or maybe even loss of earnings....I know people who just like the songs would prefer to pay 5 pounds to watch Madonna's hits being preformed by some local girl than £100 to watch the real thing. It's got to be a tangled legal web surely.
2006-10-24 21:02:59 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Business & Finance ➔ Other - Business & Finance
Most proper venues where bands play ask the bands to fill out a PRS form (performing rights society) where they have to fill in heir set list and state whether the songs are originals or cover versions. All published songs are on record with PRS and MCPS (Mechanical Copyright Protection Service) and a percentage of the money from every gig goes to them to be given out as royalties to necessary artists, although in practice it only seems to be the bigger artists who get some! So, basically, tribute bands end up paying the original artists indirectly anyway. More money for the stars. Better off supporting your local punk bands I reckon. Like Contempt! www.contemptuk.com
Shameless plug there, haha!
2006-10-24 21:17:08 · answer #1 · answered by punkrockdreadlock 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I think that as long as they don`t copy the `original` word for word, movement for movement then they are not stealing the `original` act. As far as the songs are concerned, royalties are paid to the music and lyrics writers, not the person who sings the song. ( Unless of course the singer wrote the song and music also) Providing the tribute act does not try to mislead the public into believing they are the originals, then they have not done anything wrong. After all impressionists don`t pay the people they impersonate do they? I expect the `originals` take it as a compliment that someone wants to `do` them.
2006-10-24 21:24:00 · answer #2 · answered by Social Science Lady 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think those local acts have to pay royalties to the artists in order to perform their songs. Plus it may even promote the artist in some way (given that there not performing in the same area at the same time)
2006-10-24 21:12:43 · answer #3 · answered by Pango 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If the original artist did not write the song they do not own it . ie if Bill Smith writes a song for Justin Timberlake then he does not own the song and niter does Bill Smith because he sold the song to him.. It's kind of a fine line. Now most artist will not do anything even if they own it because if the song has been dead for a long time and is done again they may still benefit from renewed sails..
2006-10-24 21:14:52 · answer #4 · answered by Go Wing's 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If a person imitates another band, or artist, they have to first obtain permission, and secondly pay them a certain percentage of any money made from it, but I believe that only applies if they make over a certain amount, although I'm not sure what that amount is.
2006-10-24 21:14:37 · answer #5 · answered by Resolution 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
When people go to tribute band gigs, there is a chance they will buy the original bands CDs etc.....it is a kind of cheap marketing..
& as there is no threat to the original band, everythings cool.
2006-10-24 21:08:46 · answer #6 · answered by junio130 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because royalties come in any which way for the original artists - I think (but dinnae quote me on that!).
2006-10-24 21:10:57 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋