Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnStinson
... it is YouTube that should be required to pay the fee and license. They are, to my opinion, the bar owner here. Yes, I did the recording (taped the song).. but is Youtube who are in fact selling it. At least IMHO.
|
i see it that way also...i never understood why we needed permission and had to play to record covers but could include them in a live set list without any issues...then someone said the club and bar owners took care of that by paying a blanket fee
an old bandmate/cowriter who has worked at tracking royalties for SOCAN for decades emailed me a reply saying it wasn't a big issue since uploaders aren't profiting and most folks can't download fron youtube...he always send this youtube FAQ quote "
General Copyright Inquiries: My original recording of a cover song was removed.
Recording a cover version of your favorite song does not necessarily give you the right to upload that recording without permission from the owner of the underlying music (i.e., the song writer)."
then they say the easiest way to avoid issues is to work on something that has entirely original audio/video content...those vistory GL video used audio from gord and mainly images from internet but the tastey productions were original, i wish it was that easy...video production is like the rest of life, dealing with/avoiding red tape, yippee
Larry must have received this type of note when they were removed...it could be that one of Larry's (perhaps unprotected) original tunes was lifted and in a fluster he remove his whole lot...Tim, please protect your 2 dandy originals