Another complication when we discuss music copyright, is that there are so many different uses to which music can be put. Let's consider just a few of those and talk about a recent legal situation that shows how they can get intertwined and complicated. We've already discussed radio broadcast, where the differing rights held by the composer and the performers mean that licensing is necessary for the former, but not for the latter. And, as we have seen, a change in performer's rights in 1995 means that Internet radio services like Spotify or Pandora have to pay performers for a license. But terrestrial radio still does not have to. They only pay the composers for the performance license. Another place where permission from composers is required is live performances. And those performances are licensed through performance rights organizations, and lots of people are familiar with ASCAP, the American Society for Composers and Publishers. [LAUGH] And there are a couple of others. BMI and SESAC are also performance rights organizations. They provide licenses, usually to venues like a college campus or a restaurant for performances of live music, and those licenses license the rights held by composers. We'll talk more about performance licenses, in fact, a lot more about performance licenses, in later lectures. >> Right, and so covers are another area where there are different bundles of rights that come into play. So if I wanna cover a famous song, I wanna record it, I have to get a license from the composer for the rights and the composition, and this license is compulsory. It's unusual in that it has to be granted to me and the terms for the license are set by the Copyright Royalty Board, so the license cannot be denied. >> And this is another license that you get from ASCAP or something like that. >> Right, right. And so I don't need permission from the original performer. That person is not part of that transaction at all. And because the performer does not have performance rights in the recording, the performer can't prevent the licensing of the cover. >> Interesting, finally, the music industry has simply divided up performance licenses in some ways that are not reflected in the law. This is perfectly fine. Rights holders can license the rights that they own in a myriad of ways, but it does increase the complexity. >> I've had several times students say to me, I can't find these licenses in 17 USC anywhere. Well, they're not there. >> They're not there, they're just the ways that the industry has chopped up the way they sell rights, the way they sell licenses. One example is sync rights. A sync license is a type of performance license that comes into play when someone wants to use music as part of a film or a video or a video game. In those cases, ASCAP licenses ordinary performances and covered, as you said, but they do not license sync rights on behalf of composers or music publishers. Instead, there are a number of different agencies. The one I can remember is called CD Baby. Kind of a strange name, but CD Baby represents rights holders, the same rights holders that ASCAP represents for performances, CD Baby may represent for sync licenses. And now I think you have an example to tell us about how these various licenses and rights can intertwine. >> And how even musicians who deal with them all the time can be confused about them, too. >> Yes. >> Yeah, so this is a really interesting case, and a recent case, that involves the difference between a cover and a license for a cover, and a license to make a derivative work. So, Jonathan Coulton is a sort of Indie folk performer/composer. He has a sort of cult following, and he obtained a license to make a cover of the song Baby Got Back. And when he got finished with that song, it sounded really different from the original, totally different. He rewrote the melody and did it in a very different style, with acoustic guitar accompaniment. And it was sort of a minor hit in the world of Jonathan Coulton fans until the producers of Glee heard it. They liked it very much, it fit with the kinds of things they wanted to do on the show. The actors who perform on that TV show performed the song. They also sold a lot of copies of the song, both here and in Europe. And at some point in all of that, Jonathan Coulton noticed. >> As happens. >> As happens, that yes, they had appropriated his song, or what was, in part, his song, at this point. And he tried to start litigation, but he was unsuccessful, because he had gotten a license to make a cover, but he hadn't made a cover, a more or less exact performance of the song. He'd made derivative work. And so he had no standing to litigate against Glee. And he was unsuccessful in the legal arena, but he got his own back on the the Internet by shaming them. >> [LAUGH] But that's a really helpful reminder that a license for a cover is a performance license, not a derivative works license. >> Right, right. >> So, thank you for watching.
