an artist wants to record one of my songs

[deantaylor]

...
An artist contacted me and wants to record one of my songs. I am not too clear on what I need to do.

I have already produced a master recording myself. This recording is on an album available for sale to the public (download only). It is registered on ascap (self-published). It is signed to a music library (does not re-title, does not take any publishing).

Here is what I am assuming, but I'm really not very sure of any of it. Can you help clarify things.

1. Since the song has already been recorded, the artist doesn't really need my permission do they? Can't they just get a 'compulsory license' and record it and put it on their CD or sell downloads or whatever?

2. Since they own the master, I assume they can pitch it to film-tv, sign it to libraries, exclusive or non-exclusive and I have no say in the matter .. they just list me as a writer, so I get writer perf royalties .. and this won't conflict with any of my library deals (if I ever take an exclusive one), because this is a DIFFERENT RECORDING.
.... If this is true, how does this version get registered with the PRO. I see a lot of people here pitch cover songs to libraries .. how do those covers get registered? It's not a re-title .. the title stays the same .. so is it even a separate registration or do they just add another performing artist to my ascap registration .. but how can they .. wouldn't I have to do that? i'm confused

3. Can the artist interpret the song any way they want .. change lyrics and melody?

Thanks for any insights you can give,
Dean

[Casey H]

Hi Dean
If your song has already been published (meaning offered for sale as this has been), anyone can record it. They are obligated to pay you the statutory mechanical royalty rate of 9.5 cents per CD (mechanical reproduction).

I don't know how it works as far as making changes. I assume minor ones e.g. (he vs. she) are inconsequential. But I don't know more.

Also, I'm not sure how it works if the artist sells downloads on sites like iTunes.

I'm sure others will chime in.

Congrats!
Casey

[Hookjaw Brown]

I have been contacted by a band that wants to perform some of our songs that we have released. I just asked for songwriting credit.

[BruceBrown]

Dean
I agree with Casey. If you own the publishing on the song( you said it was self published, I'm assuming that's what you meant) The artist needs to send you a request for a mechanical license. You being publisher would grant them the right to record and sell your tune. In turn you get 9.5 cents per unit sold. Usually paid quarterly or every six months. That would be stated in license agreement. If you have trouble getting license let me know I can show you a standard one I use. You can copy it.
Hope this helps.
Bruce

[MarkTaylorSongs]

via the compulsorary license you get that rate, and have no authority to stop them whatsover since you have already released the song.

as far as the PRO goes, i believe they would list the new version of the song, but keep you as a writer on it. Can anyone chime in on if the artist would get paid for any deals made say if the song gets placed in a movie or tv show? Obvoiusly the writers and publishers will get the backend royalties, but what about the upfront fees? I'm curious in how that works...

[deantaylor]

Thanks guys.

I found this on wikipedia. Seems to talk specifically to what Bruce says above and answers my question about the amount of changes the artist can make to the song:

The compulsory license for non-dramatic musical compositions under Section 115 of the Copyright Act of 1976[14] allows a person to distribute a new sound recording of a musical work, if that has been previously distributed to the public, by or under the authority of the copyright owner.[15] There is no requirement that the new recording be identical to the previous work, as the compulsory license includes the privilege of rearranging the work to conform it to the recording artist's interpretation. This does not allow the artist to change the basic melody or fundamental character of the work.[16] In order to take advantage of this compulsory license the recording artist must provide notice and pay a royalty. The notice must be sent to the copyright owner, or if unable to determine the copyright owner, to the Copyright Office, within thirty days of making the recording, but before distributing physical copies. Failure to provide this notice would constitute copyright infringement.[17] In addition to the notice to the copyright owner, the recording artist must pay a royalty to the copyright owner. This royalty is set by three copyright royalty judges.[18] Though the compulsory license allows one to make and distribute physical copies of a song for a set royalty, the owner of the copyright in the underlying musical composition can still control public performance of the work or transmission over the radio.[19] If the underlying musical work is well known, the work can be licensed for public performance through a performance rights organization such as ASCAP, BMI, or SESAC.

I'm not sure what this part means?? What does 'control' mean?
the owner of the copyright in the underlying musical composition can still control public performance of the work or transmission over the radio

Dean

[Casey H]

You'd have to ask a music attorney to be sure of exactly what it all means. But it may not really matter. You still own the copyright and get PRO royalties for broadcasts, public performances, etc.

To the best of MY knowledge, they could NOT sign a library deal or master/sync contract on it without your signature as well because those contracts require the approval or both the owners of the composition and the master. They own the master recording but you own the composition.

Bottom line is congrats and enjoy the success! It's a very cool feeling to see an artist CD with your name in parenthesis under the song title. A Canadian artist recorded two of my co-writes years ago and although it didn't sell much, it feels good and doesn't look bad on the resume. I even got to see her perform my song at a show once.

Best,
Casey

[simonparker]

Hi Dean:

A few things to remember (aside from the fact that I'm not an attorney and giving legal advice here):

1) Compulsory Mechanical License is a USA copyright law concept and is not valid internationally. The usage of your work without permission in theory can only be done in the US. The 'without permission' usage is for works displayed publicly (i.e. published on iTunes, etc.)

2) Mechanical license is for the sale of downloads, CDs, records, etc. and has nothing to do with performance royalties. Performance Royalties would be royalties you'd collect from your PRO. (good luck with that collection unless you have a hit song or on TV/film)

3) Mechanical licenses can be granted at whatever rate you choose. Absent an agreement, the law requires I believe, 9.1 cent royalty per copy under 5 minutes (ring tones are 24 cents per copy), last I checked (and through Harry Fox, up to the maximum sale of 2,500 units). With an agreement, you can charge more or less, but you must also be aware that the other party does not have to agree to an increased royalty rate (and should they decide to limit their sale to 2,500 copies per given year through Harry Fox). In other words, the royalty rate is subjective, and if you're registered through Harry Fox, any sale above 2,500 copies of your work can be subject to a new mechanical license with or without enhanced or diminished rates.

4) You have control rights - in other words, you can prevent public performance of this person's cover of your song as well as prevent it from being played in public (i.e democrat national convention, all-star game, etc.) as well as on the radio. Why you'd prevent the song from becoming a hit on hit radio and played for a royalty, I don't know, but you can. As long as you control the rights. As soon as you sign to Sony Music Publishing, they control the rights.

Hope this helps.

[deantaylor]

thanks guys. i'm understanding it better ....

except for how film-tv use of their recording will work. i don't want to stop their recording from being used on film-tv (heck, I'll help them get it on film-tv), i just want to understand how it works

.. what they need to do .. what I need to do ... and how the ascap registration works

i think I just add the new artists name as a performer to my current registration .. and I'll collect all perf royalties that way .. it is self published. Is this correct? Do I need to do anything else??

since i've seen taxi members record famous cover songs and pitch them to libraries, i figure getting 'permission' is not hard, but what does the artist need to do to get my permission?? Not sure.

[mazz]

In my understanding, there are at least two different entities that exist:

1. The composition
2. The recording of said composition (I've usually seen it referred to as the "master")

If an artist wants to record or perform your song and the song has already been "published", i.e, made available to the public in some form. I believe this is called a "compulsory license". They don't need to ask your permission, basically.

However, in order for an artist to sell their recordings of your song, you need to grant them a "mechanical" license, which is basically a royalty for each unit.

Where things get more convoluted is when someone wants to synchronize their recording of your song to some video images. There are two licenses that are issued, a synch license and a master license. The synch license covers the composition and the master license covers the recording. In both cases, you would receive performance royalties as both publisher and composer if the recording is used and the show is broadcast.

The only way an artist would make money from this arrangement is if they could negotiate a fee for the master license (they could negotiate a combined master/sync license and split the fees with you, or the licenses could be separate). In essence, even though it's your song, they "own" the recording, but are limited in how they can exploit the recording (see below).

In either case, they cannot just license your song in their version to a TV production, for instance, without coming to you for a synch license, which you can charge for. This is why libraries most often stipulate: "You must control 100% of the song and the master". (Often this is referred to as "one stop"). It makes it much easier for them to only negotiate the licenses with one party instead of having to track down the writer or the owner of the master. This is also why you don't see many listings for cover songs. If you do, you can be assured that the publisher is well aware that they need to negotiate a synch and/or mechanical license (depending on whether it is a recording release or a synch opportunity) with the owner of the copyright of the song being covered.

I watched a movie last night where in one scene they were playing "Papa Don't Preach" as if the music were coming from the speakers in the place where the party was being held. Due to the sound design, it was hard to tell what the version of the song was. During the credits, they always list the songs in the movie and when it came time to list "Papa Don't Preach", they listed the writers and "performed by" someone I'd never heard of. So in this case, the film was probably temped with the Madonna recording of the song, but when the music supervisor went to the owner of the master of that version, they probably wanted way too much money for the usage of that version. But the writers, possibly due to the fact that they get performance royalties, obviously offered an affordable synch license and the producers commissioned a cover version (actually a very close sound alike) to be used in that scene in the film. The owners of the master only get the one time license fee, and for something like a Madonna recording, can command high fees and are willing to let the little fish go so as not to dilute the value of their property.

I've learned a ton about this from reading this book:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0030E ... k_ro_title

I find this aspect of the business fascinating!

Congrats, BTW!!!!

Mazz

PS: I'm not an attorney, so none of the stuff I wrote is meant to be legal advice.