What's the "Right" Way to Post Cover Songs on YouTube?

Dear Rich: My band had a nice show at the Freight and Salvage and we'd like to post some YouTube video but all but one of our tunes is a cover song.What's the current custom on that score on YouTube?I've peeked at some stuff on the web about this, but am not getting very clear answers. The whole YouTube ethic seems to be post and ask forgiveness later, but I'd like to just do it right, if there is a "right" way. Remember the good old days when the "right" way to promote a band was to bribe a DJ or the person at Tower Records who reported to Billboard? But what happens now that radio programmers are out of the picture and record stores owners are MIA. Did digital music wreck the whole payola thing? Or is it more of a crowd-sourcing activity now -- like you bribe folks for YouTube views? Or you pay to get "Likes" at Facebook?
Right, you had a question. The short answer is to give up on doing it the "right" way. The proper way to post a video of a cover tune is to obtain a 'sync license' from the owner of the song -- usually a music publisher that owns songwriting rights. The chances of you, as an unsigned artist, accomplishing that task would be about as likely as obtaining John Lennon's tooth. (BTW, a book on celebrity teeth -- Keith Richards call your dentist -- is apparently available in Canada.). It's for that reason everyone including an aspiring Justin Bieber, apparently posts covers without permission. (Note, that all may change if new punishments are adopted.)
We're talking about covers, here ... YouTube does have a means of locating videos that use major label recordings -- for example if you use a Prince song as a soundtrack for your child's dance routine. YouTube seems to possess digital fingerprints for pre-recorded pop tunes because when we posted a video of our commute to Nolo and included a track by everybody's favorite, Rockwell, we received a notice within hours of posting. YouTube had found unauthorized material on our video (and as punishment was going to run ads over our video). YouTube reserves the right to take down our video but in the interim, the company apparently divides the advertising revenue with the rightsholders -- music publishers and record companies. We're pretty sure YouTube doesn't have similar method for detecting cover versions -- that is, when someone else performs a Prince song. Of course, these unauthorized uses could still be located via old-fashioned text searches or spot scanning of videos. And songwriters who discover covers of their material can still issue a DMCA notice to YouTube (although you don't hear much about that practice these days). So, in summary, the 'post now, deal with it later' approach is the default mechanism for covers.
What about Limelight and Harry Fox? Harry Fox and Limelight are companies that provide a means of obtaining a compulsory license -- the right to release CDs and MP3s of cover songs. These licenses do not apply to audio-visual works.

Using Pop Songs in Videos

My daughter (age 16) and her friends regularly make films and incorporate songs. How hard is it to get releases from established artists like the Rolling Stones, Hoobestank, Katy Perry etc,, particularly if the films are already done?It would be relatively difficult to obtain permission to use recorded pop songs on your daughter’s videos. There are two copyrights at issue and each requires permission. As we've discussed before, you would need a sync right from the music publishers (owners of the composition) and what's sometimes called a master use license from the record companies (owners of the sound recordings). We doubt whether it would be worth the time to go about attempting to do this, and even if you could get in contact, the fees would likely be prohibitive.
A different approach. Let’s start with another question: What does your daughter plan to do with these videos? If she wants to share them with friends and have limited private showings, there probably wouldn’t be an issue especially because the copyright owners would never learn of the use. If she intends to place the videos on YouTube, one of three things could happen: (1) nothing, (2) the song owner would issue a DMCA notice, in which case the video would be removed by YouTube (unless you fought over the issue based on a fair use claim -- see below), or (3) YouTube would flag the video, send you an email stating that it thinks you're using unauthorized music and then run ads along with the video (which is what happened when the Dear Rich Staff posted a video with one of its favorite 80’s pop songs). By the way, the person you can thank for the latter alternative is probably Stephanie Lenz who posted a 29-second YouTube video of her kids dancing to “Let’s Go Crazy” by Prince and then, by challenging the DMCA notice -- because the label failed to consider fair use -- she made it more difficult for labels to send out DMCA notices.

DISCOUNT AT LIMELIGHT.The folks at Limelight, the mechanical licensing utility, are offering a 15% discount on mechanical licenses. If you want to check it out, the company has a special discount code: THANKSRICH15. The 15% discount is good through the end of October, 2011 (and no, FTC, we don't get compensated.)

'Sup With Compulsory Music Licensing?

Dear Rich: I was wondering if you could shed some light on compulsory licensing as it applies to music. I guess what I want to know is why the creators of nondramatic musical compositions aren't granted the absolute control over their work that other creators seem to have. It seems a strange kind of a loophole to me, but as I'm not a lawyer perhaps there is some obvious point that I'm missing. For readers not familiar with copyright jargon, a "nondramatic musical composition" refers to just about every song ever written except To Dream the Impossible Dream (and other songs from theatrical or operatic productions). A "compulsory license" is an arrangement in which permission is not required before using someone else's copyrighted work, provided that a fee is paid.
Section 115A. Under Section 115A of the Copyright Act, a music publisher must permit you to record any song that has previously been recorded and released to the public. In other words, if the songwriters never recorded their song, or if it was played on TV or in a movie but never released on a sound recording or sold as an authorized download, you cannot use the compulsory license. Also, you cannot use the compulsory license if you change the basic melody or fundamental character of the song. For example, a singer cannot alter a song’s lyrics without permission. That said, many people change elements of songs without a problem (as we mentioned in this previous entry). Finally, this license does not include the right to sync a song with a visual such as a video; it's only for the sale of recordings on CD or by download. You can learn more about how to obtain a compulsory license online (or in our Music Law book.)
License or loophole?  There are others who feel the way you do but the Dear Rich Staff is not among them. We've written songs and we've recorded cover songs in our life and having a simple compulsory license program, especially like the ones at Harry Fox and Limelight, allows responsible musicians to pay for the right to record other people's music. It also makes it much easier to get paid for songs. It's possible that in the old days, the compulsory license may have been the way for a cover artist like Pat Boone or Elvis to have a hit from someone else's songwriting. But we believe that a hit is a hit, and songwriting -- whether the writer covers the song or someone else does it -- is usually the most lucrative aspect of the music business.

Compulsory Notice Questions for Ballet CD

Dear Rich: My boyfriend and I have recorded about 30 tracks to make a ballet class CD (my boyfriend is a pianist at the city ballet). All songs on the CD are movie songs and have been previously released to the public on a sound recording such as a CD or record. He initially learned the basic melodies from sheet music, then over the years enhanced the songs with his own progressions, harmonies, may have added a little jazz improv in some of them. Since the CD is for a ballet class, he adapted the length (shortened or extended) and tempo to fit ballet class exercises. My first question is: Based on what I described above, can I take the Notice of Intention to Obtain a Compulsory License route? My second question is: In three of the tracks, my boyfriend did something unconventional -- for example, in one of the three tracks, he played 16 measures of the theme from Charade, then he played 16 measures of Chim Chim Cher-ee from Mary Poppins. then he ended the track by playing the same 16 measures of Charade. Would these types of formats not meet the requirements for a compulsory license? My last question is: some of these songs were from musicals, but films of these musicals were made. Should I be concerned about the songs not meeting the "non-dramatic musical work" requirement? Sorry, your reference to Charade made us search our iTunes database for our Henry Mancini tracks. What a great movie composer. We have a friend who gives us obscure Henry Mancini recordings and as much as we love Pink Panther and stuff like that, he's is so much more than that -- for example, the tracks from the Peter Gunn TV show equaled and excelled the more well known theme music.
Right, you had a question(s). Yes, you can use the compulsory notice for music that includes some improv and personal progressions. It's true that major revisions to a song require permission, but practically, publishers don't really care about what you do between the grooves provided you pay the toll (9.1 cents per track).
As for your second question. If you're using two tunes on one track, you have a few choices: you can pay both publishers 9.1 cents (again, they won't care what you're doing); you can pay only for the dominant/primary tune that you're using and hope that the other publisher doesn't hear (or care) about your "quoting" of the melody. (The other publisher is unlikely to learn of it unless the title is included in the CD notes -- for example, "Track 5: Charade/Chim-Chim-cher-ee.") And finally, you can try to negotiate with both publishers for a lower rate (probably a waste of time unless you're a major label.) We think you're probably fine with the second choice.
And your third question. The compulsory license is for nondramatic uses so your use on a CD would qualify. A dramatic use would be if you wanted a license to perform the music publicly as part of a show.