Clearing Cover Songs for Sale or Distribution (Including Free Plays or DL)
April 29, 2011 | 12:23 pm

How long will iCompostions.com stay under the radar of Mechanical Licenses and Streaming Licenses for cover songs?

I love to write and record original songs and covers. My passion for music makes me want to sing, play and record everything. Recently, I've been reading more about copyright law and suggest, if we're going to post covers on iComp, we should be prepared to pay the original songwriter or copyright holder/publishing house for every streamed play and download, even if we are giving the cover version away for free. The burden of responsibility is probably not on iComp, but on the artist who recorded and posted a cover. Once you've exceeded 10 or 20 plays or free downloads...it's arguable you've exceeded the definition of "Fair Use".

Fortunately, it's very easy to do this lawfully, and iComp is generally under the radar because publishers are focusing on big sites like Amazon, iTunes, Napster and the larger pay-for-play/music sharing sites. Basically to be legit, for a posted cover song, one would need to pay $.01 per play Streaming License and $.091 per download Digital Distribution License (plus an up front one-time fee for initiating the Mechanical License.

We can use a site like Limelight to easily comply with copyright law. It's an expense, so I suggest approaching posting covers online as short-term advertising when you receive no income in return and be prepared to pony-up. The posting artist (not the site) is required to track downloads and plays and pay the appropriate royalties. On iComp--hide the "download" button on covers, unless you want to potentially pay a dime for every download...or, you can be magnanimously generous and tally a dime in the bucket for each one of your friends who DL's the cover If you get called to the carpet for 500 plays, you can get right with the holder of the copyright for a few bucks. Proper etiquette *might* include paying up front an estimate of plays and downloads, but one can edit the scope of the license easily if it's exceeded by demand.

This being said, it's possible to make money from covering songs. It can also get you noticed in the sea of content on iTunes or other stores. Someone searching for a marquee-named tune might see your version and download it. I've purchased *many* covers on a whim from bands I've never heard of. As long as you acquire the Mechanical License and pay the proper fees, you are legitimately entitled to sell cover songs on sites like iTunes or Amazon.

For example, if I want to license my cover of "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" it may cost me $60 to get 500 licenses to digitally distribute my sound recording (I own the sound recording copyright (P) ). The songwriter (or holder) owns the (C) copyright of the original work and is technically entitled to a Mechanical License royalty for EVERY play and download, regardless if I give my version away for free. If you play or distribute a cover song to a group of more than 10 friends or family, it can violate "Fair Use" (but that's not a hard set limit).

Let's talk profits, though. If you sell a cover on iTunes, for example, the profit will depend on the volume of sales, and your expenses, obviously. You pay an up front fee to upload to iTunes via a site like Tunecore. You'd pay an upfront licensing fee to Limelight, but if you sold a hundred copies you'd be in the black, profit-wise, and you can write off the upload/licensing fees on your taxes as expenses. $.70 is in your pocket for every sale on U.S. iTunes...$.94 for Australia...$.96 in Europe (iTunes charges more outside the U.S. for downloads). Consider it! And, track all your expenses and income.

Also, make sure you embed the artwork and the metadata in your MP3 file as well, so searches can find your song. Also, here's another great site loaded with opportunites to pitch your music to industry professionals for publishing, film, advertising, etc. Free to sign up and they will PAY YOU to listen to songs at Musicxray. Cool beans.



Cheers!

becwil Moderator	Right on, Babs. I posted a forum announcing Limelight a few weeks ago. iCompositions even now has a partnership with Limelight so that when one enters Limelight through the links from here (the links I've included) iComp gets a few cents for the reference. I've used Limelight's service for a cover and it is very easy and quick. Thanks for bringing this to folk's attention again. Respect of an artist's copyright and paying them their due royalty is important and the right thing to do. As you've pointed out, even when we distribute our covers as a free download, the royalties are due. Right on, Babs. [url=http://www.icompositions.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=9414]I posted a forum[/url] announcing [url=http://click.linksynergy.com/fs-bin/click?id=dyXwmjdyPus&offerid=209510&type=3&subid=0]Limelight[/url] a few weeks ago. :) iCompositions even now has a partnership with [url=http://click.linksynergy.com/fs-bin/click?id=dyXwmjdyPus&offerid=209510&type=3&subid=0]Limelight[/url] so that when one enters [url=http://click.linksynergy.com/fs-bin/click?id=dyXwmjdyPus&offerid=209510&type=3&subid=0]Limelight[/url] through the links from here (the links I've included) iComp gets a few cents for the reference. I've used Limelight's service for a cover and it is very easy and quick. Thanks for bringing this to folk's attention again. Respect of an artist's copyright and paying them their due royalty is important and the right thing to do. As you've pointed out, even when we distribute our covers as a free download, the royalties are due.
	Latest Song: Phronesis (AET) April 29, 2011 | 1:17 pm
GaryLester Artist	This comment was removed by GaryLester.
	Latest Song: Key Collection 20 April 29, 2011 | 3:02 pm
Baboon Artist	(As may be obvious) I am not a music attorney or copyright expert . I posted because I’m thinking about the issue (learning as I go). I have no vested interest in Limelight, Tunecore, publishing or clearing house, neither have I any great love for maze of copyright law, interpretations used to sue, or loopholes used to avoid paying props to originators. I've seen violation of Fair Use defined as "anything outside your living room." Which I think is somewhat strict (though not often enforced). This is not an ultimate reference or treatise on copyright or Fair Use. Those are *complicated* statutes with enormous range of interpretation, selective attention spans and long history of courtroom argument. It gets weirder when one samples (P) copyrighted sound recordings or makes a derivative work of (C) copyright compositions. In other words, covers are ok if you meet Mechanical License royalties and fees, but *samples* of (P) copyrighted sound recordings (even infinitesimally short ones) have to be cleared by the owner. Further, straying too far from original structure of a song in a cover--it can stop being considered a cover and become a derivative work which requires permission outside a Mechanical License. This includes lyrics. Add reclassification of reproduction and distribution in 2008 to include and regulate digital distribution…we’re off to the races! iCompostions.com is not governed by the same rules it was when I joined back in ’05 or ’06. We all need to think about it. To sidetrack--the sampling issue (separate from covers) has been circumvented by claiming socially relevant interpretations give artists permission to not need permission or pay royalties (Like 2Live Crew sampling Roy Orbison's recording of Pretty Woman and getting away with it because they somehow “added to our cultural understanding of women” by sampling it.) Uh-huh. There’s a lot of BS on both sides of the fence. For all intent, clearing samples is vital to not being sued. iCompositions.com from the beginning has been adamant about sample usage. I believe it will soon be necessary to extend the same regard toward covers and Mechanical Licensing. It's much less expensive to play riffs, yourself, in context of a cover than play or sample a riff in a *derivative* work. Much of the reason HipHop as a movement is currently dead in the water (IMHO) is the movement relied on famous samples to catapult artists to notoriety, rather than playing instruments, themselves. Add the high cost of clearing samples (the artist Beck has been very outspoken about it) and HipHop is effectively dead to all but rich established artists and those who flaunt the law, underground. But, copyright law is in flux. Five years from now it may be totally different than today. For most of us--it's currently much safer and cheaper to use royalty-free loops in our work or play or own instruments in covers, than snip a bit of a famous tune. And, it goes without saying—originals rule the roost. You get like 6 copyrights the minute you right down or record an original song that nobody can take from you. (As may be obvious) I am not a music attorney or copyright expert . I posted because I’m thinking about the issue (learning as I go). I have no vested interest in Limelight, Tunecore, publishing or clearing house, neither have I any great love for maze of copyright law, interpretations used to sue, or loopholes used to avoid paying props to originators. I've seen violation of Fair Use defined as "anything outside your living room." Which I think is somewhat strict (though not often enforced). This is not an ultimate reference or treatise on copyright or Fair Use. Those are *complicated* statutes with enormous range of interpretation, selective attention spans and long history of courtroom argument. It gets weirder when one samples (P) copyrighted sound recordings or makes a derivative work of (C) copyright compositions. In other words, covers are ok if you meet Mechanical License royalties and fees, but *samples* of (P) copyrighted sound recordings (even infinitesimally short ones) have to be cleared by the owner. Further, straying too far from original structure of a song in a cover--it can stop being considered a cover and become a derivative work which requires permission outside a Mechanical License. This includes lyrics. Add reclassification of reproduction and distribution in 2008 to include and regulate digital distribution…we’re off to the races! iCompostions.com is not governed by the same rules it was when I joined back in ’05 or ’06. We all need to think about it. To sidetrack--the sampling issue (separate from covers) has been circumvented by claiming socially relevant interpretations give artists permission to not need permission or pay royalties (Like 2Live Crew sampling Roy Orbison's recording of Pretty Woman and getting away with it because they somehow “added to our cultural understanding of women” by sampling it.) Uh-huh. There’s a lot of BS on both sides of the fence. For all intent, clearing samples is vital to not being sued. iCompositions.com from the beginning has been adamant about sample usage. I believe it will soon be necessary to extend the same regard toward covers and Mechanical Licensing. It's much less expensive to play riffs, yourself, in context of a cover than play or sample a riff in a *derivative* work. Much of the reason HipHop as a movement is currently dead in the water (IMHO) is the movement relied on famous samples to catapult artists to notoriety, rather than playing instruments, themselves. Add the high cost of clearing samples (the artist Beck has been very outspoken about it) and HipHop is effectively dead to all but rich established artists and those who flaunt the law, underground. But, copyright law is in flux. Five years from now it may be totally different than today. For most of us--it's currently much safer and cheaper to use royalty-free loops in our work or play or own instruments in covers, than snip a bit of a famous tune. And, it goes without saying—originals rule the roost. You get like 6 copyrights the minute you right down or record an original song that nobody can take from you.
	Latest Song: Who'll Stop the Rain (CCR Cover) mix2 April 29, 2011 | 6:14 pm
pinkyrv Artist	Remember, the only ones who benefit from these infernal copyright laws are the lawyers, who in times of war when their services are not needed are relegated to picking the valuables off of the dead. Remember, the only ones who benefit from these infernal copyright laws are the lawyers, who in times of war when their services are not needed are relegated to picking the valuables off of the dead.
	Latest Song: Pickles April 29, 2011 | 7:16 pm
Baboon Artist	lol @ "...in times of war" Yes, they profit from both sides of the fence like day traders...they don't care if the market goes up or down, they still make money. But, I personally would be very glad to profit from Mechanical License on my songs and be thankful to sites who collect the revenue on my behalf (if my revenue stream were booming). I think most complaints about copyright law come from those who aren't utilizing it to full extent on their own behalf to collect revenue they are due (or from those who haven't tried to market or sell their own products fully). I hear lots of positive things from musicians who sell a lot of covers and enjoy the attention that avenue brings to their original songs. Royalties are a nice thing when they are flowing your way (from what I hear). Dual-edged sword. The laws can work for you or against you. I don't have a lot of issues or concerns with sampling because I don't use samples (or even loops often). It's not my style. lol @ "...in times of war" Yes, they profit from both sides of the fence like day traders...they don't care if the market goes up or down, they still make money. But, I personally would be very glad to profit from Mechanical License on my songs and be thankful to sites who collect the revenue on my behalf (if my revenue stream were booming). I think most complaints about copyright law come from those who aren't utilizing it to full extent on their own behalf to collect revenue they are due (or from those who haven't tried to market or sell their own products fully). I hear lots of positive things from musicians who sell a lot of covers and enjoy the attention that avenue brings to their original songs. Royalties are a nice thing when they are flowing your way (from what I hear). Dual-edged sword. The laws can work for you or against you. I don't have a lot of issues or concerns with sampling because I don't use samples (or even loops often). It's not my style.
	Latest Song: Who'll Stop the Rain (CCR Cover) mix2 April 29, 2011 | 7:39 pm
Baboon Artist	Kudos, btw, to Bec and iCompositions.com for partnering with Limelight. Partnerships build strength and create opportunities. I foresee a near-future where yes...iComp artists will have to pony-up for posting covers, but also where partnerships like this lead to profits and legitimization for iComp artists. There may be a future where iComp becomes a revenue stream for its stable of artists. The way publishing houses and labels are going after online streaming sites, lately--I don't see iComp avoiding the reality of either curtailing covers, or artists licensing those covers. The way I see it, iComp has three choices: remain an interactive streaming site and encourage artists to track their own plays and downloads and license covers accordingly, or go to a non-interactive streaming model and pay a flat fee to a clearing house and play programmed playlists and/or track owed royalties like a radio station. The third choice is ban covers, which I don't think anybody wants to see happen. I believe this site could continue to survive on an all-original basis. However, I think it could be doing more to provide revenue streams to iComp artists. The partnership with Limelight (and if they linked with Tunecore, too) could strenghten artists business positions. As-is, iComp is a great site to develop your chops and collaborate, but when you hit a certain point of polish in production and quantity of material you have to move off the site to make money and protect your interests (and start taking down your music because it conflicts with your sales efforts). You can't realistically give it away and sell it at the same time, unfortunately. IMHO, there are a thousand artists on iComp (or at least hundreds) who could be making some money from what they instead choose togive away. That's a generous thing; I don't discount the merit of it at all. I just have to wonder with the proper links, development and tools, could iComp be facilitating profits for itself and artists? I also wonder how long it can survive in current format with unlicensed covers being played and downloaded...I dunno...just thinking here (and worrying a bit). I wonder if iComp could survive as a hybrid pay/free site? Kudos, btw, to Bec and iCompositions.com for partnering with Limelight. Partnerships build strength and create opportunities. I foresee a near-future where yes...iComp artists will have to pony-up for posting covers, but also where partnerships like this lead to profits and legitimization for iComp artists. There may be a future where iComp becomes a revenue stream for its stable of artists. The way publishing houses and labels are going after online streaming sites, lately--I don't see iComp avoiding the reality of either curtailing covers, or artists licensing those covers. The way I see it, iComp has three choices: remain an interactive streaming site and encourage artists to track their own plays and downloads and license covers accordingly, or go to a non-interactive streaming model and pay a flat fee to a clearing house and play programmed playlists and/or track owed royalties like a radio station. The third choice is ban covers, which I don't think anybody wants to see happen. I believe this site could continue to survive on an all-original basis. However, I think it could be doing more to provide revenue streams to iComp artists. The partnership with Limelight (and if they linked with Tunecore, too) could strenghten artists business positions. As-is, iComp is a great site to develop your chops and collaborate, but when you hit a certain point of polish in production and quantity of material you have to move off the site to make money and protect your interests (and start taking down your music because it conflicts with your sales efforts). You can't realistically give it away and sell it at the same time, unfortunately. IMHO, there are a thousand artists on iComp (or at least hundreds) who could be making some money from what they instead choose togive away. That's a generous thing; I don't discount the merit of it at all. I just have to wonder with the proper links, development and tools, could iComp be facilitating profits for itself and artists? I also wonder how long it can survive in current format with unlicensed covers being played and downloaded...I dunno...just thinking here (and worrying a bit). I wonder if iComp could survive as a hybrid pay/free site?
	Last edited 2 years ago.
	Latest Song: Who'll Stop the Rain (CCR Cover) mix2 April 29, 2011 | 7:55 pm
Baboon Artist	And Bec has way more experience in the music business (she ran a record label) than I, so I'd defer to her knowledge over mine any day of the week, btw. I just like to talk and posit hypotheticals And Bec has way more experience in the music business (she ran a record label) than I, so I'd defer to her knowledge over mine any day of the week, btw. I just like to talk and posit hypotheticals ;)
	Latest Song: Who'll Stop the Rain (CCR Cover) mix2 April 29, 2011 | 7:57 pm
becwil Moderator	Limelight also licenses samples in the same easy way as covers. Even using someone's music for a soundtrack can be licensed through Limelight. It's all about paying the royalties to the owner and/or creator of said music/sample. Which, in my opinion, isn't about paying lawyers anything! Why in the world does anyone begrudge the rights of folks who work at music? (Edit: Not you, Babs.) I don't get it that many think anyone's music is a free grab bag of goodies to use just because today's technology makes it possible to grab it. (Edit: Especially for sampling.) Babs, I wasn't aware that iCompositions' Terms of Service have changed regarding copyright law since its beginning. ??? [url=http://click.linksynergy.com/fs-bin/click?id=dyXwmjdyPus&offerid=209510&type=3&subid=0]Limelight[/url] also licenses samples in the same easy way as covers. Even using someone's music for a soundtrack can be licensed through Limelight. It's all about paying the royalties to the owner and/or creator of said music/sample. Which, in my opinion, isn't about paying lawyers anything! Why in the world does anyone begrudge the rights of folks who work at music? (Edit: Not you, Babs.) I don't get it that many think anyone's music is a free grab bag of goodies to use just because today's technology makes it possible to grab it. (Edit: Especially for sampling.) Babs, I wasn't aware that iCompositions' Terms of Service have changed regarding copyright law since its beginning. ???
	Latest Song: Phronesis (AET) April 29, 2011 | 8:14 pm
becwil Moderator	Ah, Babs, you posted some of the above while I was writing ... ... yes, copyright seems to be a largely misunderstood subject these days. Sadly. Ah, Babs, you posted some of the above while I was writing ... :) ... yes, copyright seems to be a largely misunderstood subject these days. Sadly.
	Latest Song: Phronesis (AET) April 29, 2011 | 8:18 pm
Baboon Artist	Yeah no...iComp's terms haven't changed. The world has . Particularly the way streaming sites are being handled. The internet radio revolution is "facing the music" in terms of royalty responsibility. The big sharks have eaten the whales, and are going after the porpoise now, lol. I still see huge opportunities for many artists, if they understand how the laws can work in their favor. Covers might even be more valuable than originals, money wise, if the artist hasn't already made a bankable name for himself. Yet, it has to be handled properly. Where it discriminates a bit, is against artists who can't afford upfront seed money for licensing and upload fees. It could run you over a hundred dollars per song to get going..an album full of covers could cost $500 to get moving. Add to that, sites like iTunes don't give timely sales reports or payments. ITunes reports sales and makes payment two months after a sale is made (even though they get the money immediately and earn interest sitting on your money)! That leaves an artist to do impossible guesswork of how many licenses to purchase initially for a cover. Probably better some than none, and expand later after getting a sales report. Yeah no...iComp's terms haven't changed. The world has ;). Particularly the way streaming sites are being handled. The internet radio revolution is "facing the music" in terms of royalty responsibility. The big sharks have eaten the whales, and are going after the porpoise now, lol. I still see huge opportunities for many artists, if they understand how the laws can work in their favor. Covers might even be more valuable than originals, money wise, if the artist hasn't already made a bankable name for himself. Yet, it has to be handled properly. Where it discriminates a bit, is against artists who can't afford upfront seed money for licensing and upload fees. It could run you over a hundred dollars per song to get going..an album full of covers could cost $500 to get moving. Add to that, sites like iTunes don't give timely sales reports or payments. ITunes reports sales and makes payment two months after a sale is made (even though they get the money immediately and earn interest sitting on your money)! That leaves an artist to do impossible guesswork of how many licenses to purchase initially for a cover. Probably better some than none, and expand later after getting a sales report.
	Last edited 2 years ago.
	Latest Song: Who'll Stop the Rain (CCR Cover) mix2 May 1, 2011 | 5:05 pm
becwil Moderator	Yes, covers can be a useful tool for a new artist, especially in today's google-it world. Do a licensed cover of a popular song, post it on one's website (for sale or promo), and folks will find it ... and they may like your version better. They may check out your original tunes, too. Consider the licensing cost as part of one's investment in one's career. Every biz venture requires capital investments. With Limelight it's so dang easy now!!! Yes, covers can be a useful tool for a new artist, especially in today's google-it world. Do a licensed cover of a popular song, post it on one's website (for sale or promo), and folks will find it ... and they may like your version better. They may check out your original tunes, too. Consider the licensing cost as part of one's investment in one's career. Every biz venture requires capital investments. :) With [url=http://click.linksynergy.com/fs-bin/click?id=dyXwmjdyPus&offerid=209510&type=3&subid=0]Limelight[/url] it's so dang easy now!!!
	Latest Song: Phronesis (AET) May 3, 2011 | 4:47 pm
SISTERS Artist	one more piece of information going into my brain - this is USEFUL! 8) one more piece of information going into my brain - this is USEFUL! 8)
	Latest Song: We Got Love October 24, 2012 | 5:29 pm
becwil Moderator	Update: I mentioned that iCompositions has a partnership with Limelight and all the links I had posted to Limelight (above) included the info for Limelight to track folks coming from iCompositions, in order to pay iCompositions its due ... well, that link seems to have stopped working. Please use the link Babs offers or either this one to Limelight. Update: I mentioned that iCompositions has a partnership with Limelight and all the links I had posted to Limelight (above) included the info for Limelight to track folks coming from iCompositions, in order to pay iCompositions its due ... well, that link seems to have stopped working. Please use the link Babs offers or either this one to [url=https://www.songclearance.com][b]Limelight[/b][/url].
	Latest Song: Phronesis (AET) October 24, 2012 | 6:05 pm