Bernie Cosell <email@example.com> wrote:
No. The bands can get licenses to perform from the twoA friend was chatting with a member of one of these bands and asked why they hadn't come out with a CD, and the answer was that they don't have permission. Their claim [and apparently the claim of the other "cover bands" in the area], is that you don't need permission just to *perform* another band's songs, only to _record_ them. Can that possibly be true?
organizations that hold most of the licenses to music in the US,
and the cost should be reasonable.
But recording is a whole other license, and probably much more
Saying you're a tribute band is making it clear that you are notAnd while I'm at it, what about "tribute bands" -- these are bands that, instead of doing the hit songs of lots of other bands, try as hard as they can to be dopplegangers of their chosen band. I assume that it is OK to dress and act like another band (without their permission) but what about using the other band's *name*. Can you say you're a "Led Zeppelin tribute band" without Led Zeppelin's permission? I'd have thought that you'd have to be a bit circumspect, at the least, if not actually get permission, to use another band's name as part of *your* band's name and advertising, but it seems that this isn't the case... should it be?
the same band, so they don't have a problem with the trademark.
If they don't use the band's actual songs (at least not without a
license, which is probably fairly easy to get) then that's not a
Doing it in the same way as the original band could be a problem
because it violates the original's trade dress, look and feel.
However the reason for preventing someone from doing that is to
prevent confusion. If they make it clear that it's not the same
band there is no basis for confusion.
Of course, my opinion is based on the basic knowledge that I have -
I have not had occasion to do extensive research on these precise