|
Post by mossy on Jul 11, 2017 21:47:04 GMT -5
What site is that from? It's weird there such contradictory advice out there. info.legalzoom.com/song-arrangements-copyrighted-23709.htmlI don't think it's contradictory, I believe the information you've posted assumes that you want to have a bit more leeway with what you do with the song therefore requiring the mechanical license, on another website to the one I copied from before I found this: "Now there may be some cases when using these agencies that the song you wish to cover comes up saying “This song is not available for mechanical licensing“. This could be enough to put you off doing the cover version, but there may also be another path, and a legal one, because once a song has been commercially released by an artist, that artist’s song may be re-recorded and released by anyone who chooses to do so. This is only the case if the melody/lyric isn’t substantially changed in your cover version, and you pay the proper fees/royalties directly to the song’s copyright holders." www.makeitinmusic.com/licence-cover-song/Your point about sampling being denied is because they wanted to take some of the track and put it in something else, the protection for covering songs doesn't apply then as you're using the copyrighted material in a different way, not as a cover. Yes, sampling is covered by a different law so was a red herring. You and the people saying he can just record covers without permission seem to be referring to a "compulsory licence." en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_licenseen.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_licenseWhat I find odd is how your website recommmeds trying to get a mechanical licence first and only mentions the compulsory licence afterwards if you've struggled to get the mechanical licence. Wiki also says use of compulsory licences is rare. "(In the US) The compulsory license for non-dramatic musical compositions under Section 115 of the Copyright Act of 1976[12] allows a person to distribute a new sound recording of a musical work, if that has been previously distributed to the public, by or under the authority of the copyright owner.[13] In order to take advantage of this compulsory license the recording artist must provide notice and pay a royalty. The notice must be sent to the copyright owner, or if unable to determine the copyright owner, to the Copyright Office, within thirty days of making the recording, but before distributing physical copies. Failure to provide this notice would constitute copyright infringement.[15] In addition to the notice to the copyright owner, the recording artist must pay a royalty to the copyright owner. This royalty is set by three copyright royalty judges.[16] According to Register of Copyrights Marybeth Peters, use of the section 115 license prior to the 1995 enactment of the Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act was extremely rare, with the U.S. Copyright Office receiving fewer than 20 notices of such licenses per year.[18] By 2003, that number had risen to 214, which, while higher, was not considered by the Register to be significant.[18]"
|
|
|
Post by mossy on Jul 11, 2017 22:19:26 GMT -5
According to this link the reason the use of compulsory licences is rare is because the royalty rates are the highest and also must be made more regularly (monthly): www.thebalance.com/what-you-should-know-about-compulsory-mechanical-licenses-2460917If you can be bothered to read it this lengthy article explains the whole history of compulsory licences: www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat031104.htmlThe article indicates that compulsory licences are a US only thing and actually recommends getting rid of them: "Elimination of the Section 115 statutory license. Although the predecessor to Section 115 served as a model for similar provisions in other countries, today all of those countries, except for the United States and Australia, have eliminated such compulsory licenses from their copyright laws. A fundamental principle of copyright is that the author should have the exclusive right to exploit the market for his work, except where this would conflict with the public interest. A compulsory license limits an author's bargaining power. It deprives the author of determining with whom and on what terms he wishes to do business. In fact, the Register of Copyrights' 1961 Report on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law favored elimination of this compulsory license. I believe that the time has come to again consider whether there is really a need for such a compulsory license. Since most of the world functions without such a license, why should one be needed in the United States?"
|
|
|
Post by Doc Lobster on Jul 12, 2017 3:31:41 GMT -5
Could my grandmother turn into a bicycle if she got wheels?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2017 3:42:36 GMT -5
Could my grandmother turn into a bicycle if she got wheels? She'd need a saddle and handle bars too, and pedals. Also not very nice calling your aunt a bike 👀
|
|
|
Post by The Invisible Sun on Jul 12, 2017 8:18:04 GMT -5
The short answer is no.
The long answer is Noooo.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2017 9:07:07 GMT -5
The short answer is no. The long answer is Noooo. Actually if you read the thread, the correct answer is yes he could but it wouldn't happen in a million years. Although it'd be fucking hilarious if he did.
|
|
|
Post by mossy on Jul 12, 2017 9:37:53 GMT -5
Could my grandmother turn into a bicycle if she got wheels? She'd need a saddle and handle bars too, and pedals. Also not very nice calling your aunt a bike 👀 Doc's aunt is a very classy lady. It's his granny who is the GILF. 👀
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2017 9:39:35 GMT -5
Could my grandmother turn into a bicycle if she got wheels? I think what you are looking for is... "Would Jesus have been a pervert if he had a pack of crisps on his head?"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2017 12:03:16 GMT -5
Sounds crazy but Roger Waters once agreed to "borrow" Pink Floyd lyrics to Bloodhound Gang The song is "Right Turn Clyde".
|
|
|
Post by mossy on Jul 12, 2017 12:25:02 GMT -5
Sounds crazy but Roger Waters once agreed to "borrow" Pink Floyd lyrics to Bloodhound Gang The song is "Right Turn Clyde". Urgh, what did you just make me listen to!? Apparently that album was delayed because Pink Floyd's lawyers threatened to sue. But when Waters heard it he liked it so gave permission! the-bloodhoundgang.com/interview/interview-jimmy-pop-lollipop
|
|
|
Post by The Invisible Sun on Jul 12, 2017 14:46:09 GMT -5
The short answer is no. The long answer is Noooo. Actually if you read the thread, the correct answer is yes he could but it wouldn't happen in a million years. Although it'd be fucking hilarious if he did. The answer is always and will forever be NO. It's an objective fact. There is no Oasis without Noel. Liam could re-use the band name, but without Noel, it's not Oasis and never would be. It would just be a pale imitation. The truly best cover band. But only ever a cover band.
|
|
|
Post by GlastoEls on Jul 12, 2017 15:24:39 GMT -5
Actually if you read the thread, the correct answer is yes he could but it wouldn't happen in a million years. Although it'd be fucking hilarious if he did. The answer is always and will forever be NO. It's an objective fact. There is no Oasis without Noel. Liam could re-use the band name, but without Noel, it's not Oasis and never would be. It would just be a pale imitation. The truly best cover band. But only ever a cover band. Which one's Pink?
|
|
|
Post by The Milkman & The Riverman on Jul 12, 2017 15:32:11 GMT -5
That being said i think Liam doing Everybody's On The Run in shower is a pretty common thing.
|
|
|
Post by cloudburster on Jul 12, 2017 16:10:19 GMT -5
I always thought
AKA... WHAT A LIFE (Liam verses, Noel chorus) YOU KNOW WE CAN'T GO BACK EVERYBODY'S ON THE RUN FREAKY TEETH
Needed Liam vocals to elevate them from being great songs to fantastic songs (Freaky teeth is more a good song than great)
|
|
|
Post by Doc Lobster on Jul 13, 2017 1:53:01 GMT -5
She'd need a saddle and handle bars too, and pedals. Also not very nice calling your aunt a bike 👀 Doc's aunt is a very classy lady. It's his granny who is the GILF. 👀
And that, folks, is why mossy has a few restraining orders to his name.
|
|
|
Post by mossy on Jul 13, 2017 2:50:53 GMT -5
When asked in an interview if he'd heard Noel's debut album Liam said "Yes, I've sung half of it."
So recordings do exist. He may well have been exaggerating and only sang on RM and STC while in Oasis but who knows...
|
|
|
Post by dontbelievethetruth4 on Jul 13, 2017 14:09:00 GMT -5
In fact liam shouldnt have bothered with his own records. Every time noel released something, just re-record it with his own vocals. Bigger and better 😎 that would be amazing just to see and hear the backlash lol
|
|
|
Post by MacaRonic on Jul 14, 2017 6:36:15 GMT -5
I know this is a ridiculous idea but I'd f#ckin' love if it could happen.
|
|
|
Post by liamgallagher1992 on Jul 18, 2017 20:04:48 GMT -5
When asked in an interview if he'd heard Noel's debut album Liam said "Yes, I've sung half of it." So recordings do exist. He may well have been exaggerating and only sang on RM and STC while in Oasis but who knows... It was always starnge to me how Liam said "these two probably appear on it" in reference to Gem and Andy. On a side note (and what i thought this thread was going to be about) if Liam wanted to just carry on as Oasis then that would have been interesting. Noel said he got half the naming rights from Liam but if he wanted to call it Oasis 2.0 im wondering what the reaction from Noel would have been, or if indeed he could stop it?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2017 20:22:54 GMT -5
Well noel walked out on the band so I guess at that stage oasis still existed without him. If the rest of the band had decided to simply carry on as oasis without him then the decision would have been Noel's as to whether to try and block it legally.
I'm not sure he would have wanted to do that as he was and still is good friends with a lot of the band. It would have caused a lot of bad feeling I think.
So yeah, whether he could or not I don't think noel would have ever wanted to do that. It was the other guys decision to change the band name as they wanted to distance themselves from noel. Or at least liam did. I may be imagining it but I actually think there was an interview from back then where they said that there was a discussion about whether to continue as Oasis or not.
|
|
|
Post by liamgallagher1992 on Jul 19, 2017 7:31:01 GMT -5
Well noel walked out on the band so I guess at that stage oasis still existed without him. If the rest of the band had decided to simply carry on as oasis without him then the decision would have been Noel's as to whether to try and block it legally. I'm not sure he would have wanted to do that as he was and still is good friends with a lot of the band. It would have caused a lot of bad feeling I think. So yeah, whether he could or not I don't think noel would have ever wanted to do that. It was the other guys decision to change the band name as they wanted to distance themselves from noel. Or at least liam did. I may be imagining it but I actually think there was an interview from back then where they said that there was a discussion about whether to continue as Oasis or not. I think Noel would have tried to stop it. I think for someone with his track record of dumping band members, he wouldnt have been bothered about any bad feeling between him and gem or andy
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2017 8:11:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by mimmihopps on Jul 19, 2017 10:31:52 GMT -5
Without Noel or Liam, there would never have been Oasis. When Liam formed Beady Eye with Gem, Andy and Chris, I was glad and had (and still have) respect for them that they started new with a new band's name and not as Oasis.
|
|