Sony Complains About Bach Soundtrack Music

Dear Rich: I am an animation student working on a short film that uses Bach's Unaccompanied Cello Suite 1 Prelude as a background audio track. The Bach music track is nine minutes long, edited down to 90 seconds. Since Bach was a composer from the 1700s, I figured I wouldn't be facing copyright claims, but upon posting it to YouTube, I received a copyright claim from Sony Music Entertainment on behalf of Sony Classical. I planned on sending my short to a student film festival.
Two copyrights are associated with musical recordings: the "musical composition" copyright for creating the music (what would have been Bach's copyright); and the "sound recording" copyright for the audio recording and arrangement (Sony's copyright). Although all of Bach's musical compositions including Cello Suite 1 Prelude are in the public domain, some of the recordings are protected. Apparently YouTube's Content ID police tracked down your use. 
Getting "master use" rights from Sony for a student film may be difficult, expensive, or impossible. You can start by contacting Sony Music Licensing. If that doesn't work, here are three other choices.
Stock music version. The easiest solution is to license a stock music version of the piece. Companies such as Pond5.com feature multiple versions for $20 to $30. Run a Google search to find other Creative Commons or public domain versions of the cello suite.
Fair use. You could respond to the YouTube copyright claim by claiming fair use. However, if Sony disputes your fair use argument, you may have to make your case in federal court. Also, there could be a problem entering festivals because you may have to warranty that your movie contains no infringing material. Festival directors may not appreciate the fair use analysis.
The semitone/transpose hack. There are anecdotal reports that transposing the audio by a semitone or speeding it up slightly can prevent Content I.D. from catching infringing uses. (There are contrary indications as well.) In any case, it's still infringement.

For your FYI Dept. There was no copyright law in Germany during Bach's life, and according to some scholars, the composer allegedly took advantage of that fact.

Who Owns Sound Recording Copyright in Cover Version?

photo: Barry Mulling

Dear Rich: I have a follow up to my original question from December regarding a cover version of a Beck song. I just submitted my mechanical licensing paperwork to Kobalt (Beck's music publisher) for the Beck songs. Does a cover artist normally retain copyright to their recording/performance? The agreement says that Kobalt retains the copyright to all use of the song. Even though it is a cover, I thought I should still be able to copyright the 'recording' itself. When I challenged them on it they said no, Kobalt retains copyright to everything. Is this normal for a cover song? I felt like I should retain copyright to my arrangement and recording, outside of the song/lyrics/melody. Thankfully my next collection will have no covers! We think there's some confusion as to the two copyrights involved -- the musical composition copyright and the sound recording copyright. We're guessing that the Kobalt rep meant that Beck retains all rights to the musical composition copyright -- as well as to changes you make to the song -- but not to the sound recording copyright.
The cover song scenario. Typically, a performer who uses a compulsory license, retains all rights to the sound recording copyright (or the rights are retained by a record company or producer). Even when a performer seeks permission from the music publisher --  if for example, the lyrics are changed or a lower fee is negotiated -- the performer still usually retains the sound recording copyright. For example, if Weird Al parodied a song, he might have to give up his lyrics to the music publisher -- which is why the lyrics to "Eat It" are credited to Michael Jackson -- but not the rights to the sound recording. There would be a great disincentive to perform cover songs (Goodbye American Idol!) if the music publishers ended up owning the performances.
Your situation. Even if we're wrong and Kobalt is demanding the sound recording copyright, you can still retain rights. As you remember from our previous answer, we think some or all of the songs on Beck's Song Reader album are subject to compulsory license -- meaning that permission is not needed if you're willing to pay the fees and play by the compulsory license rules. (Limelight appears to be one of the licensing agents.) In that case, you can retain all rights.