Abstract
A cover song refers to a subsequent recording or a new performance by artists of a previously composed material recorded and released commercially by an original artist. The term cover implies that the subsequent releases of the original song are alternatives or tributes. Therefore, the original recording is the authentic, and the definitive version if copyrighted. In the United States of America, playing cover songs is not illegal, but persons are required to remit licensing fees to the American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers (ASCAP) and relevant publishers who own the tune in question (Harrower, 2005). The practice of covering songs has sparked great debate over the decades concerning whether the practice is ethical. The paper will highlight the ethical concerns, the financial, legal, and lastly creative implications of the practice.
Body
Generally, the moral and ethical question on the practice of covering songs arises when those involved in the act do it for financial gain and fail to accredit the original artist. This constitutes plagiarism because they pass off the creativity contained in the original material as their own by cleverly changing words and tones. During the 1940s and the 1950s, the practice of covering Black music by white artists gained prominence. Looking back today, the pioneers of Rock and Roll, for instance Little Richards have faded in the oblivion while their copy cats such as Elvis Presley are being glorified as the greatest. Those against the practice argue this act is unethical because in most of the cases where individuals cover songs done by original artists, they do so without remitting royalty fee to the publishing companies that own rights to the songs.
Comparatively, those in support of the practice of covering songs argue that the practice is a healthy one as it helps to foster creativity. One of the arguments postulated is that some of the original artists of the covered songs are superstars who are hard to contact, therefore individuals who cover their songs have the intent of seeking permission in the first place, but their efforts become futile; thus they are forced to remix songs without approval from the copyright owners.
On the financial aspect, the practice of covering songs hurts the original artists significantly. When the market becomes flooded with various versions of a cover song, it becomes difficult for buyers to distinguish between an original recording and a cover song, especially when they are all having the same title. A perfect illustration is Adele’s most recent release titled ‘Sky fall’ released during last October. The title had cover artists sell more than 54,000 copies in the U.S. according to Nielsen SoundScan. Notably, the financial gains made by producers of these cover songs are not shared by Adele, though she is the genius behind the creative art in the recording. The pioneer black artists such as Aretha Franklin, Ray Charles and Little Richards have had to tour constantly in a significant portion of their lives because these black artists have been robbed by record companies that used white artists to cover their original creations to the point the record releases of the white artists became more popular than theirs (Parks, 2013).
Lastly, we examine the impact of the practice of covering songs from the perspective of creativity. According to Lawrence Lessig, a Stanford law professor, the practice of covering songs is synonymous with democracy and blends perfectly in the western world setting where freedom of speech and expression are highly upheld. Lessig argues that the practice helps to foster creativity among upcoming artists who have a talent but it is hard for them to get noticed because of competition. However, these upcoming artists are able to use today’s technologies such as you tube channels to cover perfectly songs of famous artists (Waldfogel, 2012). Those who have the talent obtain thousands if not millions of views, and at this point they can use this achievement as leverage to negotiate with record producers and try their lack in recording their own tunes.
Conclusion
As can be seen, instituting regulations to restrict the practice of covering songs is uncalled for as this stifles creativity. Lessig notes that it could be terribly injurious to the enrichment of our vibrant aspects of our contemporary culture. However, measure need to be put in place to ensure ethics are abided by when it comes to covering songs, for instance, credit should be given to original artists. If done for commercial purposes, then it is important that the owner of the copyright, that is the publishing company, receives royalty fees from those who are raking in money using copyrighted recordings.
References
Harrower, A. (2005). Copyright issues in internet music. Contemporary Music Review, 24(6), 483 - 488.
Parks, K. (2013). From Ray Charles to "Y.M.C.A" — Section 203 Copyright Terminations in 2013 and Beyond. Licensing Journal, 33(3), 1 - 6.
Waldfogel, J. (2012). Digitization and Copyright: Some Recent Evidence from Music.Communications of the ACM, 55(5), 35 - 37.
Wellett, P. (2012). Music Mash-Ups: The Current Australian Copyright Implications, Moral Rights And Fair Dealing In The Remix Era. Deakin Law Review, 17 (2), 349 - 384.
