Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Mad Dawgg
Got a little confused on your explanation, but think I got some of it. I knew about paying royalties to copyright owners, just didn't know when it was required. Couldn't find who holds the copyright to Sweet Home Alabama. If Skynard owns it, then wouldn't Rock pay directly to them and not big media?

Anyway, my point was that Kid Rock shared the publishing with Skynard and Zevon, and doesn't that mean they share in the royalties? He did right by both of those artists, unlike many other musicians do. BTW, could Skynard have sued Zevon since the beat, tempo, and I believe bass line in "Werewolves" were the same? Guess I still don't get your explanation.

39 posted on 03/12/2015 8:40:44 AM PDT by A Navy Vet (An Oath is Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies ]


To: A Navy Vet
"If Skynard owns it, then wouldn't Rock pay directly to them and not big media?"

See this is the deal, which rights? Publishing Song Writer Mechanical?

it is doubtful Skynard holds the Mechanical Rights to the works unless they bought them outright early on. This is how Big Media makes Billions. Unless Skynard signed an exceptionally bad record deal early they (the actual song writers) probably hold the song writer music and lyrics rights but usually not the publishing rights and it is very rare for the band/artist to hold the mechanical rights. See that is why there is such a scramble now to keep increasing the term on the copyrights because Today's Artists don't need to give up the publishing and mechanical rights to Big Media to get a recording produced so Big Media is continually lobbying congress to extend the term even further because Big Media's business model is disintegrating due to the digital revolution that put all the tools AND distribution into the hands of the actual music makers, the artists/bands.

44 posted on 03/12/2015 9:45:57 AM PDT by Mad Dawgg (If you're going to deny my 1st Amendment rights then I must proceed to the 2nd one...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies ]

To: A Navy Vet
"He did right by both of those artists, unlike many other musicians do. BTW, could Skynard have sued Zevon since the beat, tempo, and I believe bass line in "Werewolves" were the same?"

Only if he claimed it as a NEW recording which he didn't he took the melody hook of both recordings and paid the piper for doing so. Basically he did a medley of the music and then added new lyrics. BUT he also Sampled with permission.

Medley is sort of an exception to the rule that you can't alter the original written composition extensively which is not kosher. You can change the structure but not alter the melody and you can add some words etc. without permission IF it is not Medley. Its a grey area but you sorta got to stick with what the original is without changing it greatly. Or you open yourself up to legal challenge, but medley gives you wider latitude by allowing you to add melody and words and change the structure a good bit.

Here is a classic example of a new medley recording: Stars on 45 New Lyrics and melody with a medley of songs.

If Kid had not used both songs it is doubtful he could've added in the unique part of the recording new lyrics and melody though adding samples clouds that issue greatly. Sampling changed the whole recording industry because BIG MEDIA spent big dollars to get total control of mechanical rights.

Which is totally opposite of what the Song Writer rights are because they have a claim to be paid but they can't say no. Mechanical rights allow you total control over a mechanical recording.

45 posted on 03/12/2015 10:14:33 AM PDT by Mad Dawgg (If you're going to deny my 1st Amendment rights then I must proceed to the 2nd one...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson