Re:Is the End Near for Unlicensed Remixes and Cover Songs?
by Animats on Friday May 27, 2016 @02:12PM
(#11787802)
Right. The distinction is that a "cover" is derived from the work of the composer. Traditionally, a "cover" starts from sheet music. Only the composer's rights matter. There's a compulsory license deal for composers in the US, with a fixed statutory rate, and the Harry Fox Agency handles most such licensing.
A "remix" is derived from the work of the composer and musician(s). So you need a license for both the composition and the recorded work. There's no obligation to sell you such a license. Generally, record companies own the rights in commercial recorded music, but composers often own their own rights.
The recording industry is the main beneficiary of this arrangement, because they can record existing songs and sell them. The RIAA likes this setup.
The mixtape crowd doesn't like it, but tough. They're not doing much original. If you don't like it, write and perform your own stuff.
A "remix" is derived from the work of the composer and musician(s). So you need a license for both the composition and the recorded work. There's no obligation to sell you such a license. Generally, record companies own the rights in commercial recorded music, but composers often own their own rights.
The recording industry is the main beneficiary of this arrangement, because they can record existing songs and sell them. The RIAA likes this setup.
The mixtape crowd doesn't like it, but tough. They're not doing much original. If you don't like it, write and perform your own stuff.