UG Community @ Ultimate-Guitar.Com

UG Community @ Ultimate-Guitar.Com (http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/forum/index.php)
-   Musician Talk (http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=8)
-   -   How to properly credit, when covering? (http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1586878)

CaptnAwesomee 02-06-2013 07:11 PM

How to properly credit, when covering?
 
Lets say you record a cover, but you do a full band cover by yourself. You change some parts making giving it your own touch, and its still a rendition (cover) of the song, how would you properly credit it using the following

Written by : ?
Composed by: ?
Arranged by: ?
Performed by: ? (could be originally performed or the current performer?)

rockingamer2 02-06-2013 07:21 PM

Written (or composed) by [ORIGINAL ARTIST]

Arranged by [ARRANGER]
I would say that an arrangement is more than just covering a song with an added twist. But if the instrumentation is different enough you can call if an arrangement.

Performed by [PERFORMER]
Who ever is doing the actual playing.

primusfan 02-06-2013 07:41 PM

i don't know that arrangers get any credit really. i see 'arranged by' on the sheet music, but not as frequently on the actual CD.

HotspurJr 02-06-2013 07:46 PM

Yeah. Written by them. Performed by you. That's about it.

jetwash69 02-06-2013 10:05 PM

What context? Depending on how it's copyrighted, credit may not be enough. You'll probably need permissions and or mechanical licences--like if you want to post it somewhere or use it in a video. Definitely if you're selling it on your CD, even if you're burning them yourself and only selling it at your shows.

CaptnAwesomee 02-07-2013 12:32 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by jetwash69
What context? Depending on how it's copyrighted, credit may not be enough. You'll probably need permissions and or mechanical licences--like if you want to post it somewhere or use it in a video. Definitely if you're selling it on your CD, even if you're burning them yourself and only selling it at your shows.


I'm doing it for internet video, I would like proper credit since its probably a song people in the western world don't know. Its a Japanese band from the 60's, and I would also have to self translate it too English. The Songs lyrics, composition, and arrangement where all done by different people.

would this be properer credit?
[Song] English/ Full band Cover

Written by : (original artist A)
Composed by: (original artist B)
Arranged by: (original artist? C)?
Performed by: (me)
Produced by: (me)
(can i say re-arranged by me)?
English Lyrics: (me)

I fond out the role of the arranger is different from producer: http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/199...arranging1.html

On a side note
I noticed on the back of all my Beatles LPs the original writer was credited, but producing the song was credited too George Martin. Not the the original


jetwash69 02-07-2013 01:08 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptnAwesomee
I'm doing it for internet video...

Can't help you with the crediting, but if I were you I'd be more concerned with permission and licensing from EMI since you're posting it online. Today that type of copyright infringement is treated like an infraction--if that, and if EMI (and/or the current owner) noticed, then they'd probably just take it down. But once something is up, the genie is out of the bottle and it could come back to haunt you later. Breaking the law is breaking the law. Civil damages can be ridiculous. Usually it's cheaper to settle (these days around $10k) than to pay a lawyer to fight it in court. Why risk it when the license could just be under $100? Why risk it anyway?

CaptnAwesomee 02-07-2013 01:37 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by jetwash69
Can't help you with the crediting, but if I were you I'd be more concerned with permission and licensing from EMI since you're posting it online. Today that type of copyright infringement is treated like an infraction--if that, and if EMI (and/or the current owner) noticed, then they'd probably just take it down. But once something is up, the genie is out of the bottle and it could come back to haunt you later. Breaking the law is breaking the law. Civil damages can be ridiculous. Usually it's cheaper to settle (these days around $10k) than to pay a lawyer to fight it in court. Why risk it when the license could just be under $100? Why risk it anyway?


Well heres the thing, I did some research and read an article that copyright on "covered music" Once a musician records and publishes a song, anyone is free to do their own cover version of that song, without the artist’s permission. As long as the intent is NON-profit, or is not performed Publicly *live to make profit. I mean some the most viral videos on youtube are covers with +10k views (some even making money off it), and some even getting recognition from the original artist *The Beatles official page for fans/Queen page for fans linking covered version of songs from youtube. We also see tons of tribute bands/cover bands.

The Beatles' "Yesterday" is the most covered song in history, appearing in the Guinness Book of Records with over three thousand recorded versions.

A band I like from Japan officially distributed a full band score, complete with every-single detail of there songs composition, and arrangement. even a tutorial CD in how to play certain parts promoting people to play there songs

rockingamer2 02-07-2013 01:47 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptnAwesomee
Well heres the thing, I did some research and read an article that copyright on "covered music" Once a musician records and publishes a song, anyone is free to do their own cover version of that song, without the artist’s permission. As long as the intent is NON-profit, or is not performed Publicly *live to make profit. I mean some the most viral videos on youtube are covers with +10k views (some even making money off it), and some even getting recognition from the original artist *The Beatles official page for fans/Queen page for fans linking covered version of songs from youtube. We also see tons of tribute bands/cover bands.

The Beatles' "Yesterday" is the most covered song in history, appearing in the Guinness Book of Records with over three thousand recorded versions.

Just don't be surprised if someone sends you a cease and desist letter down the line. And just because something is not-for-profit doesn't mean that it's immune from an infringement case.

CaptnAwesomee 02-07-2013 02:00 AM

Right now, I am more set on giving proper credit, I think there is a thread of copyright and YouTube covers already on this thread I can check out later, but my main concern is this

even Kelly Lynn Brooks did a Sprint commercial with a cover of "All Together Now" all that was done was credited cover too The Beatles, since using the original Beatles songs in TV commercial is considered music heresy to hard core fans, and is not good for business Nike and The Beatles
"In one case in 1985 the Beatles’ song “Help!” was used in a Lincoln-Mercury car ad, but the song was performed in that case by a sound-alike group. Nike’s ad agency, Weiden & Kennedy, wanted the real thing. “We never considered sound-alikes,” said the agency’s Kelley Stoutt, explaining Nike’s intentions for its “revolution” ad to Time magazine in May 1987. “In our minds,” said Stoutt, emphasizing the plan to use the original song, “it was the Beatles or no on"

sourced by copyright "Covering a Song, Is it illegal?" thread I'll just go with these users, I'm not even selling it, or unethically distributing it
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suicidal_Brick
Don't think so. I think it's only illegal if you record the cover song, don't acknowledge it as a cover or mention the original composer, and then sell it as your own. AKA music plagiarism. Then they will call the Dean of Students, and you'll get expelled. AKA fined $25,000+.


Quote:
Originally Posted by rabidguitarist
Don't make a profit, credit the artist.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Necronomicon
I remember years ago on Edge 102 they were talking to Alien Ant Farm about their cover they did of Michael Jackson's "Smooth Criminal" and AAF said that they didn't have to get permission from Mike and even if he didn't want them to do it they could, as long as they aknowledged it as a cover. They profited huge from it and I'm sure they didn't get permission.


"Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use."

which is why I'm trying figure out how to fully give credit.

--- back to question in hand

would this be properer credit?
[Song] English/ Full band Cover

Written by : (original artist A)
Composed by: (original artist B)
Arranged by: (original artist? C)?
Performed by: (me)
Produced by: (me)
(can i say re-arranged by me)?
English Lyrics: (me)

I fond out the role of the arranger is different from producer: http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/199...arranging1.html

On a side note
I noticed on the back of all my Beatles LPs the original writer was credited, but producing the song was credited too George Martin. Not the the original


rockingamer2 02-07-2013 02:06 AM

I would say

Written by [ORIGINAL ARTIST]
Performed by [YOU]
Produced by [YOU]
Translation by [YOU]

I wouldn't bother with an arranging credit because going from one rock band to another rock band doesn't really count as arranging.

HotspurJr 02-07-2013 01:49 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptnAwesomee
Once a musician records and publishes a song, anyone is free to do their own cover version of that song, without the artist’s permission. As long as the intent is NON-profit, or is not performed Publicly *live to make profit. I mean some the most viral videos on youtube are covers with +10k views (some even making money off it), and some even getting recognition from the original artist


The article that you read is wrong in part.

Yes, once a song is published anybody is free to make a cover.

However, your intent, or what you do with it, or any of that stuff ... completely irrelevant. If you perform it in public, or record it and distribute it, in any way ... you owe them royalties.

However, that right-to-cover does not include Youtube videos of any kind. Any sort of music-put-to-video is covered by a different type of license, called a synchronization license. And unlike the compulsory license (they HAVE to grant it) for a cover audio recording or a live version, a synch license IS NOT COMPULSORY.

Therefore, what you sometimes see on youtube is that stuff like that gets taken down. Youtube's policy (which is the model for most other places on the net) is that if somebody has a copyright claim, then youtube gives them the option of taking it down or granting youtube's music license which gives them some of the revenues from that page.

This is fundamentally different from you having the right to do it because you're not making any money (which is irrelevant anyway, since Youtube is). It's a different license.

People always cite "fair use" but it is clearly not relevant here. You making and playing a song without a license is not fair use. That's not how it works.

A fairly common occurrence (in that I've seen this issue come up a couple of times on different forums) is that a church will have a section of their regular service which includes from praise and worship music. Eventually, somebody will say, "wouldn't it be great if we made recordings of some of that, just to give it away - nobody is interested in making any money - and despite them not charging, they have to either get a waiver from the rights holders or pay the song rights holders per CD. And this is when it's associated with a registered nonprofit organization.




Quote:
*The Beatles official page for fans/Queen page for fans linking covered version of songs from youtube. We also see tons of tribute bands/cover bands.

The Beatles' "Yesterday" is the most covered song in history, appearing in the Guinness Book of Records with over three thousand recorded versions.

A band I like from Japan officially distributed a full band score, complete with every-single detail of there songs composition, and arrangement. even a tutorial CD in how to play certain parts promoting people to play there songs


Yes. Again, a tribute band is using the compulsory license. The original band has no choice in the matter, but the get paid through ASCAP/BMI for every performance.

And they can't stop you from covering a song (eg Yesterday). What they can stop you from doing is making a video of it - but "they can stop you" doesn't mean that "they will stop you." Most artists seemed to have realized that it is in their best interest to let fans put cover versions on youtube. As you've pointed out, some bands even encourage this.

But the fact that they allow/encourage it does not mean that you have the right to do it even if they didn't.

Marty Schwartz has had some of his teaching videos pulled by youtube. You don't have that right. It is the copyright holder's decision to make whether it's okay for you to do or not.

Hail 02-07-2013 01:52 PM

don't be a pussy nobody cares about your sub-2k views youtube cover. just have fun and make your video.

AlanHB 02-07-2013 04:00 PM

HotSpur is right. You should figure out how much you need to pay (by contacting the appropriate agency) before intending to distribute someone elses song.

jetwash69 02-07-2013 04:50 PM

People can try to rationalize illegal behavior all day; that won't help them if consequences come their way. Often we don't consider the consequences of our actions until it's too late. Consequences today do not necessarily mean they'll be so light tomorrow.

Andalus 02-07-2013 09:49 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hail
don't be a pussy nobody cares about your sub-2k views youtube cover. just have fun and make your video.

this.

axemanchris 02-16-2013 04:30 PM

Hotspur, Allan and jetwash are correct here.

If you go to the copyright for dummies thread (under the bandleading subforum), you'll find that I have provided links to primary-source references for my articles.

From personal experience, I uploaded a "cover" of Winter Wonderland. It was a recording that never before existed, as I started with a midi track, re-arranged it, and then ran it through my own collection of virtual instruments, and then sang over it. YouTube's "audio fingerprinting" (however the hell that works) identified it within 24 hours as being copyrighted material and flagged my video.



I responded - quite rightfully - as an appeal that it was "fair dealing" (Canada's basic equivalent to "fair use") and supported it with a link to the government of canada page with the Copyright Act, complete with section and subsection that described fair dealing. My work was clearly a parody/satire (which is allowable under fair dealing). It was a very scathing commentary on the actions of our provincial government to the tune of Winter Wonderland, complete with pictures of our premier and education minister, etc. YouTube agreed and removed the flag.

It cleared 11 000 views. I mention that because I never in my wildest dreams imagined it would get any more than about 100 views. To suggest that any video a person makes is going to be a "sub-2k view youtube cover" isn't really being fair to the creator or potential creator, and cannot anticipate how an audience will react to the video. I mean, who would have guessed that "Charlie bit my finger" would have gotten millions of views?

If the song you post exceeds your expectations, there is no telling how many views it might get. If you haven't covered your bases, you could find yourself in trouble.

CT


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:46 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.0.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.