But, is the article missing an important distinction? Cover songs on an album implicate the copying/fixing of the underlying musical composition (i.e., publishing); but, cover songs at a live festival implicate the public performance of the underlying musical composition. In other words, different rights. Licensing administration schemes for the two regimes are different, and often involve different players.
Showing posts with label Prince. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Prince. Show all posts
June 30, 2008
Prince - On Cover Songs
Rolling Stone reports that Prince is suing a Norwegian record company for releasing a 5-CD cover album of "the Purple One's songs". The article describes "the whole thing [as] quite hypocritical of Prince [because he] has no problem with borrowing other people's songs", referring to his cover of Radiohead's "Creep" at Coachella.
June 1, 2008
DMCA: Prince Blocks YouTube Video of 'Creep' Cover
Here's an interesting question under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act:
Prince performs a cover of the Radiohead break-out hit "Creep" at the Coachella Music Festival. Fans post video of the public performance on YouTube. After already receiving thousands of hits, YouTube removes the video at Prince's label's request; however, Radiohead wants YouTube to "unblock" the video. What does YouTube do?
Billboard addressed the issue: Observing first that "the posted videos were shot by fans and, obviously, the song isn't Prince's", Billboard continues, "Whether the same [DMCA notice] could be done for a company not holding a copyright is less clear, but Yorke's argument would seem to bear some credence according to YouTube's policies".
So, notwithstanding your views on the DMCA, who has priority under the notice and take-down scheme -- the owner of copyright in the sound recording (Prince), or the owner of copyright in the underlying composition (Radiohead)?
Because this was a live performance, it is highly unlikely that there was any sort of publisher/performer agreement other than the public performance license (compositions) the venue pays.
Another tangential issue is Prince's right of publicity/privacy. Most performers prohibit video/flash-camera at their concerts, and in fact, Prince prohibited the standard arrangement of allowing photographers to shoot near the stage during the first three songs of his set. Instead, he had a camera crew filming his performance.
But, rights of privacy/publicity are state laws, and though related, do not come under the Copyright Act's umbrella.
[Update: Marty Schwimmer's post on the Trademark blog re: this "law school fact patter"]
Prince performs a cover of the Radiohead break-out hit "Creep" at the Coachella Music Festival. Fans post video of the public performance on YouTube. After already receiving thousands of hits, YouTube removes the video at Prince's label's request; however, Radiohead wants YouTube to "unblock" the video. What does YouTube do?
Billboard addressed the issue: Observing first that "the posted videos were shot by fans and, obviously, the song isn't Prince's", Billboard continues, "Whether the same [DMCA notice] could be done for a company not holding a copyright is less clear, but Yorke's argument would seem to bear some credence according to YouTube's policies".
So, notwithstanding your views on the DMCA, who has priority under the notice and take-down scheme -- the owner of copyright in the sound recording (Prince), or the owner of copyright in the underlying composition (Radiohead)?
Because this was a live performance, it is highly unlikely that there was any sort of publisher/performer agreement other than the public performance license (compositions) the venue pays.
Another tangential issue is Prince's right of publicity/privacy. Most performers prohibit video/flash-camera at their concerts, and in fact, Prince prohibited the standard arrangement of allowing photographers to shoot near the stage during the first three songs of his set. Instead, he had a camera crew filming his performance.
But, rights of privacy/publicity are state laws, and though related, do not come under the Copyright Act's umbrella.
[Update: Marty Schwimmer's post on the Trademark blog re: this "law school fact patter"]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
