SS MOVIEMAKERS PLEASE ANSWER MY LICENCE QUESTION

Hawkeye

I was asked to contribute some tunes to a movie. In that conversation the moviemaker and me talked about the problem of using samples. From that we came to coverversions which are sample free but he told me that in the movie sector the lience for a coverversion would cost as much as the original.I cant believe it but what do I know, I'm not making movies.The publishing fee would be the same, but the recording is from a diffrent person so the fee cant be as much as the original recording. He said if he uses Jimmy Castor he has to pay 15 Grands, if he is using a cover of Jimmys tunes he has to pay the same.Can someone explain that to me ???Peace

Grope

sounds reasonable. jimmy castor wrote the song. it's his composition. a cover version is still based on the same copyright.

try to find an internet site about copyright laws. a law school' site would be best. maybe a german uni. the copyright law is pretty easy to understand. you should be able to find very clear examples online.

Grope

i just remembered that a doctor from the university of hamburg contacted me last month. he gave a lecture about copyrights in music and cover versions related business.
i sent him the Malcolm's Lock 45. I can't remember which song it was, but Frank Farian stole the b-side for a Bony M song. maybe you can find some info at www.uni-hamburg.de. they seem to give lessons that are related to copyright in the music business.

ScopeCGN

Hi Falk,

ask Schiff from DCS about that, he works fulltime on music & copyright law and is in one of the most pro player offices in this country (stefan raab, love parade, etc & half of the german hip hop acts you know). he will be able to tell you... www.sws-law.org

Best,

Scoper

Flomotion

Not sure why your man would have to pay as much for originals as for covers, particularly if the covers are by lesser bands - not my experience at all. It may be cheapest to get the songs re-recorded or commission new soundalike tracks.

DocMcCoy

I was asked to contribute some tunes to a movie. In that conversation the moviemaker and me talked about the problem of using samples. From that we came to coverversions which are sample free but he told me that in the movie sector the lience for a coverversion would cost as much as the original.

I cant believe it but what do I know, I'm not making movies.

The publishing fee would be the same, but the recording is from a diffrent person so the fee cant be as much as the original recording.

He said if he uses Jimmy Castor he has to pay 15 Grands, if he is using a cover of Jimmys tunes he has to pay the same.

Can someone explain that to me ???


Peace

On a publishing level, yes. As you say, though, it shouldn't necessarily apply to the master right. Different record companies will have different rates, and the writers of the song wouldn't normally have any say in what the record company charged for a master license unless they owned the master and the record company had simply licensed it from them.

Hawkeye

Thanks for all your suggestions, but 2 things:

1.
The moviemaker is from the US.

Thats why I asked here if anyone ever heard of something like that. German law is diffrent.

2.
My point is exactly the point of DocMcCoys.

The fee for the publishing is always the same. Thats a flat fee that is charged for music in a movie. Ascap or BMI are charging it and thats it.

But the moviemaker was refering to the masterrights. And I cant understand how Jimmy Castor could charge 15 grands for the masterrights of a master that he is not owing.

Thats against all things that I ever heard about the music biz and if its true it would be extremly drastic.

He told me that this is only happening in the movie scene and I'm curoius.


Peace
Hawkeye

Flomotion

First off there's a synch license which allows you to put the copyrighted music into the soundtrack of the film - this will come from the publisher or artist of the original song. If you are using a cover version, then you need the license from the publisher/owner of the original song as well as a licence from the covers band. This is where you can negotiate to save money - often the latter can be got for free (or very little) in exchange for a screen credit, or at any rate for significantly less than the master use licence form the originator.

If you are going to re-edit the film for promos or trailers then that changes use of the music and you need a new license for that. If you are going to sell a CD soundtrack or put our a DVD there is an additional license retail fee for that too. On top of that there are performance fees, although these are normally paid by the broadcaster or the distributor not the filmmaker.

doom

i can let him license some of my masterpieces without samples for reasonable prices.

Hawkeye

Yeah, I asked the moviemaker about his source and he sended me the link to a site where this was written:

A ???Synch??? license, or Synchronization license is required whenever a musical composition is used in connection with a video image, whether in motion picture, television, advertising, etc. A Master Use license is required whenever a specific recording of a particular song is used. Let???s say you want to use ???Summertime??? behind a scene in a film. First you will need to obtain a Synchronization License from the Copyright owner of the composition. If you then decide that the version you want is the Miles Davis recording, then you must obtain a Master Use license from the copyright owner of that recording. If you wish to license a master recording of a song, you will always have to license the composition as well. However, if you decided to hire your own musicians to perform ???Summertime???, then you would only need a Synchronization License since you are not using any pre-existing recording.

I never knew. So this means that Jimmy Castor can charge 15 grands for just his composition. Doesnt matter if I use his version of wahtever.

Thats...... krass





Peace
Hawkeye