The Sisters of Mercy Forum
This has always made me wonder© 1997.
Lyrics reproduced by kind permission of EMI Music Publishing Ltd. All rights reserved. Not yet released on record.
So what is the purpose of such publishing deals then?stufarq wrote:Publishing deals are separate from recording deals. The songs are published by EMI's publishing division, which is separate from their records division.
stufarq wrote: Shouldn't really have any effect on future releases. They still won't get released no matter who publishes them.
They would get a cash advance on presumed future sales and gives the publishers the right to offer the tracks to someone else to record.Being645 wrote:So what is the purpose of such publishing deals then?stufarq wrote:Publishing deals are separate from recording deals. The songs are published by EMI's publishing division, which is separate from their records division.
So anyone could buy them and record whatever songs under whatever label with these lyrics ... aha.moses wrote: They would get a cash advance on presumed future sales and gives the publishers the right to offer the tracks to someone else to record.
Being645 wrote:That's new to me, and I used to work at a record company so I should knowmoses wrote: So anyone could buy them and record whatever songs under whatever label with these lyrics ... aha.I can't explain too well what the function of a publisher is (very tired right now). But there's the record company, the publisher, and the distributor. We were working with different publishers, so that a rock band would be with a rock publisher and not one reknowned for their minimal house
Now this is too technical and in no way I can explain it in English tonight - @ Being: Der Verlag überwacht die tatsächlichen Verkäufe, also was letztlich an Chart Control gemeldet wird, wertet die GEMA-Bögen von DJs und Radiostationen aus, und leitet das an die Plattenfirma weiter, damit die dann aufgrund der Daten die Abrechnungen für die Künstler machen können. Anfragen ob ein Song gecovert werden darf, auf einen Sampler darf, usw., leitet der Verlag an die Künstler weiter. Usw. etc.
Sorry my English is deteriorating after a long day
...
...Sita wrote:It's almost correct though. If you want to record a cover of a song then you would contact the publisher.Being645 wrote:That's new to me, and I used to work at a record company so I should knowmoses wrote: So anyone could buy them and record whatever songs under whatever label with these lyrics ... aha.
Publishers also promote the songs for use in TV shows etc. Obviously the record company actually owns those recordings and has final say but it can be an important source of revenue.
And they collect royalties on behalf of the songwriters.
These links might be of interest:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictiona ... Publishing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_publ ... lar_music)
... 
... ...You're welcome.Being645 wrote:Thanks for these links, stufarq ...
Your quotation looks a bit inferior, though ...
(I've never worked with a record company, otherwise be sure I needed not ask such questions ...)
stufarq wrote:I gather the control the artist has differs depending on the contract.Sita wrote:It's almost correct though. If you want to record a cover of a song then you would contact the publisher.Being645 wrote: That's new to me, and I used to work at a record company so I should know
Publishers also promote the songs for use in TV shows etc. Obviously the record company actually owns those recordings and has final say but it can be an important source of revenue.
And they collect royalties on behalf of the songwriters.
These links might be of interest:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictiona ... Publishing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_publ ... lar_music)
Michael Jackson licensed a Beatles track for use in an advert as he owned the publishing rights. The surviving Beatles were less than impressed. I think the Stones have had issues here too with their early songs.
More recently a UK company wanted to use a version of Sweet Child O' Mine in a TV advert. Permissions for that had to come from Mr Rose, and it took forever!
Flagg
stufarq wrote:You're welcome.Being645 wrote:Thanks for these links, stufarq ...
Your quotation looks a bit inferior, though ...
(I've never worked with a record company, otherwise be sure I needed not ask such questions ...)
Not sure what went wrong with the quote. Must have deleted an important character somewhere by accident.
... as you can see above it's lives on, like in this children's game ...The Beatles case is complicated (and covered in that Wiki link I posted) but basically publishing contracts involve ascribing some of the copyright to the publishing company. When the Beatles lost their majority share in Northern Songs due to their partner in the company selling his stock, Lennon & McCartney decided to sell their shares too, although they kept their songwriters' royalties. Michael Jackson ended up buying the shares at auction many years later as far as I remember.Randall Flagg wrote:I gather the control the artist has differs depending on the contract.
Michael Jackson licensed a Beatles track for use in an advert as he owned the publishing rights. The surviving Beatles were less than impressed. I think the Stones have had issues here too with their early songs.
More recently a UK company wanted to use a version of Sweet Child O' Mine in a TV advert. Permissions for that had to come from Mr Rose, and it took forever!
Flagg
ATV publishing. It's all here.Randall Flagg wrote:I gather the control the artist has differs depending on the contract.
Michael Jackson licensed a Beatles track for use in an advert as he owned the publishing rights. The surviving Beatles were less than impressed. I think the Stones have had issues here too with their early songs.
More recently a UK company wanted to use a version of Sweet Child O' Mine in a TV advert. Permissions for that had to come from Mr Rose, and it took forever!
Flagg
I guess you can say, the legal effect is that the songs are protected.