I’ve been wondering this for awhile now. Of corse we see people who remake movies all the time, however, how is this different from covering a song?
The reason I ask is because in the mid 1980s a group of kids remade Raiders of the Lost Ark. Recently they have been showing it here and there for free. They say here, that they are not allowed to release the movie on DVD. I always understood that songs, once it’s been recorded someone else can then do a cover of it. Why is there a difference between a song and a moive? They claim copyright is the reason they can’t do it, but could Spielburg be putting BS pressure on them not to release it?
If Sheryl Crowe wants to cover one of your songs, your name will appear as songwriter on her next album, which will sell a million copies, and you’ll make money, and people will want you to write songs for them.
If Billy FromNoWhere wants to cover your movie, he’s going to show it to a bunch of friends, and you won’t make a bunch of money off of it, and nobody will want you to make movies for them because of it.
Songs are explicitly covered by a body of law that allows anyone to record, perform, distribute and sell cover versions providing that credit is given and royalties are paid to the songwriter (or technically to the songwriter’s publishing company).
Movies are explicitly covered by a body of law that denies anyone the right to record, perform, distribute or sell cover versions without the written consent of the copyright holder. (Some exception is allowed for parody versions, but these are not the same as covers.)
No BS involved. Just hard, fast, tested-in-court law.
That’s a false analogy. If Billy covered your song, he’d be legally allowed to do so. Similarly, if Sheryl acted in the movie “cover,” you could sue for copyright violation.
To expand a bit on Exapno Mapcase’s explanation, covering musical works is explicitly allowed by copyright law in the US, as long as licensing fees (set by law) are paid. Here’s Wikipedia on Compulsory Licensing.
If you’re asking why legally, this has been pretty well answered by Exapno and walrus. If you’re asking why philosophically, well, songs and movies are significantly different kinds of creative works, in a number of ways, among which are the enormous difference in length and scope, and the fact that songs have a history of being shared and sung by many different performers.
From what I understand, any bar band can launch into a live cover of any song without paying royalties or licensing. It’s only if they record it where they have to get into all that (IANAL, of course). One thing I wonder: do tribute bands have to pay royalties for doing full concerts of, say, nothing but Pixies or AC/DC songs?
There’s not really a “bar band” equivalent for film. Yeah, you and your friends can remake any version of any movie you want on your DV camera, as long as only you and your friends are watching it. It’s probably not technically legal, but who is going to know? Once you show your film publicly in any way - as in holding a screening or posting it to YouTube - you run the risk of a cease-and-desist letter from the copyright holders.
I think the situation with live theater is similar. Some high school students did a (rather brillant) musical version of Star Wars (A New Hope), adapting the music from other popular musicals (Les Mis, Phantom, etc.). Since it was a straight version and didn’t fall into the parody category, it seems they were violating copyright on the film as well as the music they cribbed. I’m actually quite surprised they were allowed to perform it at the Lucasfilm-funded Star Wars Celebration III convention last spring. So maybe there’s a loop hole there, or maybe Lucasfilm, Inc. just thought it was funny and gave them a pass.
There are a few examples of remakes that are close enough to be analogous to a cover. Van Sant’s *Psycho *is probably the most obvious. Howard Hawks remade his own Ball of Fire after only seven years, as A Song Is Born. He made the second a musical, but otherwise it was pretty dang close. 1936’s Libeled Lady was remade, almost word for word, as Easy to Wed in 1946 . . . again with the addition of songs.
Can’t think of others right now, but watching TCM I’ve noticed other instances where a remake was not reworked at all, but shot from pretty much the same script. The above examples were just the ones I can think of off the top of my head.
No, when the bar band plays a song in public, a licensing fee is required. It’s just that the payments are typically made by the bar, not the musicians. The venue pays for a yearly license to cover all royalties owed.
Actually, it’s a badly-explained one. My point was that the reason we have the laws we do is that there is money to be had in letting people cover your songs, so it’s allowed, provided credit and money go where credit and money are due, but there is little money to be had in letting people cover your movies, so the copyright laws for movies developed the way they did instead.
If, on the other hand, BillyfromNowhere came up with an original idea for a movie, shot it in his backyard with his dad’s digital videocamera, and Steven Spielberg found out about it and decided to cover it and make it his next blockbuster hit, that would be allowed, provided all the legal steps were taken, in much the same way that people can make movies which “cover” books.