Question for Rock Historians

Copyright may have something to do with the music (careful, LZ).

Stones´ song was Heartbreaker (Doodoodoo), and as for GFR, wasn´t around for that.

quote:

---

The Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin and Grand Funk Railroad all released a song called "Heartbreaker" (all different)

---

Each of them has different lyrics and compositions. Why would there be any issue regarding copyright law? Art across all media is filled with works possessing the same title.

quote:

---

the Stones and GFR each released a song entitled "Gimme Shelter"

---

Uh, the latter is a cover of Rolling Stones' original composition. Rock 'n' roll at the time was inundated with covers.

quote:

---

Performing a Live Cover Version of Another Artist's Song
According to SESAC, one of the three big Performing Rights Organizations (PRO) in the US, “Anyone who plays copyrighted music in a public establishment is required to obtain advanced permission from the copyright owner, or their representative.” A PRO, sometimes referred to as Performing Rights Society (PRS), is a licensing agent for songwriters and their music publishing companies, and it coordinates royalties for the appropriate parties. (Amazingly, “SESAC” is not an acronym—the name doesn't stand for anything.)

However, the responsibility for procuring this license usually falls on the venue or organization hosting the band. Owners of performance venues purchase license agreements from one or all of the big PROs. In addition to SESAC, the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) and Broadcast Music, Inc. (BMI) also coordinate performance licensing for such venues.

So, if you perform cover songs at weddings or nightclubs, the venue would need to have the appropriate licensing agreement or face legal exposure. (The same obviously goes for venues hosting tribute bands—bands that cover many songs by the same bands.)

Each of the three PROs covers certain artists, so the entity one goes to depends on the songs being performed. Many locations get performance rights from more than one PRO, as artists whose work might be performed are covered by different licensing agents.

The rates a venue can expect to pay for performance rights can vary: costs depend on type of venue, type of performance, frequency of performances, entrance fees, and other factors. Certain venues are exempt from royalty requirements altogether: churches and other places of worship often qualify for exemption, as can non-profit educational venues (so long as the songs are part of an in-person teaching activity). Anyone considering whether a performance will be exempt should check with the appropriate PRO in advance.

Recording Cover Songs
A different situation is presented if your band, instead of simply wanting to cover a song live, decides it wants to record a cover version of another artist's song. If you're interested in a license for recording or selling a copyrighted song, you'll need what's called a mechanical license—a license that allows one artist to create a new version of another's copyrighted song. A mechanical license is so named because the author of the original song does not have to give his or her permission for you to get one—it's “mechanical.” The Harry Fox Agency is the largest agency in the music business for such licenses, coordinating the royalties between the various constituents (music publishers, performers, etc.). Note that while you are guaranteed a mechanical license for the asking (and paying), the one thing that the original artist can block is another artist releasing the first recording of that song—under certain circumstances, that artist can even block his or her own record company from doing so!

---

Legality of Covering Songs

quote:

---

the latter a cover of Rolling Stones' original composition.

---

One of my favorite Grand Funk songs at the time. Was years later when I heard the Stones version.

As for non-cover songs with the same name, IANAL but I don't think you can copyright a title.

I wouldn't think copyright law would limit names of songs unless they were blatant ripoffs, like calling a song "The Great Gig in the Sky" and trying to pass it off as original.

Spooky Tooth, wow that's a blast from the past lol.

quote:

---

Radiohead and TLC both have a song called Creep.

---

so does Stone Temple Pilots.
them and Radiohead recorded their "Creep" in the same year.

You can't really copyright a word that is commonly used. Someone riffing on the same combination of words? There is an analysis that at some point, it becomes intellectual property.

However, as others have pointed out - it is the music that tends to drive copyright lawsuits, as opposed to lyrical content (generally).

the name of the song holds no bearing at all. It is the chord progression.

By the way I still think George Harrison's my Sweet Lord is not a blatant rip off or a punishable rip off of he's so fine.

Merely, there are a number of pretty attackable likenesses and surely there were some subconscious work going on in him when composing.

I know many don't feel that way, that's just me babbling in his defense.

Someone said they (GFR) covered Heartbreaker (Doodoodoo) as well.

Man, that´s some digging, no?

I mean, they were past relevant then.....