Discussion:
What is the name of your state? California
I have a song that uses an interpolation of a older, different composition. The new song borrows the chorus of the older song, but it has been re-recorded and there is no original master use.
The original composition has 2 publishers, call them A & B. Publish A owns 55% or the original composition and Pub. B owns 45%.
The questions are: Do I need permission from both companies. If so, do I have to negoiate rates and % with both companies. Or, if only the majority owner gived permission, am I good?
I know a recent court case said that when the Beastie Boys cleared a master use, they also cleared the underlying composition. So that being said.....
Any help would be great.
Thanks
Phillip D
Answer:
Any recorded song has 2 copyrights associated with it -- one for the "sound recording" and one for the "musical work." The "sound recording" copyright is for the recorded version, and the "musical work" copyright is for the actual song itself.
If you are re-recording the song, and not using any of the original recording, then you only need a license for the underlying "musical work."
All that said, when you say "The original composition has 2 publishers, call them A & B. Publish A owns 55% or the original composition and Pub. B owns 45%." do you mean that they own 55%/45% of the copyright? If so, you can get permission from either one.
However, there are clearinghouses for musical licenses. For musical works, you usually go to the Harry Fox Agency to purchase licenses, and you shouldn't have to deal with the publishers themselves.
Answer:
Unfortunately, the new recording is not a "cover" but a new song that basically swipes the chorus from an old country song. The point being that there are substantal changes involved to the older composition so I cannot get a license from Harry Fox....or can I?
The larger company has issued a licensing agreement but I am not sure if it clears both companies interest, including splitting the advance or will I need to negotiate a seperate deal with the smaller company.
Your thoughts?
Answer:
The point being that there are substantal changes involved to the older composition so I cannot get a license from Harry Fox....or can I? To be honest, I don't know if Harry Fox sells licenses for the creation of derivative works or not -- I would tend to doubt it... I guess this didn't really answer your original question...
The larger company has issued a licensing agreement but I am not sure if it clears both companies interest, including splitting the advance or will I need to negotiate a seperate deal with the smaller company. Well, the easiest way to find out the answer to this question is ask. Start with the larger company (that you already have a license with) and see what they say. If the two publishing houses co-own the copyright, then getting permission from either own is sufficient.
However, if the copyright is not owned, but is just licensed to both of the publishers, then there may be some sort of contractual obligations (not binding on you, of course) that make it impossible for just one publisher to give permission to make derivative works -- but that's not copyright law, that's a licensing contract (if it exists, and I doubt it), and you'll need to find that information out from the publishers.
But start with the publisher with whom you already have a license-- if you ask the other guy, of course he will tell you you need to pay him directly!