
Poor Lonely Computer: Prince's Misunderstood Relationship with the Internet - legitster
http://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2016/03/08/469627962/poor-lonely-computer-princes-misunderstood-relationship-with-the-internet
======
xigency
> Infamously, Prince managed to take down a YouTube clip of himself performing
> a cover of Radiohead's "Creep" at the Coachella music festival in 2008,
> despite the band's lead singer Thom Yorke making it very clear who the song
> actually belongs to. The law does not provide a great deal of clarity in
> these cases, unfortunately.

I'm not sure I understand what the actual basis of copyright is in a situation
like this.

I believe the videographer would hold a copyright claim to the original video
recording, the artist Prince would claim copyright to his own rendition of the
song and that specific performance, and Radiohead, Thom Yorke, or Radiohead's
record label would collectively hold mechanical and phonorecord copyrights to
the original song according to the song's history and their agreements.

It's trivial for Prince to obtain a compulsory mechanical license to perform a
cover which would have been done prior to performance. It's also true that
Radiohead may have the ability to prevent the video's distribution, depending
on the interpretation of copyright law, and I find it also reasonable that
Prince would have a copyright claim to the performance that he or his record
label could have it removed. I certainly don't think Thom Yorke could
supersede Prince's request to have the recording removed, just because he
wrote or performed the song originally.

There is some information here, but it's still limited in scope:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_license#United_Stat...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_license#United_States_2)

I wouldn't believe what's written on issues of copyright law in offhand
observations.

~~~
toyg
The law seems clear to me, tbh. There is a pipeline: writers -> performers ->
recorders. In absence of specific contracts, all three groups have to agree in
order to _enable_ distribution/reproduction of the final work in its entirety;
if one says no, the whole thing is called off. Writers can still re-sell their
writing, performers can re-perform it and so on, but the original recording
just cannot be released.

(Obviously, in most cases there _are_ actual agreements hammering out various
angles, like recorders or performers actually being configured as "work for
hire" in order to take them out of the copyright pipeline altogether. But
that's another story.)

