Who has the copyrights?

Comfis

Due to the recent quarrel between Radiohead - Prince i have a general question.

In such a case, that an artist covers another artist's song in his live show, does he have the copyrights for his performance? Can he remove every video of this cover song from youtube? what is your opinion?

is there a specific law about copyrights, for these cases?

Trailer

well there's no way that Prince has the copyrights to Radiohead's music.
I don't think it has to do with copyrights at all, but rather Prince just doesn't want his live performances on youtube.

DeLukin

I think Prince in general is just being an a-hole by removing any live performances from youtube (I've read that he also got rid of an official fan message board because he didn't like what people were saying about him). It's his performance, and he can remove it if he wants. Radiohead's response to the whole thing was funny, but they couldn't force him to put it back up even if they wanted to.

Brain Of E

Well there is a law or copyright code or whatever you want to call it that allows any artist to cover any song during a live performance. The thing is that the venue pays dues to ASCAP and the other publishing companies that handle any royalty payments to artists who's songs are covered. The same rule applies to any place where music is played. For example, when you go to a grocery store and they're playing music, that store pays dues to the publishers so they can be allowed to play it. Now in the Prince case, Prince has the right to block his performances from youtube regarless of who's song he's covering because he owns the right to his own image/performaces. But if Prince does post that performance, he has to pay Radiohead because they have the right to block it from youtube if they choose to because it's their song. Now although the venue already paid royalties to Radiohead, that doesn't mean that the song can be posted on youtube because the publishing dues only cover the actual performance that night and not any distribution rights (youtube).

JOEJOEJOE

Brain Of E wrote:

Well there is a law or copyright code or whatever you want to call it that allows any artist to cover any song during a live performance. The thing is that the venue pays dues to ASCAP and the other publishing companies that handle any royalty payments to artists who's songs are covered. The same rule applies to any place where music is played. For example, when you go to a grocery store and they're playing music, that store pays dues to the publishers so they can be allowed to play it. Now in the Prince case, Prince has the right to block his performances from youtube regarless of who's song he's covering because he owns the right to his own image/performaces. But if Prince does post that performance, he has to pay Radiohead because they have the right to block it from youtube if they choose to because it's their song. Now although the venue already paid royalties to Radiohead, that doesn't mean that the song can be posted on youtube because the publishing dues only cover the actual performance that night and not any distribution rights (youtube).

Very well put!

elmer

Prince just wants to exert quality control over his work and not to have shabby performances or footage for all to see. Though considering all the shit he's released over the last decade I guess it has more to do with being stubborn than anything else.

PearlJamaholic

if its fan taped doesnt the taper actually own 'that' recording? i remember reading something about the rights of tapers once. so if a fan taped it wouldnt radiohead be the only ones that would have a say?

markymark550

In this case, it's a matter of authorized vs. unauthorized distribution. If Prince (or whoever makes the decisions) determines posting clips of his concerts on the Internet to be unauthorized distribution of his performances, the clip has to be taken down if he chooses go that route.