Prince is a Creep

[Baby Lee]

Covering Radiohead at Coachella. Color me geeked!!!

[Jamie]

Originally Posted by BigMeatballDave

Really? I recall some artists recognizing it as a sign that they've really made it in the industry. Like a badge or honor.

I remember reading that Nirvana was excited about Weird Al parodying Teen Spirit, and that Kurt Cobain gave him permission personally.

Also Weird Al has always maintained he doesn't have to get permission, but does it as a courtesy. Which seems correct to me, since he doesn't use any part of the original recordings. I don't know why it would be different than recording a cover.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by Jamie

I remember reading that Nirvana was excited about Weird Al parodying Teen Spirit, and that Kurt Cobain gave him permission personally.

Also Weird Al has always maintained he doesn't have to get permission, but does it as a courtesy. Which seems correct to me, since he doesn't use any part of the original recordings. I don't know why it would be different than recording a cover.

He does need to get permission to parody songs.

Two things in play here:

1. The copyright, which is owned by the publisher. As I mentioned earlier, there are provisions in which the songwriter has control over when, where and by whom the song is used. Again, some people don't want their songs in beer ads or tobacco ads, etc.

2. The Master Recording is owned by the record company. In in the case of sampling, not only does an Artist need permission from the record company for the use of the original Master recording but permission from the publisher in order to use the sample.

If an Artist fails to get permission by the publisher to use a sample, in which share or percentage points need to be negotiated, no one, including the new songwriter/artist that's "rapping" or singing over the sample, will receive publishing royalties.

And in the case of a cover recording, a license has to be filed with the Harry Fox Agency, so that the original publisher is paid properly.

[Al Bundy]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

He does need to get permission to parody songs.

Two things in play here:

1. The copyright, which is owned by the publisher. As I mentioned earlier, there are provisions in which the songwriter has control over when, where and by whom the song is used. Again, some people don't want their songs in beer ads or tobacco ads, etc.

2. The Master Recording is owned by the record company. In in the case of sampling, not only does an Artist need permission from the record company for the use of the original Master recording but permission from the publisher in order to use the sample.

If an Artist fails to get permission by the publisher to use a sample, in which share or percentage points need to be negotiated, no one, including the new songwriter/artist that's "rapping" or singing over the sample, will receive publishing royalties.

And in the case of a cover recording, a license has to be filed with the Harry Fox Agency, so that the original publisher is paid properly.

Which is why dozens of late 80's early 90's rap albums have been out of print for many, many years.

[Anyong Bluth]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

I've never paid any attention to Weird Al because quite frankly, I don't find it funny.

But I just took a look at all of the songs in his career that he's parodied and there are very few by serious artists.

Now, his Polka Medley's are different. Those aren't parodies, they're cover songs done in a completely different style than originally recorded, much like Paul Anka's (IMO, awesome) album, Rock Swings, in which hit songs are re-recorded and re-imagined as big band swing tracks.

In the case of a medley, all he had to do was request a license from the Harry Fox Agency. No composer or publishers permission was necessary.

Dude.

Dane, c'mon...

He hasn't covered songs by big time artists?

You can not be serious.

[Anyong Bluth]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

He does need to get permission to parody songs.

Two things in play here:

1. The copyright, which is owned by the publisher. As I mentioned earlier, there are provisions in which the songwriter has control over when, where and by whom the song is used. Again, some people don't want their songs in beer ads or tobacco ads, etc.

2. The Master Recording is owned by the record company. In in the case of sampling, not only does an Artist need permission from the record company for the use of the original Master recording but permission from the publisher in order to use the sample.

If an Artist fails to get permission by the publisher to use a sample, in which share or percentage points need to be negotiated, no one, including the new songwriter/artist that's "rapping" or singing over the sample, will receive publishing royalties.

And in the case of a cover recording, a license has to be filed with the Harry Fox Agency, so that the original publisher is paid properly.

No.

Parody falls under fair use exception, and isn't treated as it would be if an artist is "covering" a song.
It's recognized as a distinguishable separate creation, even under the First Amendment.

Al never has needed to get permission to parody any song. He chooses to be respectful and ask artists for their blessing.

Fair use allows him to do it no matter what, but that doesn't mean he would be exempt from possibly paying some type of fee or compensation. Commercial licenses and covering the original song can be refused by the artist, label, or whoever owns the song rights. Unlike educational vs promotional, which exempts even payment for use completely, but that's a whole other tangent of use.

Very much like Warhol's use of trademarked and copyrighted material in his art. It is not simply cloaking yourself in the already recognized image or sound, but a unique piece of ip within itself.

I'm certain of this having taken First Amendment law and Recording rights law in addition to my time working for CAA.

[keg in kc]

This principle is I believe why we have so many porn parodies.

Not that any of us has ever seen any of those.

[Anyong Bluth]

Originally Posted by keg in kc

This principle is I believe why we have so many porn parodies.

Not that any of us has ever seen any of those.

No, that's not mine. I've never even heard of Pump Friction.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by Anyong Bluth

No.

Parody falls under fair use exception, and isn't treated as it would be if an artist is "covering" a song.
It's recognized as a distinguishable separate creation, even under the First Amendment.

Al never has needed to get permission to parody any song. He chooses to be respectful and ask artists for their blessing.

Parodies "may" fall under Fair Use but as recent copyright infringement cases have shown, artists and song writers can still be successfully sued.

Look no further than the Marvin Gaye family winning a copyright infringement case against Pharrel and Robin Thicke. Those songs have nothing in common, IMO, other than the party "vibe". If "vibe" can now be copyrighted, we're all in trouble.

Furthermore, you would not believe the great lengths that publishers, especially Music Production Libraries, go to insure that they won't or can't be sued for copyright infringement. I'm currently working with some of the biggest libraries in the world and they have entire departments dedicated to make sure that a riff or a song or a beat or whatever doesn't infringe on one of millions of other songs in the world.

I've been caught up in the last 24 hours dealing with this same exact issue. The publisher wanted a few tracks with the Stevie Ray Vaughn vibe, which is just 12 bar blues with a Strat through a Marshall or Dumble, yet it can't sound "too" similar. So I turn in a track using a hollow body guitar with P90's and they say "The track is killer! But can you move it up a key because it's in the same key as "Cold Shot". Oh, also, can you use a different guitar tone because we don't want to get sued". But now, we're moving away from SRV and into ZZ Top territory. There's no "right" answer.

Anyway, while Weird Al might be able to claim Fair Use, he's doing the smart thing and clearing parodies with artists and publishers first.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by Detoxing

That sucked.

I liked the guitar part.

[Saccopoo]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Now, his Polka Medley's are different. Those aren't parodies, they're cover songs done in a completely different style than originally recorded, much like Paul Anka's (IMO, awesome) album, Rock Swings, in which hit songs are re-recorded and re-imagined as big band swing tracks.

The best ever:

[Saccopoo]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Look no further than the Marvin Gaye family winning a copyright infringement case against Pharrel and Robin Thicke. Those songs have nothing in common, IMO, other than the party "vibe". If "vibe" can now be copyrighted, we're all in trouble.

I've been caught up in the last 24 hours dealing with this same exact issue. The publisher wanted a few tracks with the Stevie Ray Vaughn vibe, which is just 12 bar blues with a Strat through a Marshall or Dumble, yet it can't sound "too" similar. So I turn in a track using a hollow body guitar with P90's and they say "The track is killer! But can you move it up a key because it's in the same key as "Cold Shot". Oh, also, can you use a different guitar tone because we don't want to get sued". But now, we're moving away from SRV and into ZZ Top territory. There's no "right" answer.

Anyway, while Weird Al might be able to claim Fair Use, he's doing the smart thing and clearing parodies with artists and publishers first.

Gotta be tough these days, but if you don't think that Pharrell/Thicke totally lifted Gaye's "Got to Give It Up" you are nuts. It's Vanilla Ice/Queen level rip off. Vibe my ass. It was just ****ing ripped in totality.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by Saccopoo

Gotta be tough these days, but if you don't think that Pharrell/Thicke totally lifted Gaye's "Got to Give It Up" you are nuts. It's Vanilla Ice/Queen level rip off. Vibe my ass. It was just ****ing ripped in totality.

JFC, really? IT'S NOT EVEN ****ING CLOSE.

Vanilla Ice SAMPLED the Bowie song.

I hope Gaye's kids die horribly. They're pieces of shit.

[Saccopoo]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

JFC, really? IT'S NOT EVEN ****ING CLOSE.

Vanilla Ice SAMPLED the Bowie song.

I hope Gaye's kids die horribly. They're pieces of shit.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by Saccopoo

Copyright Law is Lyric and Melody.

The lyrics are different.

Is the melody the same?

[Anyong Bluth]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Parodies "may" fall under Fair Use but as recent copyright infringement cases have shown, artists and song writers can still be successfully sued.

Look no further than the Marvin Gaye family winning a copyright infringement case against Pharrel and Robin Thicke. Those songs have nothing in common, IMO, other than the party "vibe". If "vibe" can now be copyrighted, we're all in trouble.

Furthermore, you would not believe the great lengths that publishers, especially Music Production Libraries, go to insure that they won't or can't be sued for copyright infringement. I'm currently working with some of the biggest libraries in the world and they have entire departments dedicated to make sure that a riff or a song or a beat or whatever doesn't infringe on one of millions of other songs in the world.

I've been caught up in the last 24 hours dealing with this same exact issue. The publisher wanted a few tracks with the Stevie Ray Vaughn vibe, which is just 12 bar blues with a Strat through a Marshall or Dumble, yet it can't sound "too" similar. So I turn in a track using a hollow body guitar with P90's and they say "The track is killer! But can you move it up a key because it's in the same key as "Cold Shot". Oh, also, can you use a different guitar tone because we don't want to get sued". But now, we're moving away from SRV and into ZZ Top territory. There's no "right" answer.

Anyway, while Weird Al might be able to claim Fair Use, he's doing the smart thing and clearing parodies with artists and publishers first.

Yes, sampling is lifting and you have to pay to license.

Parody only works if there's a recognized callback to the original property. It's impossible to parody Beat It if the song isn't very similar if not identical. Otherwise, it's just a song called Eat It, and not a parody because there is no longer any callback for a frame of reference.

No doubt, licensing for the melody has gained traction in fees paid for even some fair use exceptions such as parody.

However, there's no way whoever owns the ip for any part of the song to block it's use for example as Al uses it. He may have to pay for it, but it's not going to be as lucrative as if it's simply a cover, or a sample.

Cases like Mika, who literally samples dozens of songs that are turned into mashups came down in favor of fair use, and that such use didn't require any type of compensation for use of such tiny snippets of a song, even though it's clearly sampling.

On the flipside, bumper music used on the radio was always allowed to be used without licensing. More recently, some attempts have been made to change that.

The rationale, which I don't agree with, was why should a radio show be able to use such music in its creation of the show as it's choice in music was a reflection on the show or possibly the host.

They are trying to compare it to when a candidate or politician is at an event, it's almost a given they are introduced to music. Essentially, in their view, bumper music. This type of use has been subject to the artist's approval and fees- which an artist could waive compensation if they so choose.

I've yet to see any ruling on this for which it would hold any precedental weight as established law. My suspicion is that Clear Channel hammered out a middle ground agreement for essentially peanuts to appease as a good will gesture. The actual cost or prohibitive implications being zero sum.

Since Clear Channel owns pretty much 90+% of radio, they simply leveraged their bargaining power to put this to bed, because at the end of the day Clear owns the promotion vehicle that record companies rely on to push X or Y artist through saturation by heavy airplay.

The rest of the broadcast companies benefited because Clear muscled their position to leverage and getting the labels and artists to acquiesce.