Dummocrats.com - Kelly Clarkson Relents, Lets 'Idol' Use Songs

# January 19th, 2006 2:12 PM james

kelly clarkson cannot stop anyone from recording her songs. US copyright law provides that anyone can record any song that's already been recorded, without the consent of the original artist, as long as statutory license fees are paid. this is called a "mechanical license" and is available through harryfox.com.

that's for recording - im not sure how the analysis changes when it's a broadcast performance. i know, for instance, that ascap and bmi ~~collect~~extort performance fees on behalf of publishers.

i'd be interested in learning more, if anyone knows more than i do about this.

# January 19th, 2006 2:35 PM JohnTant

Something about that rings weird to me. If I have written a song and own the rights to it, then record myself singing it, anyone else can perform it provided they pay statutory license fees? Don't I as the song "owner" (for lack of a better term) have a right to basic consent over the use of my intellectual property, let alone the actual amount of license fees?

For what its worth I think the music industry is rife with abuse as far as licensing goes...but it still seems odd to me that I could write/have rights to a song and yet have no say as to whether someone else sings it for money.

# January 19th, 2006 4:08 PM james

i know it sounds odd, but it's true. historically, it plays like this - back in the day, when the phonograph was invented, congress was concerned that a very few people would effectively control all of the popular music, thus obtaining control of the phonograph industy as well. (the thought was that only a couple of dozen people in the world were capable of writing decent songs.)

it also makes sense if you consider why copyrights exist - art 1 sec 8 cl. 8 of the constitution gives congress the power to "promote the progress of science and the useful arts." (as a side note, here "sciences" = writings and "useful arts" = patents. english changing over time and all.) so the theory is that congress is granting you a limited monopoly as an incentive to encourage creation & disclosure of new art and science. (i'm back to the contemporary usage.) as far as songs go, congress has seen fit to grant an author the first publication rights, but has determined that it's in the best interest of society if others can then record the work. ( of course, the author does get royalties.) makes sense when you consider that many great song writers are terrible singers. in fact, many of the biggest hits of all time only became hits when they were performed by second artist under this scheme. "white christmas" by bing crosby springs to mind. (written by irving berlin)

once you've recorded a work, it's open game. see this for a little more.

# January 19th, 2006 4:10 PM james

hey, that site sort of answered one of my questions

"UNDER WHAT CONDITIONS MAY A COMPULSORY LICENSE BE OBTAINED?
It may be obtained only if the primary purpose in making the phonorecords is to distribute them to the public for private use. It is not available for phonorecords intended for use in backg ro und music systems, jukeboxes, broadcasting, or any other public use."

so no compulsory licenses for the tv show. hmm.

# January 20th, 2006 7:17 AM jagorham

Right - and that's a real issue for some old TV shows, and the reason some will probably never see the light of day on DVDs. (The most obvious example would be "WKRP in Cincinnati." By the time Viacom would negotiate out the song rights fees with the copyright holders, it would become unprofitable).