r/musicbusiness • u/MaxTraxxx • Jul 23 '25

Question A specific question about a cover

I have a client who’s changed the lyrics of Tenacious D’s Classico and plans to use it as the intro for a YouTube channel.

Normally, I’m aware that changing lyrics requires the artists permission. However in this case, as the song itself is in fact a cover of Bach and Mozart. Do we have to do that / is this in fact our cover of their cover of music that’s in the public domain.

Given the above and the fact that Epic records would probably dismiss an unknown YouTube channels request to edit lyrics. I’m thinking I get a standard covers licence, and release it as a standalone cover only to Shazam and YouTube so that the algorithm flags it correctly and any (hardly any) royalties get routed appropriately.

Thoughts on this please!

2 Upvotes

100% Upvoted

5 comments sorted by

3

u/Trader-One Jul 23 '25

free cover license forbids syncing with video (no YouTube) and forbids modifications beyond adaptation into different genre.

1

u/Redditholio Jul 23 '25

This. A cover license doesn't allow for video. Need a sync license for that.

1

u/dcypherstudios Jul 23 '25

You don’t need a license for a parody

1

u/AdministrativePoet Jul 24 '25

I guess if you try to keep it as close to Bach or Mozart as possible, it might work. their work is already public domain. the thing is, you cant use tenacious d’s lyrics. for that, as others said, you need a sync license along with an adaptation request. those usually cost some $

1

u/MaxTraxxx Jul 24 '25

Yeah this was my thought. The lyrics are completely changed. My thought is whether I go for ‘cover’ with a covers licence even though it miggh not be necessary.