Tribute bands and copyright issues...

[gwlee7]

Originally Posted by Charlie Bernstein

A tribute band is a cover band, so the rules that apply to any bar band apply to them:

1. It's fine to record demos, but to record to sell, they need permission.

2. They can only play at places licensed for live music. (At unlicensed venues, you can only play originals and music in the public domain. So a Stephen Foster cover band can play there, but an Archies cover band can't.

There is a huge deal about #2 going on btw a bar/music venue owner and some of his “detractors” in my area. He doesn’t want to pay the licensing fee and is original music only and the “detractors” can’t handle it for whatever reason.

I go there, play my own ****, and remain grateful for the opportunity. There are plenty of places to play other people’s music around.

[The Bard Rocks]

Originally Posted by Bob from Brooklyn

So the bands themselves are sponsoring their own tribute bands? The line is getting blurry. Foreigner comes to mind.

I believe the Blues Bothers licensed other bands to use that name. I doubt there were copyright issues with that. In fact, if I were tempted to started a tribute band (in no way will I be tempted to do that!), the original band would be the first I'd contact. Perhaps some deal could be made between the bands to circumvent copyright issues. That would be perfectly legal.

[RedVee]

When we are talking of copyright here, are we only talking about the songs writers getting royalties? Or is there a royalty due to the members of the original recording band?

[Bob Womack]

Originally Posted by RedVee

When we are talking of copyright here, are we only talking about the songs writers getting royalties? Or is there a royalty due to the members of the original recording band?

The are two copyrights, of the recording and of the song. When the song is performed by a new band, only the songwriter gets royalties. When the song recording is played in public,both the owner of the copyright on the recording and the owner of the songwriter copyright receive a royalty.

It is an old story: In the '1970s it was standard practice for the record company to own the copyright on the recording. They would typically give the band seven years worth of mechanical (recording) royalties and then the recording reverted to back catalog and all mechanicals went to the recording company. This is why so many artists are re-recording their music and self-publishing - to get control of their song's recordings. Songwriters were granted their writes all along.

One of the most well-known cases was that of John Fogarty and Saul Zaentz of Fantasy Records. Zaentz hid a clause in his recording contract that gave HIM ownership of his artist's songs and their royalties. After John left Fantasy, Saul went as far as to charge John to perform his own songs, leading to very public litigation. When Saul sold Fantasy, they bought the company with this blight on their company reputation. They contacted John, gave him back ownership of his own songs, gave him back pay on his royalties, and welcomed him back to the label. That was a pretty cool move.

Bob

[RedVee]

Originally Posted by Bob Womack

The are two copyrights, of the recording and of the song. When the song is performed by a new band, only the songwriter gets royalties. When the song recording is played in public,both the owner of the copyright on the recording and the owner of the songwriter copyright receive a royalty.

It is an old story: In the '1970s it was standard practice for the record company to own the copyright on the recording. They would typically give the band seven years worth of mechanical (recording) royalties and then the recording reverted to back catalog and all mechanicals went to the recording company. This is why so many artists are re-recording their music and self-publishing - to get control of their song's recordings. Songwriters were granted their writes all along.

One of the most well-known cases was that of John Fogarty and Saul Zaentz of Fantasy Records. Zaentz hid a clause in his recording contract that gave HIM ownership of his artist's songs and their royalties. After John left Fantasy, Saul went as far as to charge John to perform his own songs, leading to very public litigation. When Saul sold Fantasy, they bought the company with this blight on their company reputation. They contacted John, gave him back ownership of his own songs, gave him back pay on his royalties, and welcomed him back to the label. That was a pretty cool move.

Bob

Thanks mate

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by Cecil6243

How do Tribute bands sidestep copywrite issues? Is it due to time running out on copyrights, they are paying some kind of fee, or something else?

I see a Beatles tribute bands is coming to place near me, and a while back someone did Billy Joel and Elton John.

Just curious.

As others have said in the US for local venues it is pretty simple and is the responsibility of the Venue itself not the bands/performers, to pay the performance license fees