# What Does It Mean When An Artists Work Is Re-Recorded (by a DIFFERENT artist)?
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-it-mean-when-an-artists-work-is-re-recorded-by-a-different-artist/536410
**Category:** Cafe Society
**Created:** [April 17, 2010, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-it-mean-when-an-artists-work-is-re-recorded-by-a-different-artist/536410 "2010-04-17T00:13:58Z")
**Posts on this page:** 4
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)
#### Post date: [April 17, 2010, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-it-mean-when-an-artists-work-is-re-recorded-by-a-different-artist/536410/1 "2010-04-17T00:13:58Z")
I was just listening to the radio, and happened to hear some of John Secada’s songs from the 1990’s-recorded by a newer singer.
Does that mean that the original copyrights have expired?
And, if the new recordings are inferior-why do it?
(I thought it sounded sucky):mad:
---
### Author:  [@splatterpunk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/splatterpunk)
#### Post date: [April 17, 2010, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-it-mean-when-an-artists-work-is-re-recorded-by-a-different-artist/536410/2 "2010-04-17T02:15:04Z")
> [@ralph124c](#):
>
> I was just listening to the radio, and happened to hear some of John Secada’s songs from the 1990’s-recorded by a newer singer.
> Does that mean that the original copyrights have expired?
> And, if the new recordings are inferior-why do it?
> (I thought it sounded sucky):mad:
Seriously, Ralph. You’ve never heard of an artist recording a cover?
---
### Author:  [@RealityChuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RealityChuck)
#### Post date: [April 17, 2010, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-it-mean-when-an-artists-work-is-re-recorded-by-a-different-artist/536410/3 "2010-04-17T03:09:05Z")
In any case, anyone can record another artist’s songs, even when they are under copyright. There are rules for licensing, and the original songwriter cannot stop an already recorded song from being recorded again – they just negotiate a license, or pay the statutory rate if they can’t.
Obviously someone thought the new versions were better.
Now, as for what you seem to be asking, there is the case of [Steve Kaczorowski](http://www.lysergia.com/LamaWorkshop/Kacz/lamaKacz.htm), who put out a record where he erased the vocal tracks of existing songs and song over them – and claimed the songs as his own. I have a copy of his album.
---
### Author:  [@jackdavinci](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jackdavinci)
#### Post date: [April 20, 2010, 9:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-it-mean-when-an-artists-work-is-re-recorded-by-a-different-artist/536410/4 "2010-04-20T09:29:41Z")
Unlike other copyrighted works, the major music licensers have worked out a system where you can pretty much cover any song without permission by paying a preset licensing fee. Of course some artists still ask permission, notably parodists like Weird Al, but strictly they don’t have to if the artist is represented by one of the main three royalty companies.
Wiki:
> [@](#):
>
> Since the Copyright Act of 1909, in the United States there has been a right to record a version of someone else’s tune, whether of music alone or of music and lyrics.[7] A license can be specifically negotiated between representatives of the interpreting artist and the copyright holder, or recording of published tunes can fall under a mechanical license whereby the recording artist pays a standard royalty to the original author/copyright holder through an organization such as the Harry Fox Agency, and is safe under copyright law even if they do not have any permission from the original author. The mechanical license was introduced by Congress in order to head off an attempt by the Aeolian Company to monopolize the piano roll market.[8]
> While a composer cannot deny anyone a mechanical license for a new recorded version, he or she has the right to decide who will release the first recording of a song; Bob Dylan took advantage of this right when he refused his own record company the right to release a live recording of “Mr. Tambourine Man”.[7]