Synchronization LIcense needed if we perform?

earthrisers wrote on 11/13/2006, 9:56 AM
I know that if I want to record my own performance, audio-only, of a copyright song, it's quite straightforward to get a license to do it legally.

I know that if I'm making a video and I want to use somebody else's recorded musical performance in my video, I have to get a Synchronization License -- much more complicated and expensive.

What about the "between" case -- in a video we're working on, we want the soundtrack to include an instrumental-only version of John Lennon's "Imagine." We'd be playing it ourselves, not using someone else's recording. Does this still fall within the scope of needing a Synchronization License, or is it in a simpler category?

Comments

FrigidNDEditing wrote on 11/13/2006, 10:07 AM
I'm pretty sure that all you need then is a mechanical, since you're not even using lyrics. And that would be it I'm not an expert, nor am I a lawyer, but this is my informed opine. Take it for what it's worth (what you paid for it).

Dave
ScottW wrote on 11/13/2006, 11:42 AM
According to BMI, you still need a sync license - it's the musical composition that is copyrighted, so a sync license is needed.

With your first example neededing a sync, if you are using the original recording, you probably need to get a master use license in addition to the sync license.

http://www.bmi.com/licensing/broadcaster/sync.asp
Spot|DSE wrote on 11/13/2006, 12:08 PM
You still need a sync license. If there wasn't a requirement for sync, we'd have a lot of "royalty free" copies of "Imagine" running around. Not to mention lots of other great songs.
Sync
Compulsory
both required regardless of who the performer is, if you're putting it to video.
DavidMcKnight wrote on 11/13/2006, 12:10 PM
From my experience ScottW is right. You need a sync license from the publisher(s) of the song, but you do not need a master use license from the record company owning the Lennon recording.
farss wrote on 11/13/2006, 1:02 PM
To make a audio recording of someone else's material you only need pay mechanical copyright fees. Very simple process. Unless you change the work in some way, an instrumental only version, hm, don't know about that one. Parodies, changing the lyrics does take you outside mechanical copyright.

Syncing to vision is an entirely different matter, you're back to negotiating with the copyright owners.
DavidSinger wrote on 11/13/2006, 1:11 PM
"Syncing to vision is an entirely different matter, you're back to negotiating with the copyright owners."

For the most part, you negotiate with *agents* and their minions.

Precisely why I've taken the time and labor to develop on-going relationships with (a) bands (b) singers (c) writers (d) arrangers and (e) a common sound studio.
john-beale wrote on 11/13/2006, 2:25 PM
You can read more about the compulsory license for music recording (sect. 115 of the Copyright act) here: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ73.pdf

MAY A NEW ARRANGEMENT OF THE COPYRIGHTED
MUSICAL WORK BE MADE FOR THE RECORDING?
Yes. The compulsory license includes the privilege of making
a musical arrangement of the work “to the extent necessary
to conform it to the style or manner of interpretation
of the performance involved.” However, section 115 also
provides that the arrangement “shall not change the basic
melody or fundamental character of the work, and shall not
be subject to protection as a derivative work...except with the
express consent of the copyright owner.”
FrigidNDEditing wrote on 11/16/2006, 8:24 PM
I guess my opinion was not as all that informed :P

Dave