As an engineer, do I have a duty (legal or ethical)to make sure that
the artist obtains mechanical licenses for cover tunes?

How do you handle?

thanks,

John

I'd guess if you are only the engineer, not the producer or the record
company, that this would not be your problem in any shape or form.
You could mention it to the artists, as friendly advice if they aren't
aware of the law.

Al

On 2 Apr 2005 17:54:23 -0800, wrote:

As an engineer, do I have a duty (legal or ethical)to make sure that
the artist obtains mechanical licenses for cover tunes?

How do you handle?

thanks,

John

wrote in message ups.com...

As an engineer, do I have a duty (legal or ethical)to make sure that
the artist obtains mechanical licenses for cover tunes?

You are essentially providing a work for hire. It's not your responsibility
to do anything in this case... unless you are responsible for pressing
and distributing a record (or other materials containing previously
published tidbits) on their behalf.

How do you handle?

Do the best job I can in recording and mixing the project, collect
applicable compensation and move on. ;-)

If you know that there are about to be a few thousand CD's (actually,
anything over 500 pcs that is destined for public consumption) made
for retail sale and your conscience is bothering you, you can bring it up
while discussing artwork and your credits or something.


--
David Morgan (MAMS)
http://www.m-a-m-s DOT com
Morgan Audio Media Service
Dallas, Texas (214) 662-9901
_______________________________________
http://www.artisan-recordingstudio.com

"David Morgan (MAMS)" wrote...
If you know that there are about to be a few thousand
CD's (actually, anything over 500 pcs that is destined
for public consumption) made for retail sale

There is no lower limit. 500 is merely the minimum purchase
from Harry Fox (so they can make enough on the transaction
to pay its own way). It doesn't matter whether the recordings
are sold (retail or wholesale). Distribution to anyone beyond
the performers requires licensing, even if you give them away.

Its up to the artist to clear this.When they go for manufacturing the plant
will ask for this info.If they don't have it they will not be able to press
it until they have the proper paperwork.This has nothing to do with the
studio.



wrote in message
ups.com...
As an engineer, do I have a duty (legal or ethical)to make sure that
the artist obtains mechanical licenses for cover tunes?

How do you handle?

thanks,

John

The artists are doing a demo to give to coffee houses or bars to get
gigs - they do all covers. I told them they need mechanical licenses
even if we only demo 1 min of each song...

In article . com writes:

As an engineer, do I have a duty (legal or ethical)to make sure that
the artist obtains mechanical licenses for cover tunes?

As usual, it depends. If someone comes into your studio and wants to
make a recording of himself (or his band) playing or singing someone
else's song, that's his business. You're just pushing the buttons.

However, if he brings you a CD and wants you to use a portion of that
in the recording that you make, given the few high profile engineers
who have been named in copyright lawsuits involving the use of
samples talem from commercial recordings, you'd best see that he has
permission before you put that recording into his tracks.

Examples are sampling a phrase or rhythm loop, reducing the vocal and
recording someone singing along with a commercial recording, or using
a commercial karaoke (sans vocal) disk.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

To be clear, there are two separate issues being discussed here. Any
band doing a cover has every right to expect a Compulsory Mechanical
License. However, the publisher of the song must be notified and the
applicable royalties paid to the songwriter and publisher. That being
the case, the recording engineer during production is not involved in
any illegal activity.
If, on the other hand, any sample of the "sounds affixed to the media"
is being used in this new production, the license requires PERMISSION
as well as notification. I agree with Mike regarding the potential
liability of the engineer who willingly inserts an uncleared sample
into a recording.
This all goes back to the fact that popular recordings are covered by
two distinct copyrights: Performing Arts (which protects the publisher
and songwriter) and Sound Recording (which protects the owner of the
master recording). Compulsory Mechanical License only applies to
"covers" that don't use any original samples, but instead hire
musicians/singers to re-create the song.
As much as John Lennon might roll over in his grave, there is no
stopping a slick, Vegas club singer from recording "Imagine" in his own
inimitable style. ...as long as the publisher is notified and royalties
paid. He can't however, use any sample from the original recording
without permission.

"Richard Crowley" wrote in message...

Distribution to anyone beyond
the performers requires licensing,
even if you give them away.

Really? I though 'profit' (agree with even if it's just one) had to be made
before this was applicable.

DM

If its a demo for gigs I woulden't worry about it.This has been going on for
a long time.No one will bother them bands do that all the time.




wrote in message
oups.com...
The artists are doing a demo to give to coffee houses or bars to get
gigs - they do all covers. I told them they need mechanical licenses
even if we only demo 1 min of each song...

"David Morgan (MAMS)" wrote:

"Richard Crowley" wrote in message...

Distribution to anyone beyond
the performers requires licensing,
even if you give them away.

Really? I though 'profit' (agree with even if it's just one) had to be made
before this was applicable.

DM

Nope. Duplication and distribution ( or admissible intent that you are
planning to distribute them ) is all that is required under US copyright
law. There are large loopholes in copyright law allowing for limited
excerpts to be used in news reporting, reviews, and academic use.
But these allowable uses have been badly abused, and folks who
make it to the court and try to claim this as a defense have got a
rather uphill battle to convince the judge.
The Berne Convention is similar, but not identical, and applies
to many countries. The actual concept is that one has to be
damaged in some fashion to have standing to sue under the law.
This damage could be monetary, or to reputation, or in many other
ways.
Should I make a million bootleg copies of the latest Milli Vanilli
CD and hand them out for free on the street corners, this would be
a violation of that copyright. I haven't made a dime, and would
have gone to considerable expense to do this silly thing. But the
damage suffered would be that of lost sales of the legit album
to the record company and the artists. Thus they would have
legal standing to sue me for the damages, and for an injunction to
halt me handing it out to stop the continuing damage.
I am not a lwyer, and you should consult one who specializes
in copyright and intellectual property law for real answers.

--Dale

Troy wrote:

If its a demo for gigs I woulden't worry about it.This has been going on for
a long time.No one will bother them bands do that all the time.

wrote in message
oups.com...
The artists are doing a demo to give to coffee houses or bars to get
gigs - they do all covers. I told them they need mechanical licenses
even if we only demo 1 min of each song...


This is the under the radar scheme. Should the copyright holders
have this come to their notice, then they are obligated to go after you
to defend their copyright. ( One way to lose a copyright to the public
domain is to fail to defend it when you find a violation. Similar to the way
trademarks work. ) If they don't notice your violation, then you have
gotten away with it. Just because it is common practice, doesn't mean
it is legal.
This leads to such absurdities as Disney suing a kindergarten because
they painted disney characters on the walls in their building.

--Dale

No one is going to go after them for making a few demos to hand out to clubs
for gigs.

It woulden't be worth it and would never make it to court.Its not like they
are putting an album out its a demo for gigs.

Even major song writers and seasoned pros have done this kind of thing when
they started out.


Dale Farmer wrote in message
...


Troy wrote:

If its a demo for gigs I woulden't worry about it.This has been going on
for
a long time.No one will bother them bands do that all the time.

wrote in message
oups.com...
The artists are doing a demo to give to coffee houses or bars to get
gigs - they do all covers. I told them they need mechanical licenses
even if we only demo 1 min of each song...


This is the under the radar scheme. Should the copyright holders
have this come to their notice, then they are obligated to go after you
to defend their copyright. ( One way to lose a copyright to the public
domain is to fail to defend it when you find a violation. Similar to the
way
trademarks work. ) If they don't notice your violation, then you have
gotten away with it. Just because it is common practice, doesn't mean
it is legal.
This leads to such absurdities as Disney suing a kindergarten because
they painted disney characters on the walls in their building.

--Dale

"Dale Farmer" wrote in message ...


"David Morgan (MAMS)" wrote:

"Richard Crowley" wrote in message...

Distribution to anyone beyond
the performers requires licensing,
even if you give them away.

Really? I though 'profit' (agree with even if it's just one) had to be made
before this was applicable.

DM

Nope. Duplication and distribution ( or admissible intent that you are
planning to distribute them ) is all that is required under US copyright
law. There are large loopholes in copyright law allowing for limited
excerpts to be used in news reporting, reviews, and academic use.
But these allowable uses have been badly abused, and folks who
make it to the court and try to claim this as a defense have got a
rather uphill battle to convince the judge.
The Berne Convention is similar, but not identical, and applies
to many countries. The actual concept is that one has to be
damaged in some fashion to have standing to sue under the law.
This damage could be monetary, or to reputation, or in many other
ways.
Should I make a million bootleg copies of the latest Milli Vanilli
CD and hand them out for free on the street corners, this would be
a violation of that copyright. I haven't made a dime, and would
have gone to considerable expense to do this silly thing. But the
damage suffered would be that of lost sales of the legit album
to the record company and the artists. Thus they would have
legal standing to sue me for the damages, and for an injunction to
halt me handing it out to stop the continuing damage.
I am not a lwyer, and you should consult one who specializes
in copyright and intellectual property law for real answers.

--Dale



OK... after nearly 30 years in the biz, this should give some indication
to the original poster as to how important licensing is to an engineer
who is recording the typical cover band's demo.

DM

"David Morgan (MAMS)" wrote:

"Dale Farmer" wrote in message ...


"David Morgan (MAMS)" wrote:

"Richard Crowley" wrote in message...

Distribution to anyone beyond
the performers requires licensing,
even if you give them away.

Really? I though 'profit' (agree with even if it's just one) had to be made
before this was applicable.

DM

Nope. Duplication and distribution ( or admissible intent that you are
planning to distribute them ) is all that is required under US copyright
law. There are large loopholes in copyright law allowing for limited
excerpts to be used in news reporting, reviews, and academic use.
But these allowable uses have been badly abused, and folks who
make it to the court and try to claim this as a defense have got a
rather uphill battle to convince the judge.
The Berne Convention is similar, but not identical, and applies
to many countries. The actual concept is that one has to be
damaged in some fashion to have standing to sue under the law.
This damage could be monetary, or to reputation, or in many other
ways.
Should I make a million bootleg copies of the latest Milli Vanilli
CD and hand them out for free on the street corners, this would be
a violation of that copyright. I haven't made a dime, and would
have gone to considerable expense to do this silly thing. But the
damage suffered would be that of lost sales of the legit album
to the record company and the artists. Thus they would have
legal standing to sue me for the damages, and for an injunction to
halt me handing it out to stop the continuing damage.
I am not a lwyer, and you should consult one who specializes
in copyright and intellectual property law for real answers.

--Dale

OK... after nearly 30 years in the biz, this should give some indication
to the original poster as to how important licensing is to an engineer
who is recording the typical cover band's demo.

DM

The engineer doesn't have to give a **** about that. He or she just
has to worry until the check clears.

--Dale

"Dale Farmer" wrote in message ...

He or she just has to worry until the check clears.


You take checks !?!

;-)

wrote:
As an engineer, do I have a duty (legal or ethical)to make sure that
the artist obtains mechanical licenses for cover tunes?

How do you handle?

thanks,

John

No. They do not have to have a license to make the recording.

David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

As an engineer, do I have a duty (legal or ethical)to make sure
that
the artist obtains mechanical licenses for cover tunes?

You are essentially providing a work for hire. It's not your
responsibility
to do anything in this case... unless you are responsible for
pressing
and distributing a record (or other materials containing previously
published tidbits) on their behalf.

There are very very few situations in which an engineer's work is a
work for hire if there isn't a contract specifying that it's a work for
hire. Outside foa contract, the only other instance is if you are an
employee, meaning the salaried kind, not just for the day or project or
as a freelancer. Most recording situations don't fit the employee
definition.

kellykevm wrote:
To be clear, there are two separate issues being discussed here. Any
band doing a cover has every right to expect a Compulsory Mechanical
License. However, the publisher of the song must be notified and the
applicable royalties paid to the songwriter and publisher. That being
the case, the recording engineer during production is not involved
in
any illegal activity.
If, on the other hand, any sample of the "sounds affixed to the
media"
is being used in this new production, the license requires PERMISSION
as well as notification. I agree with Mike regarding the potential
liability of the engineer who willingly inserts an uncleared sample
into a recording.
This all goes back to the fact that popular recordings are covered by
two distinct copyrights: Performing Arts (which protects the
publisher
and songwriter) and Sound Recording (which protects the owner of the
master recording). Compulsory Mechanical License only applies to
"covers" that don't use any original samples, but instead hire
musicians/singers to re-create the song.
As much as John Lennon might roll over in his grave, there is no
stopping a slick, Vegas club singer from recording "Imagine" in his
own
inimitable style. ...as long as the publisher is notified and
royalties
paid. He can't however, use any sample from the original recording
without permission.

I could be wrong, but someone once explained very clearly to me the
process. They could ahve been wrong and/or theprocess could have been
changed. But, the first step is to contact the publisher to get
permission and arrange for the lcense. The publisher has 90 days to
respond. IF they do not, that's when you get the complusory license.
That' all I'm sure of, but I think it is possible for the publisher to
respond and deny permission to use the song.

I don't think there's any way for them to deny permission to perform it
or record a performance however. The point being there's a distinction
between use and performance.

"Mike Caffrey" wrote ...
I could be wrong, but someone once explained very clearly to me the
process. They could ahve been wrong and/or theprocess could have been
changed. But, the first step is to contact the publisher to get
permission and arrange for the lcense. The publisher has 90 days to
respond. IF they do not, that's when you get the complusory license.
That' all I'm sure of, but I think it is possible for the publisher to
respond and deny permission to use the song.

In what country? My understanding is that in the USA,
a compulsory license is, well, compulsory once the song
has been recorded/released the first time. No 90 days
involved. In fact you can buy instant compulsory mechanical
licenses online from Harry Fox, etc.

Richard Crowley wrote:
"Mike Caffrey" wrote ...
I could be wrong, but someone once explained very clearly to me the
process. They could ahve been wrong and/or theprocess could have been
changed. But, the first step is to contact the publisher to get
permission and arrange for the lcense. The publisher has 90 days to
respond. IF they do not, that's when you get the complusory license.
That' all I'm sure of, but I think it is possible for the publisher to
respond and deny permission to use the song.

In what country? My understanding is that in the USA,
a compulsory license is, well, compulsory once the song
has been recorded/released the first time. No 90 days
involved. In fact you can buy instant compulsory mechanical
licenses online from Harry Fox, etc.

You can get an instant compulsory license, but you _really_ want to negotiate
a lower rate if you can. If you're only issuing a thousand CDs or
something, it's probably not worth the time to negotiate. But if you can
get the rights-holder to give you a license for less money than the
compulsory license costs, it can be a considerable savings on a long run.

It is not possible for the publisher to deny permission to use the song,
but it is possible for them to refuse to sell rights for less than the
compulsory license.

Now, if you want to do anything other than a straight cover, ie. you
want to do a parody or alter the lyrics or use it as part of a film
soundtrack, then the compulsory license does not apply at all.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."