Take action today and join Band Builder Academy monthly or annually. We're educating musicians, managers, and record labels to win influencer support and get official playlists on Spotify and Apple.
Learn more about Academy access here: bandbuilderacademy.com
Taught by Todd McCarty - former Senior VP of Sales at Sony Music (USA) and long time label manager of indie powerhouse Fearless Records.
Sample our content here on RU-vid, and hit that SUBSCRIBE button!
- Band Builder Academy offers the convenience of having direct access to Todd and monthly access to a complete library of courses covering streaming, promotion, influencers, and income. - No-nonsense easy to use guided roadmap. Not just theory. Detailed step-by-step workflow. - Active and supportive community (members only), one-on-one coaching support, and algorithm tool.
Want to work directly with me (one-on-one) fill out this form - found.ee/WorkWithUs
Good video, very clear and concise, I've shy'd away from covers, but published dozens of original songs, there are some covers I would like to do, so very useful
@@BandBuilderAcademy thanks, I do playing live, and have a covers band project for Pubs etc, question? what about changing the lyrics to songs or even parodies, I did a version of the thrill is gone, to the "the squirrels gone" on RU-vid a while ago for a bit of fun?
@@makinganoise6028 you can publish videos on your RU-vid channel that have different lyrics or parodies, but you can't monetize them. The copyright owners will put a claim on them (through RU-vid Content ID), and they get all the money. I would turn off RU-vid channel monetization on these types of songs/videos. Changing the lyrics makes it a "derivative work", not a cover song. So you lose the benefits of a "cover" and ability to get a "compulsory" mechanical license. It's the same with a parody. You can still release those videos on your RU-vid channel (without monetizing them), but don't try to put derivative works or parodies on streaming services like Spotify/Apple/Amazon etc.
Quick question: if I wanted to release a cover ONLY to spotify and/or apple music (no digital sales/downloads like on itunes or amazon music) would I still need to obtain any additional license? Or does spotify/apple music built in license cover me legally
Good question @Lockbox_music You can actually do what you're saying. If you omit the MP3 deliveries on your distribution setup so it's pure streaming only, you can deliver to the streaming sites without a digital downloads mechanical license. Apple Music and Spotify (the streaming services) are responsible for paying the streaming mechanicals to mechanical rights collection agencies. Some digital distributors (like Distrokid) will NOT allow this. Some may still require a mechanical license. But depending on your digital distributor, you may be able to do what you are asking. The distributors are weary of liability so they may want to play it safe and have you get a license. It's their call.
Thanks so much for your excellent video, time & energy! I have a question, and I'm sorry if it's a bit of a repeat, but it's very important to me not to break the rules and get my channel into hot water. So, to clarify for my piece of mind, the dividing line in doing "cover songs" for the most part seems to be whether a content creator chooses to monetize his cover song or not, right? So assuming I do a cover song, say a video of me performing that song with all the instruments played by me with a drum track created by me, also mixed & mastered by me. As long as I don't try to monetize it, I am relatively safe from my channel getting into hot water with RU-vid, the original artist or publisher? I also get from your video that it must be unchanged in its structure (lyrics & music) from the original work. So my question is, I will have subtle nuances that will be me, in my voice (harmonies) and instrumentation but diligently observing the structure of the original song will I be reasonably safe from issues with RU-vid, the song writer or the publisher as long as I don't monetize that song? Thanks so much for your information, time & great video
Not monetizing your song/video makes it a lot less likely that a publisher chooses to have your video removed from RU-vid. But it's not the "dividing line" or primary rationale a publisher would make. They could have it removed just because they don't like it and don't want it available for consumption. Some songwriters/artists/publishers simply don't like people covering their works. Others don't care at all, and embrace it. Many reading this are looking for some concrete rule where they are "bulletproof" from copyright infringement. It doesn't exist. It's not your property, so there is never a situation where you get to argue that you didn't infringe on their copyright. That is their case to argue. RU-vid will side with IP owner. There is risk, and you'll have to take the risk if you want to publish videos to RU-vid that utilize music copyrights.
Bro. Thanks for tips on promo. I’m struggling big time to get exposure, mind u I’ve only been at it for a few months. Plus I think my genre is a little bit Niche, what do u think? Electro-swing Please check out my Chug-a-lug remake of Roger miller 1950s hit. Maybe I just went too far back 😁 U can find it on my channel and Spotify etc. I think the best way to market niche genres is via community yeh?
Hey I have a question, I previously released lofi songs but have now started releasing indie mixing. But my radio still considers my music lofi, will that change with time? Or should I delete my lofi songs? Thanks for your help!
In your case I don't think it's a big leap from your lofi jazzy stuff to the indie song like Pick Up The Phone.. It's still a similar vibe to where fans of both styles would like it. So keep your old songs.. Just promote your new stuff hard, and eventually over time Spotify's algorithm will figure it out. It can multi-task. But in cases where the vibes are way different, that can be hard to overcome. But that's not the case for you.
Yes, it all changes. If it's declared a "derivative work" by the publisher, they can reject a "compulsory mechanical license" and you will be required to license directly with the publishers and rightsholders. Each one of them can name their terms. Derivative works fall into a different (more gray) area of the copyright laws, and is more of an "infringement". If you submit your song for mechanical licensing as a cover, and is rejected becasue it's a "derivative work" your only course of action is to shelve your recording, or higher an attorney to negotiate with the rightsholders.
Wow! I wish I would have seen this a year ago! EXCELLENT post! I have quite a few Christmas songs accumulated over the years. They are performed mainly by "ghost singers". All are decently produced and range in different genres. Question: Does the method you describe above work with writer/producers? Or, does a release have to be artist-centric?
Thanks @jmack84 In terms of music distribution on Spotify, Apple, RU-vid, etc., the method I described would pertain to releasing a master audio recording through distribution. So you if you wanted to do this for yourself, you would need to be the master sound recording owner and probably become an Artist (Performer). If you don't own the master and don't want to be an Artist, and some other artist is using your composition, then you can pass this on to them or whoever is releasing their recordings to music services. If you are talking about sync, then you have just as much to gain as the master owner. So you are incentivized to work equally as hard at pitching for sync as the master owner.
Thank you for this information. My music group did a live medley of mainly public domain songs and two other copyrighted songs… it’s been difficult getting the stores to accept it through Distrokid… though I acknowledged that we’re not the original writer. How do we get overcome such hurdle so that medleys can get to the stores..?
Maybe my releases don't have enough plays or adds to playlists, but when I go to Spotify for Artists and select the Music tab, I don't see anything listed there. Algorithmic, Editorial, and Listener are all blank. Is there a step before this I should try out?
I've been thinking about removing this video. It's 2 years old. Most of the information is still relevant... but as of November of 2023, Playlist Promotion has officially died. Specifically the source of streams called "Other Listeners Playlists"... not to be confused with "Listeners Own Playlists". What I'm saying is you don't want to get on playlists that are "programmed" by influencers, DJs, etc. Too many people abused that method, so Spotify turned the switch off. I'm going to redo this video soon... but meanwhile... I'm putting this question out to the community here in the comments.... Do you want me to remove this video? The first 5 minutes is all relevant information. But after that, you really don't need to be doing much outreach. You can have some very trusted influencers put you on their playlists if you think its an exact perfect audience to get you in front of. There is some discovery value in those. But outside of those perfect fit ones... stop trying to ask "curators" to get on their playlist. On the other hand, it is a GREAT idea to ask your fans (on social and email) to add you to the personal playlist. "Listener's Own Playlist" is a great playlist strategy, and that will drive the various algorithm features on Spotify. Todd
If it's RU-vid only you may do that. In these cases Content ID will take care of everything. Most of the time you won't have any problem. But if the publisher wants to take it down because they don't like it, that is their decision and you can't do anything about it. You are using their master recording, and they own and control 100% of the rights to it. If they tell RU-vid to take it down, that is their right. It's only your privilege to use it on RU-vid and let the RU-vid Content ID system do its normal function (moderating between you and the rights owner).
U say check the database but what is it where do I find it? I'd love to do this I'm simply an older woman who sings and plays piano and I do have a lot of old favorites, I'd have to check if they're produced or is it written over 100 years ago but that should be easy. Then I record somehow I guess not on my phone. Is that right?
Damn. 25k minimum monthlies. Hard for newer and smaller bands to hit that. I think our lifetime listener on Spotify is around 5000 people. I guess this is why people were gaming the system with bots to jumpstart their profiles
I think Spotify has lowered it now. I've had several clients get it with 10,000 monthly listeners. It's more about how many algorithm streams you're getting than streams. So 5,000 algorithm streams in one month may be enough to trigger eligibility. You're correct that by keeping that threshold high, they were just sending the message to new artists to "game the system" just to become eligible for Discovery Mode. Not good. So I think they have recently realized their error and now artists are getting it sooner - once they have good monthly activity in "radio" and "autoplay" algorithms.
Spotify's Discovery Mode takes a bigger percentage of the artist's royalties in exchange for extra promotion. This is, by definition, payola. The income from the streams goes back to the major labels who own 20% of Spotify. Spotify controls the market, decides who gets promoted, and their influence and tech are all used to drive down the royalties that are paid to the artists. Ultimately, the existence of Spotify's business model reduces the actual value of music and the people who make it to nothing. Spotify is a cartel and Daniel Ek should be seen as an enemy of all musicians.
Lately I’ve been noticing my results not being as grand. I think opting in less songs will help. I usually do everything that’s available, but next month I’ll see how just choosing my 5 best will do! Thank you so much for the information 🙏🏾
😅 There may have been a change of heart in the "best 5" versus "all"... The newest insight is that there is plenty of "autoplay" and "radio" inventory... so they can take more of your deep catalog. But the main thing is "stream lift". If you have higher than a 65% lift in streams, then it makes sense "royalty wise". See how it goes with your best 5, and maybe it moves the needle. If not, go back to how it was. The reach has a lot to do with how many active listeners you have. So the limits of exposure are different for each artist.
I'm not sure how Content ID (RU-vid) will handle this. A cover song is something you record in the studio with your own recording. What you are talking about is using the master recordings of the original, (more like karaoke), that is NOT a "cover song". The publisher (composition owner) will most likely just put a "claim" on it so the publishing money is passed through to them. The owner of the master sound recording will have options, and I'm not sure which specific options (in this case). There may be a slight chance that they would put a copyright "strike" on it and remove it. They may not want somebody else's vocals over top their master sound recording. And that is their right and decision to make. You bear all the risk in this situation.
@@BandBuilderAcademy last question. I have someone that can do the background instruments of a song. If I use that and my vocals can I upload that to RU-vid? I'm not trying to make money I want feedback.
This video is great. Can you explain different terms used in this video, such as parody, medley, remix, and derivative works, against cover songs for beginners like us. Can we use a karoke track and sing and upload on RU-vid (not for monetary purposes)? Is that considered a cover song?
If you are not trying to make money, you can put any music on RU-vid and Content ID will ensure the publisher is given the opportunity to monetize it or take it down (if they wish). I'm not going to redo the video with terms/definitions at this point. Next (This is only relevant if you are trying to make money) - but if you record the instrumentals for a song on your own without vocals, this is called a karaoke track, and has to be licensed to be commercially released. That is totally different than a cover song. Karaoke licenses are custom license directly with a publisher (and they are not compulsory like a cover song is). If you sing over top of a "karaoke track", that is also not a cover, that is more like an un-licensed remix because you are using somebody else's master recording. You would need to license the master recording from the master owner - which is a different party than the publisher or songwriter. You would need a separate license from the owner of the composition (publisher and songwriters). But most of you reading this comment are not trying to make money this way (you just don't want to break the law). But RU-vid has Content ID in place for this very reason. So don't make money, just post your video and let Content ID (RU-vid) do the job it was designed to do.
@@BandBuilderAcademy Thank you very much for your clear explanation. We have an original song in the channel where we are planning to post cover songs. Fingers crossed hopefully no license strikes. Thank you again. Wish you all the best for your future contents.
Some publishers not only take your video down but will issue a strike even if you don’t care about being paid. Stay away from Don Henley, Bryan Adams, Led Zeppelin, The Cars.
Thanks for the tip on these. I have heard about some individual artists (or their publishers) being more strict than others. The strike is a bit much in my opinion, and I don't know what basis they are using to justify it with RU-vid.
It's not a cover song... Foreign language versions of songs fall into the "derivative works" category in terms of licensing. It's very difficult because you need the permission (a license) from all rightsholders of the composition. Difficult to do. You can try Harry Fox Songfile, or Easy Song Licensing. Inquire whether the particular song's publisher offers a "foreign language version" license. Some publishers do have that, just like they have licenses for "karaoke". But it's case by case. And getting the publishers to even consider a special license, is difficult and expensive. They don't want to do the license work for less than thousands of dollars.
My very recent experience: yesterday I uploaded my arrangement and performance of King Crimson's "Epitaph". My channel is not monetized. RU-vid analyzed it and put a copyright clsim on it, as you said they would. But since RU-vid also prevents the video from appearing on my channel or in anybody's search results, nobody knows about it unless I send them the link. How does this help anybody? The video got 5 views, which ain't gonna make anybody rich from ad revenue AND the performance doesn't help me in any way I can see. For small time artists I don't think it makes any sense at all to do covers. What a mess.
Hey @tyrannnocaster can you elaborate on this? "But since RU-vid also prevents the video from appearing on my channel or in anybody's search results" Never heard of that before. You might inquire with RU-vid because that's not what should be happening.
@@BandBuilderAcademy Well, that's what RU-vid told me, and the video is on my channel, but it shows as "unlisted". I am able to send the link to people (that's how it got its few views) directly. I don't even bother trying to contact RU-vid/Google; if Rick Beato has trouble, what luck am I going to have? But you know what, I'm going to post the link in a sub-comment to this comment, just to see what happens; that way, if they delete the comment, this one should still stay here. I'm curious to see what happens.
@@Tyrannocaster OK, thanks for that explanation. When you mentioned this happening to Rick Beato, that made me think that this is not RU-vid causing it. With the Content ID system, it gives control and decision making privileges to the copyright owner. So it could be the case that one of the publishers of the song decided to choose the option that allows you to have the video "on RU-vid" but linked only. I didn't know they did this, but perhaps its one of the many options the publishers have to choose from. So how publishers respond to each new video you release can be different.
As an instrumental artist I enjoy releasing albums more because I have a big imagination when it comes to coming up with concepts and love the idea of storytelling. I am an album type of artist.
Dude I wish I would’ve known this 9 months ago 😂😂 but hey, I have the results to easily know my top 4 songs based on data and there’s 5 hours left to update my campaign for this coming month… LETS MAKE THIS HAPPEN!! CAN ONLY MOVE FORWARD! Thank you!!!
No problem. And since the video was published 6 months ago, there is a change.. I think as long as your songs are getting more than a 65% "stream lift" you should put it into the program. So Yes, if it means putting all your songs in, do it. Unless there is a situation where you don't want a particular song in there for some reason. Use the program while it lasts. Also, I found out that Discovery Mode submissions of tracks goes by URI... so if you have multiple releases of a song (single, EP, Album) make sure to submit all URI's of a particular song. Todd
@@PSPOD I think it didn't change, it's just that there is more inventory than I realized. There is more room for more of your songs. putting more songs in the program, doesn't guarantee you will get more streams, but you will have more chances to re-surface an older song. So it's worth trying deeper catalog, rather than just your top 5 performers. As long as the songs are getting more than a 65% lift, you might as well put it in. You will get more streams than before, and if you're over that 65% lift you will earn more money.
@@toddmccarty5355 Gotcha, I wonder how much catalog's past data affects the number of streams. I have a song on an editorial and another with a higher popularity score, but the program prioritizes an older song rather than the one's doing well organically. Have you seen any correlation between song age and stream lift?
I am currently running a 2-song campaign, which is going well, and was considering throwing the full catalogue (34 total songs) in for next month to see how they perform against each other before cherry picking. I take it you'd recommend keeping the stronger performer of these two and putting in 1-4 others alongside it rather than dumping in the full catalogue? I feel either way would give an accurate read on which songs raise their hands, just maybe not at as high of a return rate in the initial month.
There is something I found in subsequent research and hearing from artists with larger catalogs 30-100 songs or more. If you have a bigger catalog Discovery Mode can handle more volume. So try the strategy you mentioned above. Another consideration I’m learning about (and sharing) is the Stream Lift Rate. If that ever falls below 65%, it’s time to remove that song from the program ( because it risks not being profitable any more) Todd
@@toddmccarty5355 perfect. super helpful. Also just curious since we are in our first month... what should I expect the metrics to look like on a track that carries over into its second month? I would expect it would not see the amount of lift it saw from the 28 days of NOT being in the program to its initial month of being in the program, so how do you evaluate that? Or should we expect continual growth?
Thank YOU Well thought out and presented New Album out and will use strategy in future. ? Is there a rational of releasing a finished album, but staggering the release dates over 8-12 mos ie best first... that would have the effect of singles to EPs to albums more succinctly packaged vs multiple singles then EPs prior to release all as an full album ? Or do the algorithms work best in the staggered approach... When bored ck out Rock Star Requiem Kenn Hariis Again TY very good and appreciated concepts... Kenn
@kennharris997 The strategy can work for an album the same way it could an EP. For new/developing artists - it's OK to spread a 12 song album over 8 or 9 months. If you're established and have hundreds/thousands of fans, waiting 12 months for an album can be excruciating. I don't recommend releasing an entire album 1 song at a time. Leave some songs as surprises on album release day. Give the fans who waited, the payoff of 3 or 4 unreleased tracks the day the album releases.
The video would be short... Don't do them (derivative works). Or at least don't release them commercially. Unless you have a major publisher or label behind you, you won't be able to clear a derivative work unless you are prepared to drop $10,000.
@@ImWalkingWithScissors no problem. Good luck to you. It's not an easy number to hit. I'm seeing artists get accepted at the 10k to 12k monthly listeners, but a good portion of those listeners have to be hearing it through organic methods (algorithm play in Spotify radio or autoplay algorithm). Don't use playlist promotion or any suspicious looking promo services. Social media, RU-vid, word of mouth, advertising. Those are all ways to get started.
@@BandBuilderAcademy I’m sitting at 1300 right now with about 70% coming from auto play and radio feature. Each day is more and more. So possible turnaround for discovery mode soon. Would be super cool.
Good info! I Just got into the program after only having a consistent 1,200 monthly listeners, I am excited to see the types of results I will see. I also agree 2-5 songs is perfect to start with
So I am seeing a streaming bulk price on harry fox agency but no other 3rd party license... It is still the case today that you just need the digital download license to cover streaming?
You don't need to buy that bulk streaming license from Harry Fox Songfile. Once you distribute your cover song to Spotify, Apple Music, Amazon (streaming), RU-vid Music, etc., those music services will pay the mechanical royalty directly (they are responsible for paying to the rightsholders now). There has been a chance since this video published (and I will update with a new video soon). Many distributors are still requiring that YOU provide a license. And if that is the case, get the "digital downloads" one, not the bulk streaming one. The reason distributors want proof of a license is because they are still distributing your MP3 downloads to iTunes and Amazon MP3, and a few other services that still sell MP3's. And you have to have a "digital downloads" license for that. But since those don't make much sales anyway, you could request that your distributor NOT distribute MP3s, and do "streaming only". Some distributors may allow it, some will not.
So if you buy the up front mechanical license, upload your video to RU-vid without the sync license to begin with, would you then be able to add this later if it turns out your video has enough views to get paid ? I am only a very very small RU-vid channel with close to no subscribers - but I dream that one day I could earn a small living from this. How ever very much afraid of all this copyright stuff 😢.
You can take that approach. Many small creators do. Just be aware that there is a risk that if your video one day does make a lot of money (without a sync license), the publisher can claim the money made while it was unlicensed (and they always reserve the right to sue if somebody infringes on their rights without licensing). What I recommend is using the RU-vid Content ID system that is in place for the very specific purpose of allowing small creators like you to get started, and at the same time paying the rightsholders who deserve to be paid. You can get started with the idea of NOT making money. Justin Bieber didn't get paid on the dozens of cover versions of songs he did on RU-vid before he made his millions on his original music. Take that same approach.
No you wont get a bill, and it doesn't work like that. It's not a hard cost that you pay. Spotify deduct it from royalties that the pay to your distributor. And in every case you will earn more money than you did - if you were not "in the program". The volume of your streams will increase each month you are in the program, but you make slightly less per/stream. Watch the video again or visit the Spotify website in the video description for full details.
@@BandBuilderAcademy wow man thanks you really clarified on the issue for me, now I get how the tool works and won’t be worried to use it in the future anymore 🙏🏾♥️
Fantastic video! Thank you! I have another YT channel that showcases my musical styles for potential film/media clients. (A non-monetized business card channel of sorts). Recently, I made a cover that I'd like to post... AND maybe sell for download via my Apple/Spotify etc, pages through my DSP. And perhaps get into sync situation if a film production is interested. My dilemma is: my cover is definitely a "Derivative" with lots of changes but is still hugging the original. Are there any good resources to point me in the proper legal direction? I really can't find anything out there other than what makes my version "not a copy". I know I can get a Mechanical License for recording it, but clearing a video and any selling of it is murky.
Hey @houdinididiit I'm sorry, but the reason it is murky is because the copyright laws are also pretty vague when it comes to music composition, and were written before the internet, RU-vid, Apple, Spotify were even conceived. There has been some updates, even as recently as the creation of the MLC (Mechanical Licensing Collective) in January 2021. You could attempt to get a mechanical license for your song, but just konw that if the publisher does reject it because they don't believe it's a "cover" and they claim that in their interpretation of the copyright law, it's a "derivative work", then your license will be rejected and the application fee is not refundable. That's your only risk. If it is rejected, then you can attempt to release the music on RU-vid (only) and see if Content ID will allow it, or if it will again be rejected by the publisher. The only other option is to attempt to discuss this directly with the publishers and songwriters (all rights holders have a say in the matter). Most likely they will not respond to your request unless they see an opportunity to make a lot of money (more than $5,000 USD)
@@toddmccarty5355 Hey thanks so much Todd! Very helpful! 🙏 So what I'm getting from you and few others: 1) Get a mechanical license for the tune. Post it on my Apple, Spotify, etc, accounts anyway. I'm covered unless it's declared as a "Derivative" which needs more permission from the publisher/creator. They are the only ones who can grant "Derivative" permission. Fine. (The declaring of being a "Derivative" is still murky and subjective). I have Distrokid which will not only issue the mechanical license but will refund me if it's disputed, as per a recent email exchange I had. So, it doesn't hurt to try! 2) If I'm going to post a YT video (that typically requires a sync-license from the publisher who handles the creator) I should be ok if I don't monetize it. Most likely the publisher will find me and make a harmless "copyright claim" as opposed to a "copyright strike". A claim allows them to collect on my RU-vid video after THEY monetize it. Fine. It's still publicity and a win for my release over on Apple, etc. 3) Worst case scenario: They they declare it as "Derivative" not to their liking and they force me to take it out of circulation everywhere. If I did make any earnings, it could become sticky as I will have to owe them my earnings. So that is something to watch? I'm not sure what to do here except not to spend a dime of any earnings from it for some time? 4) Best case scenario: After they monetize my video, and my recording is still out there on Spotify, etc, I get a call from a film producer wanting to use it. Acquiring a sync-license is on them to negotiate with the publisher, not me. If it takes off on a commercial level, we all win. They get their publishing royalties and I get mechanical royalties for the recording. Does all of this jive? It's been a LONG headache of a week in pulling together these four points regarding a potential "Derivative". I even called BMI my PRO, and got short answers.
Thank you for making this video. I've been watching your videos for a a little over a week now. I'm just breaking into all of this. I've disvovered, and realized that, I am particularly and mostly interested in collaborations, not as COVERS, but the word I would use, would be a complete Part 2 and Part 3 and/or "ReImagination" of an Original Song. I completely rewrote Natalia Imbriglia's "Torn" with mostly all new Lyrics. I did Ninja Rap Part 2 from Vanilla Ice and a Part 3. Not to be biased unnecessarily, as part of this being successful in anything is recognizing when you "got it" or your don't, but they're definitely good and flow the same way as a true part 2 and part 3. The soundtrack is the same, but I would add some technical flares and different bsckground enhancers but keep the foundation that made the Song a Hit in the first place. What would be the best way for me to go about that? So far, I've only done the Lyrics to several songs, but I have a great deal of Skill for it, and I hear absolutely everything like a Composer. Timing. Rythm. Beat. Flow. Pace. Tone. It's all there. So that helps me pick up for where I lack in other ways. My sound tune is good, but I'm an 8/10 singer and I fully recognize other Artists are much better than me in that. But I'm a 10/10 flow, and I can write that way everytime. My songs just flow like a Poet so I'm going to specialize in that, mostly, because I do enjoy it most. So recap: For "Torn" it is less than 5% of The Original Artist Lyrics. 95%+ of my own Original Lyrics. I also rename the Song. For Ninja Rap its more considerable Recycling, but around 30% Original Lyrics and 70% New Lyrics. On the ReUse of words theyre also completely rearranged. Same Original beat as the foundation. I did ShineDown's "Second Chance", 50 Cent Many Men. My range has no limits to what I can write, and I've been using this wide range variety to test myself. I "got it", and I recognize it. So I definitely need your guidance. Or someones. Does your course cover this or this a different route altogether? I will never do a straight "Cover" of an Original Song. My Creativity simply will not allow me to do. Its a complete ReWrite. Thanks again, I look forward to hearing from you, and, working with you on a Collaboration. I would be interested in hearing an original Song you did. Where do I find your tracks?
Hi Michael, You're describing "derivative works" and they will be extremely difficult to license and get permission from the original songwriters and publishers. If you want to release music commercially I would either stick to 100% original music, or do a cover song. I will not discuss derivative work songs here, because derivative works are a specific area of copyright law that I am not qualified to discuss.
Do I need any sort of license if I want to upload piano covers of my favorite songs to RU-vid and have those be monetized? I was told by another piano RU-vidr that if you simply upload the piano cover, RU-vid will identify the song as a cover and share the revenue with the publisher. Is that accurate? Thanks!
What that other person told you was true. RU-vid has a system called Content ID that will identify it and "claim" it (that claim is like an automatic RU-vid license). A "claim" isn't bad for you. Content ID claims make sure the proper songwriters and publishers are paid on the advertising. If you plan to release the video/song outside of RU-vid, that is when you would need to be concerned about licensing.
@@BandBuilderAcademyso for doing only youtube covers of songs which are identifiable by their Contend ID we don’t need a license? What about playing the song live on a live stream or putting it on tiktok?
