ABOSOLUTEEELYYY it's so confusing. All my homies - ncluding producers, DJs, labels owners - have no precise idea what to expect after release and just wish for the best
That one's pretty black and white. If you download a sample from Splice you can use it in any song with no permission etc. The samples are royalty free.
@@dilbydj thanks mate was quite sure. Had something with a vocal recently but did my research. Getting these kinds of tips and info around is a big help for starters! Have a nice week looking forward to your next show. Ps Tripping is on my playlist for my next upcoming events!!
@@robinvanpul6107 there are a couple of issues you can have with Splice etc. Sometimes the people making the sample pack use copyright vocals, which they shouldn't. So you could inadvertently be using a copyright sample when you think you're using a royalty free loop. The other thing is when someone has already used the loop from splice and your track gets picked up by content ID algorithms on SoundCloud, RU-vid etc. In that case you would simply dispute the claim and explain you have used the same royalty free loop from Splice.
If i use a cover from say that vokaal website and get a mechanical license do i have to mention vokaal singer or original song name in my song title? Do distrokid or any distributors want you to title yours as a remix of original or anything like that?
A cover version is a cover version, not a remix. Search Google for what constitutes a cover version or if you want to be extra sure consult a music lawyer. As I mentioned in the video, I'm not a legal expert and not offering legal advice. What I can say is that, in my opinion, a cover version is a pretty clear thing, it's essentially a remake of an existing song. It's not a loophole to get around sampling or using some lyrics or a musical riff or part of another song in your song. Here is an original song (Goldtrix - Trippin): ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-FkZYdwcs5Io.htmlsi=WK5q2KTQ45Ws-SD3 And here is a cover version I released (Dilby - Trippin): ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-KzKC-Crc0CA.htmlsi=WMyp3Q2KCivfEtyQ Same vocal rerecorded, same melody but replayed, same title but different artist. I feel like the concept is objectively pretty simple. And I imagine, if you're not sure if your track is a cover or not, there's a good chance it's not.
Great video! Recently I was wondering exactly about how those tech-house remixes are living out there. Just one question! What is the difference between interpolation and cover song? And the paid from the revenue of the master have to be shared or is 100% for the producer? Thanks bro!
I'm not sure what you mean by interpolation. As I mentioned in the video, for a cover you get 100% of the revenue from royalties. The original artist get 100% of the revenue from publishing.
@@dilbydj I was checking on internet and I think cover and interpolation is the same. Probably a fancy way to name it. Is when, for example, you re-record the vocal to not use the original (sample), and thus a new master is created. Thanks for answer, very helpful.
Thank you so much for talking about this, but is it okey to release song with only a cover mechanical license or do you need a publishing license if you replay a melody from another song? Like interpolation? Best regards Alex
Hi dilby, quick question: I’m looking for a good pair of studio headphones. I prefer open back. I want to hear the low end sound trough them. What pair do you recommend/ use in your videos for mixing for example?
@@dilbydjHeard a lot of good stories about them. Whats your opinion about the VSX closed back headphones? I heard that they can emulate different professional mixing rooms. Also it can replicate the 650 via the software.
@@TheNxtzHD I've never tried them. My opinion on all of that recreation and emulation stuff is it's snake oil and marketing, which is perfectly on brand for Slate Digital! (I do use their plugins though, lol). If you want good headphones, buy some. If you want to hear your tunes in a car, buy a car, lol.
it's insane the amount of covers I'm hearing these days just out in public... I'm quite sure a lot of big corporations are paying producers to make these to minimise there sync/royalties
Major labels are definitely doing that and have been for a while. I was asked to do some stuff in 2021 for a Major. But I don't follow your logic of how minimises royalties? Or how that benefits the label.
@@dilbydj so, as an example- Leo from Frog Leap Studios does weekly videos of covers, and also sells his cover albums. He would need a sync and a mechanical license?
@@VentureNW I just looked at that channel and It seems like they maybe should have a sync license but maybe they are likely covered by US "fair use". But as I said in the video, I'm not a lawyer and not a legal expert. What I know is that if you release a "music video" on RU-vid you are supposed to have a synch license. This is a quote from a website on the topic... "The mechanical license only covers the audio portion of your RU-vid cover. To post video along with the song, you'll need a synchronization license, also called a “sync" license. You must negotiate a sync license (sometimes spelled synch license) with the song's copyright holder. While copyright owners must grant mechanical licenses, they are not required to give you a sync license, nor is there a set fee for the license. According to RU-vid's copyright policy, creators are prohibited from using content, such as a cover song, that someone else owns the copyright to without permission."
