Inspired by an earlier thread. I have the answer to the question on everyone's lips.
When a live act performs a sample of a song or a cover of a song the artist performing the song, does not pay royalties to the "original" artist or that artists team.
In fact the venue pays a licensing fee to allow copyrighted music to be played in their venue. In the case of concerts a "blanket license" is issued which allows just about every type of music to be played in their venue. In some rare cases (as per certain restrictions in the copyright act) a licensing fee is not applicable)
However, in the case of big music stars the writers, producers also need to deal with the label. The label have a vested interest in the song as they are the ones paying for distribution, marketing etc etc so typically they have much larger stake in the copyright claim. In the case of big music stars the producers, writers etc are paid around 10 percent or less of the royalties (which come out of the license payment the venue makes)
However if the two artists are from the same label in many cases no money is exchanged. It all comes down to the contract the artists have with the label and how much copyright ownership the label has over the songs.
So, In summary.
- While a small amount in some cases can be paid to the writers and producers it comes down to the venue
not the artist
- In many cases no payment is even received or needed if the two artists belong to the same label.
It should also be noted that things are totally different when that song is distributed and sold as a live CD track or DVD.
Source
Source
Source
