Heartland

Sure, if you fancy paying stupidly large sums of money for a "community" project.

Nothing's certain either way.

I say don't phone em, if they don't know then they can't do anything

Figured I could do worse than research how the NewOrderOnline folks did it. There was a bit of talk at the beginning of their first Community project, but no definitive conclusion.

One interesting snippet is that you cannot be denied the Mechanical Copyright license by law. Whether this is fact or one person's opinion/interpretation is up for grabs though.

I've also gone rooting around various music publisher sites, registered myself as a licensee with BMG (y'never know...) and fired an email off to the MCPS (copy below):

Hi,

Myself and a group of others are planning to record a tribute CD for one of our favourite bands. This will be a privately distributed limited edition (the number of copies is not yet finalised) and any charges will solely cover production costs (i.e. non-profit).

As we are keen to keep everything as legal and above-board as possible, we are interested in learning what the position is with regard to mechanical licensing for such a project.

Thanks,

Now I know why bands have lawyers and managers...

Without wanting to spoil the enthusisam, how high are the chances that Eldritch or Pearson are saying yes to a release of their songs by you guys? Below par I'd guess.

Why not leave out the "charges"- part as it implies that there is actually money to be made (even if it's just to cover the costs). Why not let it run under "demo-tape" without official release. No need to ask anybody for permission there.

If it turns out to be good you can still decide to release it and go through the copyright hassle when it's time. In this early stage it just kills creativity to think about the legal stuff.

canon docre wrote:Why not leave out the "charges"- part as it implies that there is actually money to be made (even if it's just to cover the costs). Why not let it run under "demo-tape" without official release. No need to ask anybody for permission there.

Can you do that? Sounds interesting, do tell me more.

mh wrote:

canon docre wrote:Why not leave out the "charges"- part as it implies that there is actually money to be made (even if it's just to cover the costs). Why not let it run under "demo-tape" without official release. No need to ask anybody for permission there.

Can you do that? Sounds interesting, do tell me more.

Well, everyone can homerecord whatever they please without asking for permission. Legally, what you do with the Sisters songs is covering them (as long as you dont change the notes, then it's a remix, a totally differnet matter.) Even if they're yet unreleased, you do a coverversion.
As long as you dont press them in large quantities for selling them, no one cares.

canon docre wrote:

mh wrote:

canon docre wrote:Why not leave out the "charges"- part as it implies that there is actually money to be made (even if it's just to cover the costs). Why not let it run under "demo-tape" without official release. No need to ask anybody for permission there.

Can you do that? Sounds interesting, do tell me more.

Well, everyone can homerecord whatever they please without asking for permission. Legally, what you do with the Sisters songs is covering them (as long as you dont change the notes, then it's a remix, a totally differnet matter.) Even if they're yet unreleased, you do a coverversion.
As long as you dont press them in large quantities for selling them, no one cares.

OK people, we have a solution.

the cover still belongs to:

or I'll stab someone, OK?

ah ken how tae deal wi you music biz types

mh wrote:


OK people, we have a solution.

Yup, we rename the whole thing to "Canon Docre Walks On Water" and the problem is solved!

IZ.

canon docre wrote: (as long as you dont change the notes, then it's a remix, a totally differnet matter.)

What about accidental changes?

James Blast wrote:the cover still belongs to:

or I'll stab someone, OK?

ah ken how tae deal wi you music biz types

Naturally.

James Blast wrote:the cover still belongs to:

or I'll stab someone, OK?

ah ken how tae deal wi you music biz types

It's always the same, the Graphic Department is ready and pushy while the recording artists are still contemplating on the running order.

and I spent time on this Jess



I feel well stabbed

Hey, it rhymes!

We have a new name.

Canon Docre Walks On Mirrors... it was my Beavis & Butthead side who said it... I take my coat now...

canon docre wrote:As long as you dont press them in large quantities for selling them, no one cares.

so we're good to go?

James Blast wrote:and I spent time on this Jess



I feel well stabbed

What's the picture behind it?

canon docre wrote:as long as you dont change the notes, then it's a remix

Sorry, but that makes no sense to me whatsoever.

A remix is an alternative mix of a song, using parts (or all) of the original recording. A cover contains none of the original recording.

A cover with notes that have been changed somewhat is still a cover, surely? Every Sisters cover compilation has contained songs that sound immensely different to the original, but they're certainly not remixes.

robertzombie wrote:What's the picture behind it?

Kirkstall Abbey. Clicky

Nice cover James

markfiend wrote:

robertzombie wrote:What's the picture behind it?

Kirkstall Abbey. Clicky

Nice cover James

Thought it was Good work indeed

Dark wrote:

canon docre wrote:as long as you dont change the notes, then it's a remix

Sorry, but that makes no sense to me whatsoever.

A remix is an alternative mix of a song, using parts (or all) of the original recording. A cover contains none of the original recording.

A cover with notes that have been changed somewhat is still a cover, surely? Every Sisters cover compilation has contained songs that sound immensely different to the original, but they're certainly not remixes.

markfiend wrote:

robertzombie wrote:What's the picture behind it?

Kirkstall Abbey. Clicky

Nice cover James

Bastard! I wanted the is it/isn't it Detroit argument to rage on for a bit

I knew I made it too visible in this edition

James Blast wrote:

markfiend wrote:

robertzombie wrote:What's the picture behind it?

Kirkstall Abbey. Clicky

Nice cover James

Bastard! I wanted the is it/isn't it Detroit argument to rage on for a bit

I knew I made it too visible in this edition

Well, at first I thought it was the church from Damage Done, so there you go

Obviousman wrote:

James Blast wrote:

markfiend wrote: Kirkstall Abbey. Clicky

Nice cover James

Bastard! I wanted the is it/isn't it Detroit argument to rage on for a bit

I knew I made it too visible in this edition

Well, at first I thought it was the church from Damage Done, so there you go

i thought that too