What's the legality behind this?

[Bleak]

Hey guys,

Long story short, you guys (probably) know that I've been doing a ton of video game covers to throw onto YouTube. Basically, I'm more or less in a situation where I need to sign something that says "Yes, I did create this."

I allowed a friend to use the music in a video of hers, which she does have monetization features turned on for. She's not getting anything from that video (presumably due to my music), so that's why I need to claim that I did, in fact, create it.

The catch is, while I did create the tracks that she's using, I'm just ganking other people's melodies and putting my spin on them. Can I still claim to have created it, even though that's the case? I really want to help out, but the last thing I need is any sort of legal trouble.

Thoughts?

[Cassidy]

Simply put, you didn't create it entirely. You don't satisfy the requirements for monetisation. Chance it at your own peril if you like, but for your own integrity (and out of respect for artists everywhere), just admit it's a cover.

Edit: btw, YouTube give you an awful lot of guidance on what you can and can't do if you look through their help section. They've got a video answering this very question.

[Drew]

What Cassidy said. Look at Youtube as analagous to releasing a song on an album - if you were to release an album of video game theme song covers, you would have to work out licensing agreements with the copyright owners.

Admittedly, you really don't lose much by contacting the owner of the rights to the song she wants to use, and ask them via email for perrmission to use the theme song, as interpreted and recorded by you, in the soundtrack for a YouTube video. They might go for it.

[Bleak]

I should clarify that I have no problem whatsoever admitting and telling people these are covers; they've always, and will always remain to be labeled as such.

I suppose I was just looking on clarification as to whether or not I could claim to be the "creator" since I did create the file in question, just not necessarily the melodies within.

That all makes sense though, guys! I'm going to see what I can do about emailing the composers and see where that gets me.

[darren]

When it comes to copyright, "creator" means authorship. You can't claim to be the "creator" of a piece of music if you've recorded a performance of a piece you did not write. "Creating" a recording of it does not count as authorship.

Performing rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Joey]

Copyright law gets fuzzier when peforming an arrangement of a different work though.

[Josh]

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, and thus cannot offer you any legal advice.

Under US law, you actually have the copyright in your own video and recording, since you authored those things, so you do own those things and have created them.

Simplifying things a bit, for our purposes here there are two parts to a recorded musical work: the work itself (the composition), and the recording. You are not infringing the recording, since you are essentially making your own.

You are, however, using the composition, which you do not own. Cover songs are allowed under copyright law, but must have a license paid (called a "mechanical") in order to compensate the composer for its use. YouTube might actually pay this for you (since it hosts public performances of musical works) but I am not sure if they do or not, (or if this payment for broadcasts of its own "featured" concerts would even cover your video since, as user-generated content uploaded to the site, your video falls within the safe harbor provisions in §512 and thus Youtube might not have to worry about paying for mechanicals rights.) This "mechanicals" system is how venues can legally have cover bands perform; they pay the ASCAP and/or BMI "mechanical" licenses.

So, the question is: does YouTube want to know if you own just your recording of the song, or does it want to know if you own the recording AND the composition? The answer is different depending on which question they are asking.

[Bleak]

Great advice so far, guys. It's helping a ton,

Originally Posted by Josh

So, the question is: does YouTube want to know if you own just your recording of the song, or does it want to know if you own the recording AND the composition? The answer is different depending on which question they are asking.

See, that's the iffy part that I'm unsure about. I've done research before that's told me pretty much what you said (as well as what everyone else has said), but I'm still not sure.

I'm doing some more research through YouTube to see what it is exactly they want. I'll post back when I find out anything else.

[Joey]

Originally Posted by Josh

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, and thus cannot offer you any legal advice.

Under US law, you actually have the copyright in your own video and recording, since you authored those things, so you do own those things and have created them.

Simplifying things a bit, for our purposes here there are two parts to a recorded musical work: the work itself (the composition), and the recording. You are not infringing the recording, since you are essentially making your own.

You are, however, using the composition, which you do not own. Cover songs are allowed under copyright law, but must have a license paid (called a "mechanical") in order to compensate the composer for its use. YouTube might actually pay this for you (since it hosts public performances of musical works) but I am not sure if they do or not, (or if this payment for broadcasts of its own "featured" concerts would even cover your video since, as user-generated content uploaded to the site, your video falls within the safe harbor provisions in §512 and thus Youtube might not have to worry about paying for mechanicals rights.) This "mechanicals" system is how venues can legally have cover bands perform; they pay the ASCAP and/or BMI "mechanical" licenses.

So, the question is: does YouTube want to know if you own just your recording of the song, or does it want to know if you own the recording AND the composition? The answer is different depending on which question they are asking.

See, you're treating it as a cover, and not as an arrangement. Arrangements are treated differently under copyright, depending on how much of the source material you use, and how you use it.

[Josh]

Originally Posted by MusicTheoryJoey

See, you're treating it as a cover, and not as an arrangement. Arrangements are treated differently under copyright, depending on how much of the source material you use, and how you use it.

Uh... I'm reasonably certain there are no separate provisions for "arrangements" in copyright law. I could be wrong, but I'm reasonably sure.

Plus, the "how much of the source material you use, and how you use it" analysis is part of a "Fair Use" defense analysis (or possibly a de minimis copyrightability question) not any definition of a type of work or license.