How do the original artists get reimbursed for their "covered" songs?

[Lawrenzo]

There have been a few songs that re-emerged after a 20+ year hiatus, but with new bands doing the promoting. I am just curious as to how the original bands get paid for their creation. Is is simply a licensing deal with royalties on the sales of the CDs? If so that seems a little unfair, since a strong cover can sometimes launch the career for a band(example the Uncle Cracker song and the most recent verions of Prince's "Nicky").

Anybody know the scoop on this?

[gthomas]

1) Owner of the song/music
2) band/artist

When a song is played, each get paid. So the band playing the song gets paid, and the owner gets paid also.

[gthomas]

BTW: Whitney Houston tried to buy the song 'I will always love you' from its writer/owner(Dolly Parton), when she refused. So Whitney used it under license. Dolly made over 6million the year 'My Bodyguard' came out from the royalties of the song just on Whitney's version.

[slaughterj]

Pretty much all music is available for license under BMI or ASCAP, for a variety of uses. See for instance http://www.ascap.com/licensing/ to see about ASCAP's licensing and terms.

[SRT Mike]

If I remember correctly, there is a time limit on how long a band "owns" the rights to a song, after which no royalties must be paid.

I think thats why you see these songs being re-used after a long time. There aren't many covers of new songs.

If I remember correctly, Queen was pretty pissed that Vanilla Ice covered their "under pressure" song. I think many artists pay a fee anyways out of respect, but after a given time I dont think they are required to. I thought it was 15 or 17 or 20 years.

EDIT:

Obviously Slaughter knows more than I will ever about this stuff... but for example, if I wanted to use a piece of classical music, I dont have to pay. If I wanted to use a song from the 20's, I don't think I need to either. So there must be some sort of time limit, no?

[mrob]

after a certain length of time the recording company holds the rights to the songs and can do whatever they see fit.

Michael Jackson owns the rights to all of the Beatles songs which is a constant source of income for him.
I have a friend who contacted Kerry Livgren for permission to use Dust in the Wind in his tornado highlights video and was told the band did not own the song the record company did.

[RockStar]

Originally Posted by SRT Mike

If I remember correctly, there is a time limit on how long a band "owns" the rights to a song, after which no royalties must be paid.

I think thats why you see these songs being re-used after a long time. There aren't many covers of new songs.

If I remember correctly, Queen was pretty pissed that Vanilla Ice covered their "under pressure" song. I think many artists pay a fee anyways out of respect, but after a given time I dont think they are required to. I thought it was 15 or 17 or 20 years.

EDIT:

Obviously Slaughter knows more than I will ever about this stuff... but for example, if I wanted to use a piece of classical music, I dont have to pay. If I wanted to use a song from the 20's, I don't think I need to either. So there must be some sort of time limit, no?

Once a band no longer has the rights to its own songs, they become available for sale to the general public. If you know how and have the money, anyone can buy the rights to a song and hold on to them indefinately. The biggest example of this is the Michael jackson/Paul McCartney fued. Paul and MJ used to be good friends. MJ once asked Paul what he should be doing with his money and paul told him about buying the songs. That same day or early the next day MJ bought the rights to all the original Beatles songs and they have never been friends since.

The Vanilla Ice story went to court. Vanilla defended himself succesfully because he added one note to the original rythm and claimed it was not the same as the Queen song.

[slaughterj]

Originally Posted by SRT Mike

If I remember correctly, there is a time limit on how long a band "owns" the rights to a song, after which no royalties must be paid.

I think thats why you see these songs being re-used after a long time. There aren't many covers of new songs.

If I remember correctly, Queen was pretty pissed that Vanilla Ice covered their "under pressure" song. I think many artists pay a fee anyways out of respect, but after a given time I dont think they are required to. I thought it was 15 or 17 or 20 years.

EDIT:

Obviously Slaughter knows more than I will ever about this stuff... but for example, if I wanted to use a piece of classical music, I dont have to pay. If I wanted to use a song from the 20's, I don't think I need to either. So there must be some sort of time limit, no?

I'm guessing you are referring to the time limits after which copyrights expire. Disney had them extended a while back so it wouldn't lose its rights over the very oldest Mickey Mouse materials. Here's a bit of info from the Copyright Office website regarding time limits:

"The term of copyright for a particular work depends on several factors, including whether it has been published, and, if so, the date of first publication. As a general rule, for works created after Jan. 1, 1978, copyright protection lasts for the life of the author plus an additional 70 years. For an anonymous work, a pseudonymous work, or a work made for hire, the copyright endures for a term of 95 years from the year of its first publication or a term of 120 years from the year of its creation, whichever expires first."

Basically everything currently recorded (music, video) is covered by copyright still. Note, you may ask, what about classical music, e.g., Mozart. Well, the underlying music is not protected by copyright, but the particular recorded performance is, and since virtually all recorded performances fall within the dates above, they are still protected - the difference is, for the old classical works, you can perform them without legal issue, but you can't use someone else's performance.