduce from my explanation above, if you owned both rights (you are both the author of the words & music *and* the author of the master recording) you could license (c) and chose not to license (p).
For example, as the licensor you might choose to do this in authorizing a cover recording. A new (p) is created which you don't own but you do get paid when the licensee uses your (c).
But the inverse wouldn't be true if the licensee were attempting to duplicate the actual Master recording in some manner . As the owner of both (c) & (p) you would have to grant the licensee (c) if you were licensing the (p).
For example, if a TV show wanted to use the actual Beatles Master recording of "Come Together" as background music in a scene, the TV show (licensee) would have to obtain both a Master Use (p) license and a Synchronization (c) license from the licensor... as well as performance license from a PRO, but we won't get into that here.
Don't feel too badly about not understanding all the limitations of music licensing. I have worked for major record labels, music publishers, and songwriters for over 15 years and currently do music industry education for a living and even I have a hard time keeping up.
IMO, the root of the problem centers on the fact that we are operating on a copyright law that hasn't been significantly updated since 1976. And who knew about the internet in '76 (besides Al Gore)?
Congress has been applying poor bandaids to the law since then (AHRA, DPRSRA, DMCA) when the whole law needs rewritten. Nobody has the stones to take it on, though, and the RIAA & MPAA are concerned with maintaining the status quo. #riaa
@B3ND3R: Quick note cause I can't read this atm, but I'm bugging you just BECAUSE you know so much and I'd like to know more!
Thanks for all the info in advance; it'll help me out a lot. The music part of copyright is terribly difficult to comprehend (other parts of copyright law are no issue for me but music = O___o) #riaa
Nice try Hank, but you need to do some more research on copyright infringement before you go "creating music" again.
What Hank created is clearly a "derivative work" as defined by US copyright law. [en.wikipedia.org]
He did not create anythingnew, instead he stood on the shoulders of giants and "altered" it enough so that he could justify it in his mind that it was "original".
Hope he has a good lawyer to at least try to soften the blow of the book that is going to be thrown at him. #riaa
Mike Zuniga: That was Unexpected promoted this comment
Edited by ethanlechcharles at 11/07/09 4:43 PM
ethanlechcharles was starred
ethanlechcharles was unstarred
@johnnyabnormal: sounds like someone wants KRKs or even Tannoys... or call me crazy, Genelecs... but i agree, most important parts of your signal flow are input and output. poor monitors = poor mix.
@johnnyabnormal: Yeah. NS10`s are good for that tinny radio sound, i`d go with either some top of the range PMC monitors or ATC`s two of the best of the crop of UK monitor companies. Just sold my PMC TB2S+..I know i will live to rue the day...
@Scott.Gardeski:I've actually been digging the updated HRmk2's lately. Now if Logic Pro 9 wasn't Intel chip exclusive, I'd be happy. I'm not looking forward to a complete system upgrade till the end of the year.
@Karkawry:I see them too in the red room on stands. No idea what they are. I love stands...not really into letting my desk color the sound or dictate the height.
@johnnyabnormal: If you're mixing only for audiofiles, then I could see not having a need for NS-10s. But any engineer worth two shits know that you mix for your audience, not merely for yourself or even the client. 95% of the world is listening to music on speakers that cost about the price of the wood in the NS-10s to manufacture... or on 10 headphones, or worse, as a friggin ringtone.
@NameIsDave: Actually not dissing NS-10's for mixing. If you can get a mix to sound good on them, then your mix will sound great on almost anything else. However, a proper mix needs at least 3 sets of reference speakers. FYI: I mix for 100%.
@NameIsDave:
Yeah but you've got to mix for ALL of those things, possibly including audiophiles. Which is why, I'm assuming he said it's too bad they ONLY have NS-10's.
@secret_curse: I'm well aware of what diffusion is. I'm also pretty sure there's a high gloss finish on the walls of those shiny, rectangular rooms. Those little wall nubs won't do squat if you're trying to cut down on refraction and bass coupling. It looks cool, but I bet you could slap your hands and hear slap back echos for at least a few seconds unless there are bass traps, diffusion, absorption or irregular room angles we are not seeing.
@secret_curse: I forgot to mention: An acoustic "signature", like the frequency response of a room or it's impulse response is great if you're seeking to record in that environment. Say, like a modular string stage or a stairwell. On the other hand, you need the control room as neutral as possible. Otherwise, you'd have to compensate for that "signature" whenever you mix. It would also result in difficulty achieving continuity across multiple playback setups since nobody else would be listening to music with your unique acoustics.
@johnnyabnormal: 100% is all well and good, and I'm glad that's what you mix for, but I was responding to what you said, not what you think (my telepathy only works within a 20 foot radius). You can get much more than "that tinny radio mix" from NS-10s. That's all I was responding to. =)
@NameIsDave: Hey Dave, such a bummer you can't read my mind! I assure you, I never said, "that tinny radio mix". I do think NS-10's are an essential set of reference speakers, just as a crappy, mono, clock radio style speaker is essential as well. The more speaker sets, the merrier, I say. In the end, I usually trust speakers that have as flat a frequency response as I can get. That said, the NS-10's are invaluable because they are so generic and popular by design.
@johnnyabnormal: granted those hrmk2's sure are sexy... i look forward to the day when i can comfortably afford such a beast... until then, i'll spend alot of time in the labs at college :-P... It's nice to know there is another logic user in the world. Sadly, it seems apple is determined to force the upgrade issue on creative professionals. Though i run all intel machines, it's disappointing nonetheless.
@Scott.Gardeski:You'd be surprised how affordable the hrmk2's are compared to other bi-amplified monitors. I've been using Logic since '96? It was not owned by Apple then. I don't plan to upgrade my main rig to Intel till after I'm convinced everything can be translated to Snow Leopard without too many problems. I give it another 8 months and obsessive discussion board reading.
@johnnyabnormal: As a man who has never made a mistake in his life, I must confess I attributed the "tinny radio" line to you, when in fact it should have been attributed to the user "Karkarwy" - who was responding@you... but I still choose to blame you for inspiring those words to come out of his fingers because he was essentially attempting to agree with you. =)
@Scott.Gardeski:The first thing you realize is how damn big that place is. I got lost in the tech building more than once. Outside, it's around 5,000 acres of land with only 15 acres developed for the facility.
@CyrilUmbrellabird: Um...not great, but not bad either. Certainly better than some video I've seen from DIY (or cheap/knockoff) "Steadicams".
Still, while the camera height seemed to be under control—no noticeable pogo stick effect—I saw a whole LOT of the camera/horizon canting left, canting right, canting left again, etc. Looked like it was shot while standing in a row boat.
To be fair, some of that could be operator talent (or lack thereof), but I'd think a fair portion of that also is due to the rig.
That 35mm is definitely not the cheap option! Try the Jag35 Pro for real affordable 35mm adaptors, although possibly not of the quality of the Handy35 its definitely the cheaper option! The Glidetrack is great but the DIY option can give amazing results for a fraction of the price as well. There are tutorials all over the net for DIY tracks and dollies. I want to try the poor mans steadicam though!
You want the best way to wring amazing video out of cheap camcorders? Quit looking at gadget solutions and put that camcorder into the hands of a talented DP (Director of Photography). You might be amazed what you can get, regardless of the equipment—seriously—when the eye behind the lens knows how to light and frame a shot.
And I don't mean this as a dismissal of gadgets, but if your goal really is amazing video, you can do that with any camera when the lighting is creative and the framing/focus/angle/etc. is aesthetically appropriate or pleasing.
@bosskev: if I could thumbs up your post I would. People and there gadget fetishes, myself included, but there is art in them there hands, and them there brain and eyes, that just can't be replaced by any, I repeat ANY technology.
Edited by beekerstudios: you are inane and stupid at 07/10/09 8:22 PM
beekerstudios: you are inane and stupid was starred
beekerstudios: you are inane and stupid was unstarred
Well, if this thing could send the video wirelessly, and was rechargable w/ a dock/wireless charger, then I might just consider wearing this for JerseyCam.
11/07/09
There are actually 2 rights associated with a recorded song:
1. Master Right, or Phonoright (p) - this is the physical recording of the song. Typically owned by the record label (EMI, in this case).
2. Copyright (c) - this is the music and lyrics . Typically owned by the publisher/song writer (mostly Sony, in this case).
EMI generally doesn't license the Beatles' Master Rights. But...
...this is where it gets tricky.
US law allows for a compulsory mechanical license to be granted without the publisher's explicit consent, provided the royalties are properly paid and accounted for.
In other words, anyone can go out and cover any song that has been released to the public, provided they get a license from the US Copyright Office. The publisher doesn't get to say "no" - it is compulsory on the part of the publisher (they HAVE to grant it) and the rate is statutory (set by Congress - currently $0.091/use).
As an example, look at how many thousands of covers there are of "Come Together". Neither EMI nor Sony nor The Beatles "approved" many of those covers - but they are legal.
An .mp3 is generally considered eligible for a compulsory mechanical license, even though there is no physical media involved. This is where it gets dicey, because there are very specific things you can and can not do with an .mp3 when you license it in this matter. For example, it can't be streamed, it can't be synchronized with moving images, it can't be used for karaoke, etc. In any case...
IF the recordings were truly created by him (i.e., he did not sample the Master Recording but rather used his computer to recreate the recording) then he didn't need a Master Use license from EMI and...
IF all he did with these new recordings were sell them via a physical media or via a non-interactive download and...
IF he paid Sony/ATV (the publisher) the statutory compulsory license rate (currently $0.091 per use)...
THEN he has a case. His defense would argue that is no different than doing a cover, and they would have precedent on their side.
Granted, it's not a case I would want to argue, but it's not like he doesn't have a defense.
OK, that's probably way more than anyone wants to know about US Copyright Law and music licensing. #riaa
11/07/09
11/07/09
Wait, is this the internet I'm used to? Get out of here! :)
Seriously though, thanks for that explanation, that is interesting. Nice to have it laid out in plain english, too. #riaa
11/07/09
11/07/09
I think Hank will lose, as Bertone77 below states, because what he created was a derivative work. There's not even a creativity aspect to what he did - he started with the originals, processed them and developed something new. Classic derivative work.
11/07/09
11/07/09
This caveat is also why you may see a song is a registered to the record company or publisher instead of the artist themselves. #riaa
11/07/09
There are 2 rights associated with a song that has been recorded:
1. The copyright is designated as (c) and belongs to the author, which is typically the songwriter(s).
The songwriter(s) assigns a portion of this copyright to a music publisher in return for the publisher exploiting (in a good way) the copyright.
There is always only one (c) per song. Period. But the (c) only covers the words and music, not the Sound Recording (SR) or "Master" recording or phonoright (p).
2. The (p) covers the actual recorded interpretation of the song. It belongs typically to the record label, although artists who are powerful enough can negotiate to own the (p) in their recording contracts. There can be multiple (p) but only one per recording.
I know that sounds confusing, but here is an example:
"Come Together"
writers: John Lennon/Paul McCartney
(c) breakdown:
25% John Lenon (writer)
25% Paul McCartney (writer)
25% EMI Blackwood (*publisher)
25% Sony/ATV Tree (*publisher)
*Don't confuse these parties with EMI Records or Sony Records - for the purposes of this discussion they are different parties. If it helps you to keep it straight, substitute Blackwood Publishing" for EMI Blackwood" and "ATV/Tree" for Sony/ATV Tree.
Every time a copy of that song is sold in a mechanical form (CD, .mp3) $0.091 is split among those 4 parties equally or about $0.023 cents each.
So when The Beatles recorded "Come Together" on the Abbey Road, every time that album sold/sells the 4 parties listed above get about $0.023. But George Harrison gets nothing, nor does Ringo Starr, nor does the record label (EMI Records).
So how do those other parties, who clearly had a hand in making the Sound Recording getting paid?
OK, so hang with me...
Remember the other right associated with the song - (p)?
EMI Records owns the (p). They agree to share the income earned from the (p) with The Beatles.via a record contract.
I won't get into the breakdown, but when a record sells EMI Music is going to packet about $0.60 on the dollar, the distributor is going to pocket about $0.30 on the dollar and The Beatles are going to pocket about the remaining $0.10.
To recap, when Abbey Road sells, the income earned only from the song "Come Together" is:
John Lenon - $0.023 (c) + $0.025 (p) = $0.048
Paul McCartney - $0.023 (c) +$0.025 (p) = $0.048
Blackwood publishing - $0.023 (c) *only
ATV/Tree publishing - $0.023 (c) *only*
EMI Records - $0.025 (p) *only*
George Harrison - $0.025 (p) *only*
Ringo Starr - $0.025 (p) *only*
Multiple these monies out for multiple songs/record.
But what happens when another band, such as Big Mountain does a reggae cover of Come Together?
Well, there is a new (p) involved because Big Mountain re-recorded the song - they didn't use the same tracks as The Beatles for their reggae version - they made new tracks and thus a new (p)... which Big Mountain's record label likely owns.
What does that breakdown look like?
John Lenon - $0.023 (c) *only*
Paul McCartney - $0.023 (c) *only*
Blackwood publishing - $0.023 (c) *only
ATV/Tree publishing - $0.023 (c) *only*
These parties still get paid, because it is still their (c) - it is just a recorded different interpretation of John Lennon & Paul McCartney's words & music. I.e., it's the same song with a different track. Continuing:
Big Mountain's record label (whomever they may be) - $0.025 (p) *only*
Big Mountain - - $0.10 (p) *only*
Clearer?
Honestly, I come across people every day in the music industry who should know better, but still don't understand the difference between (c) and (p). Look on the back of any CD or at the liner notes and you will see both symbols.
It's why artists lose their shirts signing away publishing and or masters ownership. Because record companies *do* get this and use that knowledge to their advantage.
****** The More You Know ****** #riaa
11/07/09
Technically, however, all rights including the sound recording and composition can be covered under SR.
This is where copyright law gets a bit murky there (it took me a long while to fully understand the limitations and paperwork involved with obtaining a compulsory license). #riaa
11/07/09
Without getting into all the nuances, filing doesn't "give" you copyright it only provides you with prima fascia evidence in a dispute.
Regardless, (c) & (p) are treated differently when it comes to licensing them.
As you can deduce from my explanation above, if you owned both rights (you are both the author of the words & music *and* the author of the master recording) you could license (c) and chose not to license (p).
For example, as the licensor you might choose to do this in authorizing a cover recording. A new (p) is created which you don't own but you do get paid when the licensee uses your (c).
But the inverse wouldn't be true if the licensee were attempting to duplicate the actual Master recording in some manner . As the owner of both (c) & (p) you would have to grant the licensee (c) if you were licensing the (p).
For example, if a TV show wanted to use the actual Beatles Master recording of "Come Together" as background music in a scene, the TV show (licensee) would have to obtain both a Master Use (p) license and a Synchronization (c) license from the licensor... as well as performance license from a PRO, but we won't get into that here.
Don't feel too badly about not understanding all the limitations of music licensing. I have worked for major record labels, music publishers, and songwriters for over 15 years and currently do music industry education for a living and even I have a hard time keeping up.
IMO, the root of the problem centers on the fact that we are operating on a copyright law that hasn't been significantly updated since 1976. And who knew about the internet in '76 (besides Al Gore)?
Congress has been applying poor bandaids to the law since then (AHRA, DPRSRA, DMCA) when the whole law needs rewritten. Nobody has the stones to take it on, though, and the RIAA & MPAA are concerned with maintaining the status quo. #riaa
11/08/09
11/08/09
Thanks for all the info in advance; it'll help me out a lot. The music part of copyright is terribly difficult to comprehend (other parts of copyright law are no issue for me but music = O___o) #riaa
11/07/09
What Hank created is clearly a "derivative work" as defined by US copyright law. [en.wikipedia.org]
He did not create anythingnew, instead he stood on the shoulders of giants and "altered" it enough so that he could justify it in his mind that it was "original".
Hope he has a good lawyer to at least try to soften the blow of the book that is going to be thrown at him. #riaa
11/07/09
11/07/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
The NS-10s are just fine right where they are.
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
I didn't want to be the one to say it but yeah, I agree.
07/29/09
Yeah but you've got to mix for ALL of those things, possibly including audiophiles. Which is why, I'm assuming he said it's too bad they ONLY have NS-10's.
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/30/09
07/30/09
07/30/09
07/29/09
"WHO LET THE TROOPERS OUT? WHO... WHO... WHO... WHO"
07/29/09
07/30/09
07/30/09
07/10/09
07/10/09
;^)
07/10/09
07/10/09
07/10/09
07/10/09
07/10/09
Still, while the camera height seemed to be under control—no noticeable pogo stick effect—I saw a whole LOT of the camera/horizon canting left, canting right, canting left again, etc. Looked like it was shot while standing in a row boat.
To be fair, some of that could be operator talent (or lack thereof), but I'd think a fair portion of that also is due to the rig.
07/10/09
07/10/09
And I don't mean this as a dismissal of gadgets, but if your goal really is amazing video, you can do that with any camera when the lighting is creative and the framing/focus/angle/etc. is aesthetically appropriate or pleasing.
07/10/09
07/10/09
"if I could thumbs up your post I would."
Well, I can certainly put my thumb up your post!
Wait…
07/10/09
07/10/09
05/01/09
05/01/09
hopefully...
05/01/09
02/20/09
02/20/09