Karaoke Forums

I have a friend who's a singer.

She's got instrumental versions of various hit songs that she loves. she's got original vinyls and CD singles with the actual instrumental versions of the hits in .wav format.

and she would like to take these instrumental versions record her voice on them in studio and put them on youtube to kinda promote her singing ability, not to necessarily monetize her videos.

from my understanding Youtube's Content ID system and the laws have changed which allows for Covers of songs in 2017.

meaning YoutTube has made deals with various record labels that allow their songs to get monetized on youtube so if someone uses.

so what's allowed?

like for example if my singer friend got the instrumental version of "Human" by Human League and recorded her voice on in a studio it and put it on youtube is that allowed?

Many here will say OK, many will say no..
I suggest contact youtube for the inside info.

Here are the issues:

(1) There is a music publisher (or maybe several publishers) who owns the composition copyright, including synchronization rights, in each song.
(2) There is a studio or artist (or maybe several) who owns the sound recording copyright in the instrumental version of the song.

Leaving aside the YouTube angle for a moment...

Recording a cover version of a song is the subject of a a compulsory license, known as a "mechanical license," that can be obtained by contacting the Harry Fox Agency and paying a standard fee. However, if she is going to synchronize the recording to video of any type, she would need a synchronization license. Synch licenses are NOT compulsory and must be obtained from the publisher directly. (Except see below.)

The sound recording copyright is a separate issue. To use someone else's instrumental recording as a backup, she would need to contact the studio or artist that owns the rights and obtain a license for that purpose. That can be difficult to do, and expensive. It might be easier to use a version from the producer of a karaoke-style cover studio, of which there are many.

The YouTube aspect of this might provide some shortcuts. YouTube has agreements with many publishers that bundle the equivalent of a mechanical license and a synch license into a rights package in exchange for a cut of the ad revenue. To find out if the song she wants to do is covered, she would need to contact the publisher. Publisher information can be found by searching the repertories of ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC on their websites. That doesn't solve the issue of the sound recording in the instrumental, however, and it would not cover the other rights to the extent that they are put onto any other platform.

I wouldn't comment on this except that I don't think it's in the best interest of anyone to have a misunderstanding of licensing issues. Mechanical licenses and Compulsory licenses are two different animals. All compulsory licenses are indeed mechanical licenses but not all mechanical licenses are compulsory licenses, and in fact most are not. It's kind of like the thing we learned in high school about "all Turks are Muslims but not all Muslims are Turks". Only the U.S. Copyright office can issue a compulsory license, and are issued only when the authors cannot be located or the authors will not agree to issue a mechanical. The filing fees of which I believe are still $20. Compulsory licenses also have different terms and reporting requirements than mechanicals which are negotiated licenses. I haven't been on the hfa website in a while but the last time I was on they were perpetrating the lie that hfa was issuing "compulsory licenses" which they definitely are not! If they were they would be able to secure a license from every publisher which they do not and cannot. There are many publishers that have a dislike for hfa and don't allow hfa to represent their catalog. I don't mean to be unkind but hfa has a history of hiring some pretty dumb people so it doesn't surprise me that they would be so dumb as to state that they secure a compulsory license when they can do no such thing. Maybe now that SESAC has purchased hfa things will change, but going as far back as some 25 years ago, when dealing with Vince Castalucci I was amazed at the lack of good information. After he left hfa he went to work for Panorama Records to promote their ridiculous "fair use" argument which of course they brutally lost.

Also "master" licenses are licenses that license both the sound recording and the musical composition in a single license. Mastering right is a colloquial term coined by the music and film industry and is not coded in Title 17, nor is "sync" or synchronization licenses for that matter. Acquiring the "mastering rights" for most popular songs to be used in film as recorded by the original artist (or assigned to a record label by the owner of the composition for a specific sound recording) are almost always cost prohibitive, and is the single biggest reason we did a fair amount of business in the major film industry as well as the toy industry. It's also how the majority of "production houses" earn their living. We did a fair amount of work for NBC/Uni and MTV mostly because they were unable to secure the "mastering rights" and would turn to production houses or companies like mine (I believe Kurt did some work in that area as well) and acquire two separate licenses. One from us for the sound recording and a "sync" license from the publisher of the musical composition.

The term "mechanical license" is not found in the Copyright Act; rather, the term arose because it referred to the mechanical reproduction of piano rolls to be used in player pianos. All mechanical licenses are compulsory, because, as long as the specific procedures set forth in 17 U.S.C. § 115 are followed, the copyright owner cannot refuse to issue the license. The Copyright Office does not issue licenses. The procedure you describe is a mechanism for providing notice of the intent to obtain a compulsory license when the copyright owner is not identified in the registration or when no address for such a notice is provided. Incidentally, under those circumstances, royalties don't start to accrue until the owner identifies himself.



HFA does issue compulsory licenses on behalf of many publishers, probably the wide majority. Some publishers use other agencies or handle the issuance of compulsory licenses themselves. HFA has no power to compel a publisher to issue a license, of course. But the reason why I suggested contacting HFA is because even if they don't represent the specific publisher in question, they will usually provide information about from where to obtain the compulsory license.

It is possible for recording artists and publishers to reach a voluntarily negotiated agreement that covers the same subject matter as the standard compulsory license. The statute gives these voluntary agreements priority over the standard compulsory license terms, and when it is time to reset the rates and terms for compulsory licenses, these voluntary agreements are given some weight in determining what those rates and terms should be.

Fair enough. From that perspective you might say that I overstated the case, but also bear in mind that not all compulsory licenses are mechanicals, hence my "all Turks are Muslims but not all Muslims are Turks" comment applies here as well. Mechanicals will exist whether or not they continue to be compulsory. I used to regularly attend AIMP meetings in NYC and had several conversations with former Register Mary Beth Peters on the topic of karaoke being compulsory, to which she agreed that it should be, but she also wanted to abolish the compulsory license altogether in favor of a free market solution (yeah right, like there is such a thing). In any event, had she prevailed in her quest to do so, the mechanical license wouldn't look any differently than it does now, it just wouldn't be compulsory. Technically speaking you are correct in stating that the copyright office doesn't issue compulsory licenses. I should have made the distinction between the NOI and a compulsory ... my bad. However, I had filed at least one NOI to my recollection due to a publisher refusing to give me a mechanical. I did have to report all sales on the 20th of each month and once annually. I can't remember as to whom the royalties were dispersed, but if I had to guess, I'd say it was probably the rights holder.

Nevertheless the new MMA bill proposal which supposedly is designed to simplify the compulsory clause has turned section 115 into a 150 page document of legal language that I still can't wrap my head around. It gave me a headache about half way in. Overall a fairly good bill as bills go I suppose, until it gets to the royalty section where it seems as if royalty rates will no longer be set by law, but by a 14 member regulatory tribunal made up of mostly .... you guessed it, major publishers. Out of the 12 voting members, 10 of them are to be publishers and 2 of them writers to be selected by ... guess who? Yep the 10 major publishers. Talk about the fox guarding the hen house!

After rereading my own post I realized that I incorrectly stated that royalty rates will no longer be set by law when it should have read that the Copyright Royalty Board judges (appointed by the Librarian of Congress advised by the Register of Copyrights) will be replaced by a board of 14 appointed among themselves and not the Librarian of Congress, or at least that's the way that I read it.