The copyright barrier

I'm curious as to what the usual reason an artist/publisher wouldn't want to license their songs for instruction here would be? To get paid for not doing anything and to get additional exposure seems like a win win for them to me. Especially when we're talking about artists who many have forgotten about. I have certainly discovered artists on here that I hadn't really listened to before.

2nd question - How do these folks on YouTube get away with teaching all of these songs that you aren't able to? I know publishers are aggressive about those copyright strikes but some of the YouTubers don't seem to be as affected by it as others.

Final question - When you get a license for a song, can you usually count on being able to get a license for another song by the same artist? [br][br]

Thanks!

[br]Jason

Originally Posted by: jason.nesbitt

I'm curious as to what the usual reason an artist/publisher wouldn't want to license their songs for instruction here would be? To get paid for not doing anything and to get additional exposure seems like a win win for them to me. Especially when we're talking about artists who many have forgotten about. I have certainly discovered artists on here that I hadn't really listened to before.

2nd question - How do these folks on YouTube get away with teaching all of these songs that you aren't able to? I know publishers are aggressive about those copyright strikes but some of the YouTubers don't seem to be as affected by it as others.

Final question - When you get a license for a song, can you usually count on being able to get a license for another song by the same artist? [br][br]

Thanks!

[br]Jason

Members here have differing, and legitimate takes, on this question. This was my take from industry experience andit too has direct knowledge value. See below, I pasted from another thread:

Licensing songs legally is very, very, very hard. This is what is occuring on this site. Guitar Tricks is entering an agreement with the songs publisher to legally post and teach their content. From that; Guitar Tricks is paying the publisher (ie - the band/song writer) for their work.

You can go to YouTube and get lessons for a band like Led Zeppelin and wonder why some guy can just post up a lesson 'just like that'. They're not paying the band. YouTube does not enforce royalty payments. YouTube's role is to ensure that if a channel posts copywritten material from a published band (ie - Zep), that such YouTube user/channel gets demonitized. The channel does not get paid on that vid. They still get traffic to their channel and then other videos they post they can get paid on because of spillover traffic...as well as other lessons and swag they might be selling.

To be clear though; the band ain't gettin' paid on those videos. Some videos even get taken down. Even if a legit site posts a Led Zep video; it's likely the band is not getting paid. Not cool...unless you're Fender (Play)...then you have the 'muscle' to do it.

Thing is, I had a record label at one time. It was a smaller label but we released about 25 different releases and had some national distribution (ie - Tower and Best Buy). We had a couple of releases that had cover tunes and I had to license all of those songs. It took a very long time, It was hard. I had do the same for a good dozen bands whose songs were being used on a couple of projects.

Some bands/artists don't care as long as they get paid and contract with an intermediary like the Harry Fox Agency to collect and distribute songwiriting royalties. Other bands require more control (like when I had to go to The Metro in Chicago to physically bring a document to Tesla for sign off...I mean they were very cool and hooked me up with special seating etc).

The point being is that even when you see things posted elsewhere, it's not because Guitar Tricks doesn't want to get the song. It's because Guitar Tricks will only post songs legally obtained where, and this is critial, the artist gets paid.

Led Zeppelin are blockers (using this example) and license nothing. It's a legacy of Peter Grant.

Thought I'd add my experience.

who is peter grant?

Originally Posted by: snojones

who is peter grant?

Former manager of LZ.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Grant_(music_manager)

I chiming in with my own experience. But since I'm also an instructor I'm making the disclaimer/cavaet that I'm only speaking from my personal experience. Some of that might relate to what GT goes through, I don't know. But I don't want anyone to mistakenly think I'm speaking for GT.

In the 80s I worked at a radio station that had formal FCC & ASCAP licensing. Since the 90s, through current day, I've worked in studios that publish, record license music. I've also played in the orchestra pit for a lot of Broadway musicals & seen some of the licensing process involved there as well.

I can corroborate everything Jeff said is accurate. It's a very complex process with a lot of people involved, lots of moving parts. And the more money there is on the table, the higher the stakes are, the more people & lawyers are involved, the tighter to the vest the whole process is played by every one involved.

Originally Posted by: jason.nesbittI'm curious as to what the usual reason an artist/publisher wouldn't want to license their songs for instruction here would be?[/quote]

There are quite a few, but most of them come down to money.

Some artists are already represented by certain publishers, management companies, etc. that are in charge of what gets licensed, how it gets licensed & to who, under what terms, etc. Some of these entities have exclusive deals, are getting paid in certain ways, already have contracts that forbid certain other types of deals.

Some of it might simply be a failure to come to terms on the amount of money or license/contract details. And because these are private deals, they are opaque. Meaning it's a contract between 2 parties that you, me, GT, the world at large has no business knowing the details about.

Some artists don't even own their music. They've sold it to a publisher or manager. And if licensing for lessons isn't on the radar of the current owner, then they aren't aware of the potential. Online lessons is still a relatively new business.

Originally Posted by: jason.nesbittTo get paid for not doing anything and to get additional exposure seems like a win win for them to me.[/quote]

But it's not "not doing anything". Any business deal has to be actively managed. And for a lot of popular music there are already a lot of people involved in the process that have a say, get a percentage, or have to legally be involved. Which makes it very difficult, even if everyone in the process is on the same page.

For example, consider, there's a company that wants to license some songs by a band. They are willing to pay for the license & the band wants to earn the money. Sounds easy, right? No so fast. :)

Potential sticking points:

1. Amount of money.

2. Length of contract.

3. Ways the music can be used by the performance company.

4. Disagreements between the band members about any of the above.

5. Disagreements between the band & their managers, publishers about any of the above.

6. Licenses already granted that don't allow the current proposal.

[quote=jason.nesbitt]2nd question - How do these folks on YouTube get away with teaching all of these songs that you aren't able to? I know publishers are aggressive about those copyright strikes but some of the YouTubers don't seem to be as affected by it as others.

I'm guessing that most of the YouTubers doing that aren't making enough money to make it worth the effort of the artist or publishers going after them to make them stop, or retrieve a percentage. Lawyer fees are expensive. :)

Before I worked as an instructor for GT I worked on a project getting permission to do some covers of jazz standards. Getting a license for the *audio* was an easy, almost automatic process.

1. Contact Harry Fox Agency.

2. Select songs.

3. Pay money.

Then I tried to get a license to produce *video* performances of those songs. I quickly found out there is no automatic quick process for that. No standardized system exists. So I contacted a couple of publishers & an entertainment lawyer to find out how to do it.

I learned that *video* is different because the only way it was done up to that point was to sign individual contracts for each song from each publisher granting mechanical reproduction licenses for TV & movies. Which usually meant big money & lots of lawyers.

Now this was all before the widespread use of the internet & YouTube. So I'm sure a lot has changed. In fact I know a few years ago I followed the story of YouTube striking a deal with the big music publishers (Sony, Warner, Universal, etc.) granting some kind of a blanket license & a way of paying the publishers (& the artists as a result) when some YT account uploads copyright protected material. I think a lot of that was due to Apple iTunes & Spotify also changing the business landscape.

But I think most of that was just a practical way of trying to capitalize on the new digital world since they knew it wasn't going away. Might as well make something on it!

So, there may be some new processes & models that will come more well known or into play. But right now, it's still an opaque process of many private parties trying to negotiate what they can, when they can.

[quote=jason.nesbitt]Final question - When you get a license for a song, can you usually count on being able to get a license for another song by the same artist?

No. It depends on the contract details. It also depends on the contract of the songs. Some songs in an artist's catalog might be co-written by other people, or originally signed by different publishing deals. Or owned by different companies. It's complicated. :)

Jeff, Chris -- Thank you so much for taking the time to provide such thorough answers. I especially appreciate you sharing your personal experience. That provides really good insight into the process and why it's so complictated, when on the surface it doesn't appear to be. Makes me wonder how GT is able to get as many licenseses as they do (which I'm very thankful for). I guess all we can do is hope that the industry will catch up with the rest of the internet before long and simply the process. Given the devastation that streaming has wreaked on the industry, I can only imagine how skeptical those involved must be of anything digital.

Don't forget that the record buisness also has a reputation for ripping people off. read...SHARKS IN THE WATER... That has to gum up the works a lot.

Originally Posted by: snojones

Don't forget that the record buisness also has a reputation for ripping people off. read...SHARKS IN THE WATER... That has to gum up the works a lot.

Sharks. Totally true.

I figure if folks are interested in a little more of the 'inside baseball' of the music business, I'd add this: As an artist, you have potential to be paid on two different types of royalties; mechanical and publishing.

Publishing royalties are what we've been talking about in this thread. Publishing royalties are what is paid to the songwriter. Whether you are the performer or a songwriter of a song performed by another, if that song sells as part of a single or album realease, for each sold, you get paid as the songwriter. The going rate is $.08 songs 5 minutes. For songs longer than 5 minutes, it is $.0155 per minute for songs that are over five minutes long (Yes, I did look that up just now..like I could remember all that!).

Publishing royalties are the royalties that actually get paid. So long as you set up your own publishing company as a legal entity (like you see on album credits 'Funky Stink Publishing Inc'). That entity utilizing a Harry Fox Agency to collect, as the writer, you'll get paid.

Then there is mechanical royalties. This is where all the stinky hijinks happen in the music business (at least as far as sales). This is also known as 'performance royalties'. If you perfromed on an album, you may be eligible for a royalty.

May? Yes.

If you were paid as a contracted worker as a flat fee worker, you get paid for that session. That's how session musicians are paid. The more you're called, the more you're in demand and can command.

If you're in the band and the band is generally the performers on the album, they get to make part of the money on the album sales overall (seperate from publishing). How much are you paid? Versus publishing, mechanicals are whatever is negotated between the artist and the label.

Best music business advice I ever heard was in response to the question; what would you say is the best advise for a young musician? Answer? 'Get a good entertainment lawyer'. It's true too.

Mechanicals tend to be measure in 'points'. You'll hear things like a producer asking for '5 points' to produce the release. What's the value of a 'point'? Nobody knows. It's whatever is negotiated. Nothing is set.

After you remove all those expenses like promotion, damaged product shrink, advance money and all manner of other things, you get what's left over.

Or do you?

How many bands have said they got screwed by the business? The answer is 'all of them '. Why is that? The answer is; 'so, sue me'.

Back in the day 'in the industry', I had a few friends that had sold some records. I have a few stories in my pocket but one band (singer) told me the story that they never got paid, ever, from the label for their mechanical royalties. They sold platnum. Lots of records. You'd think that if the label had made $10,000,000 that the band should have pocketed something, right?

After it was all said and done, each member was due about $30,000. Not a bad take even if not exactly getting rich. But none of them got paid.

I was told that the label said to this band; 'if you want to get paid, sue us for it'. It's a finanancial calculation. It's likely that the label could end up costing you more than $30,000 for you to collect. They know that. So you end up walking away with nothing.

This was not a unique story. Thus having a good entertainment lawyer is essential along with not being so excited to sign any major label contract. If you have enforcable mechanisms in the contract in order to get paid, you'd just need a judgement in order to enforce. Not a lawsuit.

If you start selling enough that they need to pay you or you have a string of decent selling albums, you start to get paid as well as the opportunity to renegotiate for better terms. Now the label knows your value as a money maker and you're worth more to keep than lose.

...and so ends story time on the music business. Fun.

Thing is, I had a record label at one time. It was a smaller label but we released about 25 different releases and had some national distribution (ie - Tower and Best Buy). We had a couple of releases that had cover www.mycfavisit.com survey tunes and I had to license all of those songs. It took a very long time, It was hard. I had do the same for a good dozen bands whose songs were being used on a couple of projects

Some bands/artists don't care as long as they get paid and contract with an intermediary like the Harry Fox Agency to collect and distribute songwiriting royalties. Other bands require more control (like when I had to go to The Metro in Chicago to physically bring a document to Tesla for sign off...I mean they were very cool and hooked me up with special seating etc).

Originally Posted by: jason.nesbitt

Jeff, Chris -- Thank you so much for taking the time to provide such thorough answers

Glad it helped!