Question about music copyrights

[iluvatar5150]

A work must be fixed to some medium in order to be copyrighted. Thus, any band that has produced music professionally will have at some point recorded their work and thus it is copyrighted.

The point about "live performances" is that if an artist has, say, done nothing but performances--and has never so much as written down the words or melody, has never done a demo tape, has never even done a YouTube video on a cell phone--then that work is not copyrighted. It must have been fixed in a medium at some point to be copyrighted.

So say a street musician totally improvises a song on the street corner, and another person records it and later performs it himself for a YouTube recording. That second musician will own the copyright on that work.

I think @Aussie Pete is coming at it from the other direction- not that the original was only ever performed live (and thus, never copyrighted), but that the cover version was only ever performed live.

OK, I've heard a few performers say that they do not pay royalties for live performers. if the venue pays, that makes sense.

I overlooked your example of singing in church before, but it provides a good example. Churches are supposed to pay licensing fees - usually to CCLI - for the music they use in services regardless of whether those services get recorded or broadcast, though broadcasting/streaming does require extra fees AFAIK.

 

[Aussie Pete]

I think @Aussie Pete is coming at it from the other direction- not that the original was only ever performed live (and thus, never copyrighted), but that the cover version was only ever performed live.



I overlooked your example of singing in church before, but it provides a good example. Churches are supposed to pay licensing fees - usually to CCLI - for the music they use in services regardless of whether those services get recorded or broadcast, though broadcasting/streaming does require extra fees AFAIK.

Yet another reason to ignore what passes for spiritual songs. The best stuff is way out of copyright or was written before copyright was a thing. Almost joking....

 

[Ana the Ist]

Maybe CF could add a forum for legal matters and law questions. Anyway, I have a question regarding music copyrights.
I know it's legal for artists to use the same music as previous bands and redo the lyrics to them. The ApologetiX do this every day with their music and ministry. And I know there was a Supreme Court ruling that passed that gave them that right. But where does it get sticky? What are the parameters of this? Is it as long as the lyrics are completely different or what?

I was hearing about how Led Zeppelin was sued for using some of Muddy Waters' music. But was that because it was before the Supreme Court ruling or what?

Do they sell their music?

 

[Radagast]

I know it's legal for artists to use the same music as previous bands and redo the lyrics to them.

In general, no, it isn't.