Ricahrd, A "synchronization" license is different from a license to make a music CD. You can not take a compulsory "synch" license. You have to be granted the license by the publishers.
"Cover" versions of songs are legal as long as the artists are paying the publishing royalties. Your assumption that the "writrers" of the song get their share of the roylties is wrong. Although this was a big hit in Canada, the writers and publishers have not been paid in years. They possibly do not want to advertise on You Tube for a version where they cannot make their living, which may take sales away from actual royalty-paying versions.
A DMCA was filed with You Tube. The defendant then filed a counter-notification, even though he did not own the copyright OR the recording he was using OR any of the photos for that matter. So You Tube re-instated the video leaving no choice for the Plaintiff except to sue to have it removed.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Pamela Sue.
Re: Re:
Ricahrd, A "synchronization" license is different from a license to make a music CD. You can not take a compulsory "synch" license. You have to be granted the license by the publishers.
Re: Re:
Yes. And then the defendant filed a counter-notification even though he did not own any rights to the recording/song/photos.
Re:
"Cover" versions of songs are legal as long as the artists are paying the publishing royalties. Your assumption that the "writrers" of the song get their share of the roylties is wrong. Although this was a big hit in Canada, the writers and publishers have not been paid in years. They possibly do not want to advertise on You Tube for a version where they cannot make their living, which may take sales away from actual royalty-paying versions.
Re: I wonder why he's divorced...
Not divorced. Elmo is very happily married and has been for 11 years.
Re:
A DMCA was filed with You Tube. The defendant then filed a counter-notification, even though he did not own the copyright OR the recording he was using OR any of the photos for that matter. So You Tube re-instated the video leaving no choice for the Plaintiff except to sue to have it removed.