Re: Question on re-records for licensing purposes
Date: March 24, 2013 12:31AM

>The latest craze is for artists to re-record their material to gain more control and financial benefit from their product. If someone wants to use a song, say Def Lep's Hysteria, in a movie, a commercial, whatever, must they now have to use the re-recorded version or are they still allowed to use the original version? And if they use the original version, does the artist get more $ because they re-recorded it even though the newer version wasn't used? Often times, the original still outshines the re-record, so why use an inferior/changed version? <

If someone wants to use a song, say by Def Leppard, they can use whatever version they want. Let's use the song, "Hysteria", for example. If some product company or film or TV show wants to use that song, they can choose to use either version. Chances are good that the original version will be a significantly higher cost to use. The artist would not get more money if the original version is used, which is the reason for the re-record in the first place. What the re-record does is provide the artist with control of the master recording. The original recorded version of "Hysteria" is owned by the record label. The re-record is owned by the band. Depending on the type of license for using a song in film, commercial, etc., there would generally be fees paid for the "master use" and for sync rights. Sync rights means that someone can "sync" the song to some form of video. In the case of "Hysteria", if someone wanted to use the original version, the songwriters would get paid a % of the license fee and the publisher would get a % of the license fee. In the case of the re-record, because it is a new master recording not owned by a record label, but by the band, the songwriters/publishers would not have to share that revenue with the label. So the bottom line is if the band has someone who can convince someone to use the re-record instead of the original, the payout to the band would be greater, or at least they wouldn't have to share it with the label.

Navigate: Previous MessageNext Message
Options: ReplyQuote


SubjectViewsWritten ByPosted
Question on re-records for licensing purposes 398 2_EdgedSword 03/23/2013 10:33PM
Re: Question on re-records for licensing purposes 258 Snake65 03/23/2013 11:07PM
Re: Question on re-records for licensing purposes 124 alliedforces 03/24/2013 09:48PM
Re: Question on re-records for licensing purposes218 Walk In The Shadows 03/24/2013 12:31AM
Re: Question on re-records for licensing purposes 173 McMack 03/24/2013 01:56AM
Re: Question on re-records for licensing purposes 164 Walk In The Shadows 03/24/2013 05:09AM
Re: Question on re-records for licensing purposes 175 rarock 03/24/2013 02:00AM
Re: Question on re-records for licensing purposes 158 Troy 03/24/2013 06:00AM
Re: Question on re-records for licensing purposes 135 Hollywood 03/24/2013 08:58AM
Re: Question on re-records for licensing purposes 140 2_EdgedSword 03/24/2013 09:27AM
Re: Question on re-records for licensing purposes 123 Scott Watson 03/24/2013 08:52PM


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Powered by Phorum.

Disclaimer: melodicrock.com takes no responsibility for the contents of messages posted on this open forum, or for the sanity of those posting.