image source: commons.wikimedia.org
What's the difference? You might ask. A copyright is a copyright, right? Well..not exactly. In short, a copyright is automatic anytime you create something original that never existed before. It could be a song, an image, a piece of writing or even an idea if you want to take it that far and your pockets are deep enough to prove that your idea was stolen in a lengthy and costly court battle. And although copyright laws are mostly statutory in nature, there is a lot of subjectivity that comes into place in the judicial process. One judge might say, "Yes. This case is clearly one of copyright violation for an original work" but another might say that it is not.
However, the key word here is original, meaning the concept behind the product never existed before and was brought into creation for the very first time. In other words (if we use music as an example), you can't perform any part of any original song or melody created by someone else and claim copyright privileges over it even if you use a different instrument than the copyrighted material was made from. For example, if you do a piano instrumental cover of a melody of a song composed and arranged by someone else, even though the original was played on a guitar, you cannot claim copyright privileges over your performance. You need what's called a mechanical cover license issued either by the entity that represents that artist, like the Harry Fox Agency for example, and you must agree to pay them for that license. But still, you don't own the version of that song that you made and it would be fraudulent to claim a copyright of it because, in effect, you would be claiming the original as your own. There are restrictions on what you can and can't do with a mechanical license and the costs vary and you find all of that information doing a quick Google Search.
On the other hand, if someone with a mechanical cover license comes to you, the musician, and says, "Hey! Here's the original melody, chords and lyrics. Can you duplicate it in some fashion without changing it too much?" And if you agree to do it, you are technically a session musician operating under the person's cover license who approached you and asked you to do the job. If you agree, then you might fall under the category of having sound recording rights, but before you start working, make sure you get an agreement to that effect and stipulate in it what the cover license owner can or can't do with the music that you make. Once again, this is different than an original copyright and falls under specific provisions related to that performance and unless the agreement is made in writing or through some work-for-hire website like Fiverr or Air Gigs, your claim to have sound recording rights after you deliver your performance won't make it through the doors in a court of law. You can read more about the statutes that apply to sound recording right here in this article where U.S. Copyright law states that:
A specially ordered or commissioned work is considered a work made for hire if it satisfies all of the following four criteria:
1. The work must fall within one of the nine categories of works listed above that are eligible to be specially ordered or commissioned as works made for hire.
2. There must be a written agreement between the party that ordered or commissioned the work and individual(s) who actually created the work.
3. In the written agreement, the parties must expressly agree that the work is to be considered a work made for hire.
4. The agreement must be signed by all parties.
If a work fails to satisfy any of these requirements, it is not a work made for hire. (Copyright.gov)
So if you are not a mechanical cover license owner doing any kind of cover work on a song, then you can't claim a copyright infringement. And if you do session work for somebody without making a written agreement outlining and negotiating price and right to distribute and everything else, what are you?
You are just shit out of luck, stupid!!!
Unfortunately, most music streaming services will honor any copyright claim by an unscrupulous musician who feels cheated (even if he/she were paid without a formal agreement of some sort) and who seeks to extort the cover license owner and producer for more money or just out of spite because they can't get laid or something. I don't know what frustrates some people these days. Twisted knickers maybe?
YouTube is getting better at the process of approving counter notification claims against people or musicians who have no legal standing rights whatsoever but they still have a long way to go and would prefer not to get very involved as most other services who will just accept a copyright strike/claim with no or very little evidence to support it. After all, their business is distribution and NOT adjudication so they can't be faulted too much for their position. Both sides need to settle this inside or outside of court (which can be ridiculously expensive for either claimant or defendant and impossible when the fraudulent claimer makes unreasonable demands and threats). It's a problem rampant in the streaming music and platform industry and unless you have big studio money behind you to bring the fraudulent case to a close one way or the author it's best to dot your i's and cross your t's before entering into any kind of collaboration with anyone--friend, foe or stranger. Yet I truly believe that an ignorant and mean spirited fraudulent claimer will one day reap what he sows either in an earthly court or a higher one no matter how righteous they claim to be.
Check out this article that outlines this plague of fraudulent claimers in the digital world from Insider.com:
https://www.insider.com/youtubers-channels-are-being-held-hostage-with-fake-copyright-claims-2020-6
No comments:
Post a Comment