Copyright and Royalties explained somewhere?

Started by Ephestion, October 06, 2014, 07:40:15 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Ephestion

I want to record some old songs to put along side some of my own songs on a disc of 8-12 songs. Are there any royalty free or copyright free songs in the world? Or is it fair use to sell an album that has a recording of yourself playing your favorite song?

I like my original songs but at the same time I enjoy playing other people's songs. So can someone fill me in on how this copyright/royalty system works for and against musicians?

Elantric

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_licensing

In general if you release an Audio CD with cover versions of music not composed by you, it could potentially get you in hot water with high legal fees In order to share your cover song recordings, you must obtain a license. - See more at: http://www.musicianwages.com/recording-releasing-performing-cover-songs/#sthash.1ktZ7e3a.dpuf

More here:
http://www.musicianwages.com/recording-releasing-performing-cover-songs/

Ephestion

Very interesting reads. Thank you. I certainly was using the wrong keywords. in Google.

The RightsFlow's Limelight service goes to a page that gets blocked by my antivirus and the Web Of Trust warning appears through my browser.

So basically I have to find who owns it and who can offer me a license for it.


Elantric

#3
QuoteSo basically I have to find who owns it and who can offer me a license for it.

Correct! -
My advice - compose your own song that has similar groove and feel to the cover song you want to record.

20 years ago you could land "under the radar" and record a whole album of cover songs to sell at your gigs and not experience the legal wrath of BMI/ASCAP.

But those days are over. 

QuoteThe RightsFlow's Limelight service goes to a page that gets blocked by my antivirus and the Web Of Trust warning appears through my browser.
https://songclearance.com/

vxboogie

#4
I've also used the Harry Fox agency in the past.

http://www.harryfox.com/

http://www.harryfox.com/find_out/aboutus.html


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Fox_Agency

Harry Fox Songfile®
Songfile® is an online mechanical licensing tool designed for the D.I.Y music industry market. It allows the public to search through over millions of songs and purchase licenses. A mechanical license is needed if one wants to manufacture and distribute recordings that he or she did not write.[4] Through Songfile®, licenses can be obtained for physical works, permanent digital downloads (PDDs), ringtones, and interactive streaming distribution.[5] Users pay a low per-song processing fee and royalties for licenses, which are set at the current U.S. statutory rate.[6]



Copyright claims[edit]
In October 2012, HFA became involved with copyright claims of musical works in the public domain on YouTube. As the designated YouTube administrator for thousands of music publishers, HFA uses the Content Management System (CMS) to review YouTube user disputes for the use of song compositions protected under copyright law. Many arrangements of public domain works are under copyright, even if the original is not, and because the CMS tool is not perfect, some false disputes are created.
One notable case, via YouTube, was a claim over Johann Strauss's Radetzky March. A questionable dispute was instated for a Thai youth orchestra's performance of the Radetzky March under the direction of S. P. Somtow. Although the march has been in the public domain since at least 1949, another arrangement still under copyright was mistakenly identified by YouTube's audio fingerprinting program. HFA worked directly with Somtow Sucharitkil to release the claim.


Elantric

#6
Just to add some trivia to this topic.
Back in 1996 I was employed as Technical Director  / Staff Guitarist for Machine Head in Venice,CA ( Stephen Dewey) 
http://www.machinehead.com/
http://www.machinehead.com/#!press/c11e1
We had a contract to create the soundtrack for a Prudential Bache Securities TV Commercial

Prudential Bache had built their entire 1997 marketing campaign on the phrase "Time has come today" , and they wanted to use The Chambers Brothers "Time has come today song in all Radio/TV commercials  - but did not want to pay the "synch" license copyright fees for re-use of the original 1968 #1 hit recording 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chambers_Brothers

So a staff sound designer and myself made a new recording of the tune, and it sounded really close to the original recording and this TV commercial with my recording aired in the USA for 6 weeks  before the legal representatives for The Chambers Brothers filed suit - claiming Prudential Bache WAS using the original recording ( I guess my recording was THAT good - (I used my Digitech GSP-2101 and an Aria Pro II Guitar)

After a month of legal haggling,  the most affordable outcome for Prudential Bache was they had to replace my Time has come today" recording with the original recording from the 1968 The Chambers Brothers hit.

Also worth reading
http://www.tomwaitsfan.com/tom%20waits%20library/www.tomwaitslibrary.com/copyright-basics.html


http://www.tomwaitsfan.com/tom%20waits%20library/www.tomwaitslibrary.com/copyright-fritolay.html
QuoteWaits's predecessor Frito Bandito: "The bandito character was created by animation legend Tex Avery
for a commercial ad campaign in the late 1960's"

The 9th Circuit Court decision documents some entertaining background information on how Frito-Lay came to this particular commercial:

"The story of Tracy-Locke's search for a lead singer for the commercial suggests that no one would do but a singer who could not only capture the feeling of "Step Right Up" but also imitate Tom Waits' voice. The initial efforts of the ad agency's creative team, using a respected professional singer with a deep bluesy voice, met with disapproval from executives at both Tracy- Locke and Frito-Lay. Tracy-Locke then auditioned a number of other singers who could sing in a gravelly style. Stephen Carter was among those who auditioned. A recording engineer who was acquainted with Carter's work had recommended him to Tracy-Locke as someone who did a good Tom Waits imitation. Carter was a professional musician from Dallas and a Tom Waits fan. Over ten years of performing Waits songs as part of his band's repertoire, he had consciously perfected an imitation of Waits' voice. When Carter auditioned, members of the Tracy-Locke creative team "did a double take" over Carter's near-perfect imitation of Waits, and remarked to him how much he sounded like Waits. In fact, the commercial's musical director warned Carter that he probably wouldn't get the job because he sounded too much like Waits, which could pose legal problems. Carter, however, did get the job. At the recording session for the commercial David Brenner, Tracy-Locke's executive producer, became concerned about the legal implications of Carter's skill in imitating Waits, and attempted to get Carter to "back off" his Waits imitation. Neither the client nor the members of the creative team, however, liked the result. After the session, Carter remarked to Brenner that Waits would be unhappy with the commercial because of his publicly avowed policy against doing commercial endorsements and his disapproval of artists who did. Brenner acknowledged he was aware of this, telling Carter that he had previously approached Waits to do a Diet Coke commercial and "you never heard anybody say no so fast in your life." Brenner conveyed to Robert Grossman, Tracy-Locke's managing vice president and the executive on the Frito-Lay account, his concerns that the commercial was too close to Waits' voice. As a precaution, Brenner made an alternate version of the commercial with another singer. On the day the commercial was due for release to radio stations across the country, Grossman had a ten-minute long-distance telephone consultation with Tracy-Locke's attorney, asking him whether there would be legal problems with a commercial that sought to capture the same feeling as Waits' music. The attorney noted that there was a "high profile" risk of a lawsuit in view of recent case law recognizing the protectability of a distinctive voice. Based on what Grossman had told him, however, the attorney did not think such a suit would have merit, because a singer's style of music is not protected. Grossman then presented both the Carter tape and the alternate version to Frito-Lay, noting the legal risks involved in the Carter version. He recommended the Carter version, however, and noted that Tracy-Locke would indemnify Frito-Lay in the event of a lawsuit. Frito-Lay chose the Carter version."(5)

The case was tried before a jury in April and May 1990. Waits did not include Stephen Carter in the suit because Carter had only been paid scale for his participation. In fact, Carter became one of Waits's strongest witnesses. He felt badly about his part in the fiasco and wanted to redeem himself.(1)
http://www.tomwaitsfan.com/tom%20waits%20library/www.tomwaitslibrary.com/copyright-basics.html

Bryan Michael

There are songs that are in the public domain (in other words "free" of restrictions, etc...) but they are going to be old songs, traditional folk songs, etc...
I was in a band years ago and we covered The Chruch's "Under the Milky Way" for the album we did, and yes, we had to get a license to do it.  It is "do-able" but it will cost you something.

That said, the first remedy at law for copyright infringement is "cease and desist" - you usually don't end up having to pay the copyright holder unless there is "demonstratable loss" of some kind, and copyright law is there to provide a channel for the copyright holder to pursue - there is no big federal agency "copyright police" that are looking to come after you.


Elantric

http://diymusician.cdbaby.com/2014/12/the-difference-between-ascap-bmi-sesac-and-soundexchange/

What's the difference between ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, and SoundExchange?
By Guest Blogger
DECEMBER 19, 2014{ 2 COMMENTS }
The difference between ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, and SoundExchange[This article was written by Dae Bogan and it originally appeared on his website.]
https://daebogan.wordpress.com/2013/10/04/demystifying-the-music-industry-whats-this-difference-between-ascapbmisesac-and-soundexchange/
I received an email this morning from a reader who had read my piece, "Demystifying The Music Industry: What's This About Public Performance Rights?." He asked, "If SoundExchange was designated by the Library of Congress as the sole PRO to administer public performance licenses and also collect public performances fees for Sound Recording Company Owners, then why do artists still utilize the services provided by the other 3 US PROs (ASCAP / BMI / SESAC) – is [SoundExchange] not sufficient by itself?"

A lot of indie artists are confused about the difference between ASCAP, BMI, SESAC and SoundExchange. I'll attempt to break down the most important differences between these groups and elaborate towards the end about other considerations and other royalty collection entities. Feel free to comment with any questions (or corrections).

Traditional performance royalties vs. digital performance royalties
ASCAP (American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers), BMI (Broadcast Music, Inc.) and SESAC are US public performance organizations (PROs) who collect publishing royalties (performance royalties) for the PUBLIC PERFORMANCE of musical works as stipulated by the U.S. Copyright Act. This includes fees paid by radio stations, businesses, restaurants, concert venues, bars, nightclubs, sports arenas, bowling alleys, malls and shopping centers, amusement parks, colleges & universities, etc. for performing music in the public (within the confines of their establishment). These monies are paid to ASCAP, BMI and SESAC for a blanket public performance license that grants the licensee (the business) permission to allow music to be performed in their environment (this includes music over speakers and music performed live by an artist). The license fees paid to ASCAP, BMI and SESAC are passed on to the copyright owners in the musical works (song) — PUBLISHERS (50%) and SONGWRITERS (50%) — as performance royalties for musical works.

SoundExchange is a US public performance organization (PRO) who collects royalties for DIGITAL PUBLIC PERFORMANCE of sound recordings stipulated by the Digital Performance Right in Sound Recording Act of 1995 and Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998. This includes fees paid by music service providers (MSPs) to stream music over satellite (SiriusXM), internet (Pandora, Spotify, iTunes Radio, Rdio, Rhapsody), cable (Music Choice, Verve) and other digital means as stipulated by law. These fees are paid to SoundExchange for a digital statutory license, under sections 112 and 114 of the Copyright Act, to stream sound recordings. The license fees paid to SoundExchange are passed on to copyright owners in the sound recording (master) — RECORD LABEL (50%), FEATURED ARTIST (45%), and NON-FEATURED ARTISTS (i.e. background vocalist, session musicians, etc.) (5%) — as digital statutory royalties for sound recordings.

Things to know...
* With some exceptions (mostly political) ARTISTS do not receive performance royalties in musical works (ASCAP/BMI/SESAC) unless they wrote the song. So, Rihanna does not earn performance royalties in musical works when she performs "Stay" or when you listen to it on the radio or in a coffee house.

* With some exceptions (mostly political) SONGWRITERS do not receive digital statutory royalties in sound recordings (SoundExchange) unless they also recorded the song with their vocals. So, Diane Warren does not earn digital statutory royalties in sound recordings when you hear any of the songs she wrote for Whitney Houston, Enrique Iglesias, Faith Hill (and the list goes on) on Pandora or iTunes Radio. [Update: However, Diane Warren does earn public performance royalties in the musical works (ASCAP/BMI/SESAC) for these transmissions (Thanks Professor Surmani of the Masters of Artists in Music Industry Administration program at CSUN for catching this misleading omission!).]

* Pandora, Rdio, iTunes Radio, Spotitfy, etc. must pay both ASCAP, BMI, SESAC public performance fees for musical works AND SoundExchange digital performance fees for sound recordings. Clear Channel radio stations, such as KISS FM, only have to pay ASCAP, BMI, SESAC public performance fees for musical works, but not SoundExchange digital performance fees for sound recordings because of special stipulations in the US Copyright Act for broadcast radio. This is part of the reason why Pandora wants to reduce the royalties it pays.

* Royalties collected by SoundExchange can expire if the artist does not register to collect them!!! [See THIS article for more details, and to learn how CD Baby can help you collect unclaimed digital performance royalties BEFORE they expire!]

——

There are lots of other sound recording royalties (besides the digital royalties collected by SoundExchange) that are collected on behalf of featured recording artists, non-featured artists (ie. background or session vocalists), instrumental musicians, etc. They include:

* sound recording revenue (also known as DART royalties, which stands for Digital Audio Recorders and Tapes) generated from the U.S. Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 (AHRA). Manufactures and importers of audio home recording devices (such as tape recorders) and audio home recording media (such as black CDs) pay a royalty to the Copyright Office;

* sound recording revenue generated from reciprocal Private Copy agreements with numerous foreign collectives in countries that also have legislation providing these royalties such as: Japan, the Netherlands, Hungary, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Germany, Latvia, and Estonia, just to name a few;

* sound recording revenue from record rentals remuneration from Japan, where sound recordings are rented in much the same manner DVDs are rented here in the U.S.;

* sound recording revenue generated digital public performance from the Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act of 1995 (DPRA) and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) paid to SoundExchange (as discussed above);

* sound recording revenue generated from a treaty with AIE, Sociedad de Gestión – the Spanish Rights Collective. The Audiovisual Division of the AFM & SAG-AFTRA Intellectual Property Rights Distribution Fund (established in 2010) distributes payments collected from any television show or motion picture that is broadcast on Spanish television and contains the performance of an AFM or SAG-AFTRA vocalist;

* sound recording revenue collected by the Symphonic Royalties division of the AFM & SAG-AFTRA Intellectual Property Rights Distribution Fund, which are royalties for performers on Symphonic sound recordings, including musicians and singers of an orchestra.

* sound recording revenue from master use licenses between record companies and film/TV production companies (TV shows, movies, and web series), advertisers (commercials and products), video games; and

* sound recording revenue from compulsory mechanical licenses for sample use in other songs, copies and re-distribution, and ringtones.

—-

There are lots of other musical works royalties (besides the public performance royalties collected by ASCAP/BMI/SESAC) that are collected on behalf of songwriters, music producers and publishers:

* publishing revenue from synchronization rights of music to film/TV, video games, or commercial. (Collected by publisher);

* publishing revenue from lyric print rights used in music apps, books and magazines, apparel, websites (like the lyric websites), or sheet music (such as MusicNotes.com. (Collected by publisher);

* publishing revenue from compulsory mechanical licenses for record labels or indie artists to record and distribute music works (such as going a song placed with a major artist or an indie artist doing a cover of a song previously performed by a major artist) whether posted on YouTube or sold on a CD. (Collected by Harry Fox Agency);

* publishing revenue from DART royalties from Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 distributed to the Music Publishers Subfund and Writers Subfund (collected by Copyright Office);

* publishing revenue from public performance via ASCAP, BMI, or SESAC (Note: A songwriter can only be registered to one of these guys);

* publishing revenue from foreign monies via sub-publishing agreements and other licensing arrangements in foreign territories. (Collected by PROs, publishers and other collecting entities depending on the nature of the royalties and legislation);

* publishing revenue from hundreds of other licensing sources (collected by PROs, publishers and other collecting entities depending on the nature of the royalties and territory)



And there's more, but I'll leave it at that. Any questions?

If you want to make sure you're collecting all the publishing royalties you're owed worldwide, sign up for CD Baby Pro!

And be sure to register yourself with SoundExchange to collect digital performance royalties!

Elantric

https://www.yahoo.com/music/s/beastie-boys-lawyers-bills-top-1-7m-monster-173032755.html
NEW YORK (AP) — The Beastie Boys want to force the maker of Monster Energy drink to pay nearly $2.4 million in legal fees and costs so the rappers' $1.7 million jury award is not dwarfed by expenses in a copyright violation case, lawyers say.

A Manhattan federal court jury awarded the group most of the $2 million it requested at a June trial, but that was not enough to cover costs that lawyers said were worsened by the actions of the Corona, California-based Monster Energy Co., the musicians' lawyers said in papers filed in Manhattan federal court.

They said more than two years of litigation punctuated by Monster's failure to engage in good-faith negotiations, an eight-day trial and Monster's effort to overturn the verdict ran up the legal bill.

"Monster's tactics significantly increased the costs for Beastie Boys to vindicate their intellectual property rights, such that, absent an award of attorney's fees and costs, plaintiff's success at trial would become a Pyrrhic victory," they wrote in a filing Saturday.

Monster had admitted wrongly using the group's songs in a video that was online for five weeks. But the beverage maker said at trial it should owe no more than $125,000. The company's lawyers did not immediately respond to messages seeking comment Monday.

The Beastie Boys, inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 2012, have turned out four No. 1 albums and sold more than 40 million records as they helped bring hip-hop to the mainstream over the last three decades. In 1986, they topped the charts with their debut, "Licensed to Ill," which include the anthem "(You Gotta) Fight for Your Right (To Party!)"

Beastie Boys' band members Adam "Ad-Rock" Horovitz and Michael "Mike D" Diamond both testified at trial, with Horovitz waiting throughout several hours of jury deliberations to be in court for the outcome. Another member of the band, the gravelly-voiced rapper Adam "MCA" Yauch, died of cancer in May 2012 at age 47.

Horovitz had testified the legendary hip-hop group would never license songs to endorse commercial products.

In a December ruling upholding the verdict and award, Judge Paul A. Engelmayer said that five Beastie Boys songs used by Monster in a video made it easy to conclude that the Beastie Boys were endorsing Monster products. He also said the jury's finding that Monster acted in bad faith would be relevant to an award of attorney's fees.

The group's lawyers said Monster had offered as much as $250,000 to settle before trial but had demanded the Beastie Boys drop their demands to below $1 million. The lawyers said the group had agreed to reduce its demands to $1.65 million.

They said the Beastie Boys even offered to negotiate a deal post-trial to curb additional litigation costs, but Monster did not respond to the offer. As a result, they added, they should be awarded attorney's fees of $2.38 million, including $895,926 spent prior to trial, $1.28 million during trial and the $200,438 post-trial cost through December.

Kevin M

The real winners, it seems, are the attorneys.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

GraemeJ


supernicd

It would seem to me that there are a lot of ways to make some good bank in the music industry.  Being a musician isn't one of them.
Strat w/ GK-3, Godin LGXT
VG-99, GR-55, GP-10
---------------------------------------------------------------

Elantric

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/opinion/sunday/open-the-music-industrys-black-box.html?referrer&_r=0

Open the Music Industry's Black Box

By DAVID BYRNE
JULY 31, 2015
THIS should be the greatest time for music in history — more of it is being found, made, distributed and listened to than ever before. That people are willing to pay for digital streaming is good news. In Sweden, where it was founded, Spotify saved a record industry that piracy had gutted.

Everyone should be celebrating — but many of us who create, perform and record music are not. Tales of popular artists (as popular as Pharrell Williams) who received paltry royalty checks for songs that streamed thousands or even millions of times (like "Happy") on Pandora or Spotify are common. Obviously, the situation for less-well-known artists is much more dire. For them, making a living in this new musical landscape seems impossible. I myself am doing O.K., but my concern is for the artists coming up: How will they make a life in music?

It's easy to blame new technologies like streaming services for the drastic reduction in musicians' income. But on closer inspection we see that it is a bit more complicated. Even as the musical audience has grown, ways have been found to siphon off a greater percentage than ever of the money that customers and music fans pay for recorded music. Many streaming services are at the mercy of the record labels (especially the big three: Sony, Universal and Warner), and nondisclosure agreements keep all parties from being more transparent.

Perhaps the biggest problem artists face today is that lack of transparency. I've asked basic questions of both the digital services and the music labels and been stonewalled. For example, I asked YouTube how ad revenue from videos that contain music is shared (which should be an incredibly basic question). They responded that they didn't share exact numbers, but said that YouTube's cut was "less than half." An industry source (who asked not to be named because of the sensitivity of the information) told me that the breakdown is roughly 50 percent to YouTube, 35 percent to the owner of the master recording and 15 percent to the publisher.

Before musicians and their advocates can move to enact a fairer system of pay, we need to know exactly what's going on. We need information from both labels and streaming services on how they share the wealth generated by music. Taylor Swift, when she forced Apple to back off a plan not to pay royalties during the three-month free trial period for its new streaming service, Apple Music, made some small progress on this count — but we still don't know how much Apple agreed to pay, or how they will determine the rate.

Putting together a picture of where listeners' money goes when we pay for a streaming service subscription is notoriously complicated. Here is some of what we do know: About 70 percent of the money a listener pays to Spotify (which, to its credit, has tried to illuminate the opaque payment system) goes to the rights holders, usually the labels, which play the largest role in determining how much artists are paid. (A recently leaked 2011 contract between Sony and Spotify showed that the service had agreed to pay the label more than $40 million in advances over three years. But it doesn't say what Sony was to do with the money.)


The labels then pay artists a percentage (often 15 percent or so) of their share. This might make sense if streaming music included manufacturing, breakage and other physical costs for the label to recoup, but it does not. When compared with vinyl and CD production, streaming gives the labels incredibly high margins, but the labels act as though nothing has changed.

Consider the unanswered questions in the Swift-Apple dispute. Why didn't the major labels take issue with Apple's trial period? Is it because they were offered a better deal than the smaller, independent labels? Is it because they own the rights to a vast music library with no production or distribution costs, without which no streaming service could operate?

The answer, it seems, is mainly the latter — the major labels have their hefty catalogs and they can ride out the three-month dry spell. (The major labels are focused on the long game: some 40 percent to 60 percent of "freemium" customers join the pay version after a trial period.)

I asked Apple Music to explain the calculation of royalties for the trial period. They said they disclosed that only to copyright owners (that is, the labels). I have my own label and own the copyright on some of my albums, but when I turned to my distributor, the response was, "You can't see the deal, but you could have your lawyer call our lawyer and we might answer some questions."

It gets worse. One industry source told me that the major labels assigned the income they got from streaming services on a seemingly arbitrary basis to the artists in their catalog. Here's a hypothetical example: Let's say in January Sam Smith's "Stay With Me" accounted for 5 percent of the total revenue that Spotify paid to Universal Music for its catalog. Universal is not obligated to take the gross revenue it received and assign that same 5 percent to Sam Smith's account. They might give him 3 percent — or 10 percent. What's to stop them?

The labels also get money from three other sources, all of which are hidden from artists: They get advances from the streaming services, catalog service payments for old songs and equity in the streaming services themselves.

Musicians are entrepreneurs. We are essentially partners with the labels, and should be treated that way. Artists and labels have many common interests — both are appalled, for instance, by the oddly meager payments from YouTube (more people globally listen to music free on YouTube than anywhere else). With shared data on how, where, why and when our audience listens, we can all expand our reach. This would benefit YouTube, the labels and us as well. With cooperation and transparency the industry can grow to three times its current size, Willard Ahdritz, the head of Kobalt, an independent music and publishing collection service, told me.

There is cause for hope. I recently spent two days on Capitol Hill, with the help of Sound Exchange, a nonprofit digital royalty collection and distribution organization, to discuss fairer compensation for artists via the Fair Play Fair Pay Act, which would force AM and FM stations to pay musicians when their recordings are broadcast, as most of the world does.

Rethink Music, an initiative of the Berklee Institute for Creative Entrepreneurship, released a report last month that recommends making music deals and transactions more transparent; simplifying the flow of money and improving the shared use of technology to connect with fans.

Some of these ideas regarding openness are radical — "disruptive" is the word Silicon Valley might use — but that's what's needed. It's not just about the labels either. By opening the Black Box, the whole music industry, all of it, can flourish. There is a rising tide of dissatisfaction, but we can work together to make fundamental changes that will be good for all.

A musician and artist and the author of "How Music Works."

chrish

#14
That was interesting. I'm curious to know  how the copyright laws apply to cover song musicans like me who play at the local pizza night for 50 dollars each and food. I went to an Al DiMeola concert some years ago and talked with him after his show. I told him that I play some of his music, working for pizza, and he didn't seem concerned. But should i send him a slice? :-)

Elantric

#15
Most towns today have a local BMI / ASCAP rep who audits the club scene. If its DJ's spinning records, there is no problem - but if you are in a top 40 cover band playing live music written by other people, and sound "just like the record", the club Owner finds himself on the receiving  end of an ASCAP/BMI monthly public performance music royalty payment bill. This situation has killed the local bar / club live music scene in many towns, and explains why most clubs have shifted over to being a DJ dance rave club instead .

The solution - master your instrument at home, but only play original material for public performance.

http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2014/10/29/ascap-bmi-sesac-force-local-coffee-shop-shut-live-music/

ASCAP, BMI and SESAC Force Local Coffee Shop To Shut Down Live Music
Wednesday, October 29, 2014
by Ari Herstand
bauhaus_main

Maria Antonowisch and Jon Bennett aren't your typical venue owners. The majority of the money they make on their concerts they donate to charities. Pictured above is them handing a check of their concert proceeds to the Backstoppers, an organization that helps the families of fallen police officers and firefighters.

"We don't do this to make a lot of money. We do this as a community service. We do this for the kids who are trying to break into the music business. And now it's gone. And that's the damn crime of the whole thing," Bennett confessed, "they (the PROs) wouldn't negotiate to a point that made it more realistic for a small venue like ourselves."

http://blog.songtrust.com/songwriting-tips/pros-whats-the-difference/
QuoteAs per the Songtrust music publishing glossary, PRO's are "societies responsible for collecting income on behalf of songwriters and music publishers when a song is publicly broadcast."  That means PROs track down cash for you when your music is played on television and AM/FM airwaves, through internet radio services like Pandora, at a club, inside a restaurant, at a concert, or publicly broadcast in some other fashion. These places and stations pay fees to PROs, who in turn pay their registered songwriters, most of whom are owed more money than they know.

The couple owns a coffee shop, Bauhaus Kaffee, in the sleepy town of Farmington, Missouri – about 45 minutes south of St. Louis. Population 18,000. The coffee shop seats about 55 people, but the fire department capacity is 96. So that's the number that the PROs used to calculate the blanket license rate.

Antonowisch explained that once ASCAP got wind that they had live music (even though they were only holding about 12 concerts a year), ASCAP began their crusade. "They called us everyday. They sent two letters a day. They threatened us with a lawsuit because they said we had violated copyright," Antonowisch lamented. As not to get sued, the coffee shop owners conceded. They agreed to pay ASCAP the $600 yearly license for the right to have live music.


But then they found out that there was another PRO that required the same license. BMI. They actually contacted BMI directly, "they were very surprised that we called them," Antonowisch remembers. BMI charged them about $500.
Now their total was up to $1,100 a year.

Then, as luck would have it, SESAC got in touch. And they demanded just over $700.

They pay $350 a year for the commercial version of Sirius/XM (which includes PRO recorded music fees) for their in house music.

So their total cost for music was just over $2,100 a year. When they don't make much (or anything) from their live concerts, as most of their shows are 'pass the hat' kinds of performances, they couldn't justify having live music anymore.

This couple, like many other small business owners, don't know the music industry. And why should they? They don't know music copyright law (hell most songwriters don't know copyright law). Bennett worries that there will be more organizations in the music industry that will come and try to shake them down. Currently, there are only 3 PROs in the US. However, with Sony/ATV threatening to pull their catalogs from the PROs and go at it on their own, who's to say they won't go after Bauhaus for yet another license? If Sony/ATV is successful, will other publishers pull out of the PROs as well? Time will tell.

ASCAP sent me the document that outlines their approach to licensing small businesses. It explains what's required of the small business under the law, and explains that 88 cents out of every dollar goes back to the members (songwriters and publishers). ASCAP and BMI are non-profit Performing Rights Organizations (PRO), SESAC is for profit.

*Update 10/30/14 3:28pm – Legally, any songwriter is allowed to play his or her original music at any establishment without that establishment having to pay for a license, HOWEVER, this doesn't matter in the PRO's eyes and won't deter them from going after the venue. Bauhaus actually explained to ASCAP that all of their musicians play original music and ASCAP shot back "how do you know? Do you know every song ever written?" So the PROs won't believe a venue if they claim that they only host original music. And all it takes is one musician to play one cover song for a PRO to sue for serious damages.

All it takes is one musician to play one cover song for a PRO to sue a venue for serious damages.
The coffee shop owners were most disappointed that there was no negotiation allowed with ASCAP. Should a 100 cap venue that hosts concerts 7 nights a week at $25 a head be treated the same as Bauhaus – with their 12 free concerts a year? In the PRO's mind yes. I'm not so certain.

"They were not interested in negotiating with us," Bauhaus Kaffee owners
Full disclosure, I'm an ASCAP songwriter. I appreciate the ASCAP checks I receive. I know that a tiny, minuscule fraction of that $600 that Bauhaus paid went to me. But at the same time, I don't want my performing rights organization to force small businesses offering a service to the community to stop.

There are no places for up and coming musicians to play in Farmington. The couple mentioned that the local community college students even got school credit for performing at the coffee shop.

It's kind of ironic that these PROs are inadvertently preventing potential future members from getting their start by forcing venues to stop hosting songwriters.
"Some of the best music has come out of the coffee shop scene," Bennett professes. "We wanted to create an environment reminiscent of Cafe Wha in Greenwich Village."

There has to be some middle ground. Bauhaus should not have to stop offering their occasional concerts. I'll take a few fractions of a cent less on my ASCAP checks if I know that the establishments (similar to those where I got my start) can continue offering up and coming songwriters a chance to showcase some of their material. Would I be where I am today had I not had an opportunity to play at the European Grind or the Steak Knife in Minneapolis? Probably not. (They're long gone, no need to go after them, guys)

I think a new license breakdown is necessary for all three PROs.
Instead of calculating fire department capacity, why not business gross? Those numbers are filed with the government. Or what if it's based on the number of concerts offered a year. 1-24 = x amount. 24 – 52 = y, 52+ = z. With the data that BMI receives from BMI Live and ASCAP receives from ASCAP OnStage (where performing songwriters can input their setlist and venue data from previous shows), it would be easy to notice if these venues were seriously fudging this info. And with one click of a mouse the PROs could take a look at the venue's concert calendar to see how much live music is actually a part of their business.

The PROs have been helping songwriters sustain a living since their inceptions in the early 20th century. They fight for us in Washington to (attempt to) make sure the laws accurately reflect the current realities of the musical and technological landscape. Could they alter their policies a bit to look out for the establishments that provide a supportive environment for songwriters?

The Bauhaus owners respect songwriters. They respect copyright. They willingly paid once they realized they had to. But with all of the fees from all of the organizations, it got to be just too much. I encourage the PROs to include a few more shades of grey and update their outdated policies.

Ari Herstand is a Los Angeles based singer/songwriter and the creator of the music biz advice blog, Ari's Take. Follow him on Twitter: @aristake[/i]


http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2013/09/25/lies/

chrish

#16
Thanks for posting that pov and good advice on creating and performing original material. My trio did some of that, but mostly we played the songs we love, written by some of the most creative and masterful artists in todays world. Their music should be played now. It is interesting that the venue is liable for paying licensing fees for the cover music bands that perform at their venue. As far as original music copyright claims are concerned, I can certainly see both sides of the argument, however, all music is derived from what came before, so i don't get how copyright claims are made and enforced on songs and groves that may sound kind of the same.

Elantric

#17
Quote, I can certainly see both sides of the argument, however, all music is derived from what came before, so i don't get how copyright claims are made and enforced on songs and groves that may sound kind of the same.


Very true - if the ASCAP / BMI "police" were trolling Hamburg in 1961 - "The Beatles" would have had a tougher time recording "I feel Fine"


But Larry Williams and Bobby Parker might have  made more $$
https://books.google.com/books?id=lNwdAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA17&lpg=PA17&dq=larry+williams+watch+your+step&source=bl&ots=z2Oc27H6RL&sig=UHpC1H01-yJiBKMWTRwl27e2NRU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CC8Q6AEwBGoVChMImsiZwqDZxwIVyjeICh17ZgQh#v=onepage&q=larry%20williams%20watch%20your%20step&f=false


WoW! Bobby Parker - who knew?!
https://www.vguitarforums.com/smf/index.php?topic=10104.msg72821#msg72821


Tony Raven

Up until the 1950s, it was readily possible for a writer of moderate talent to earn a living at the craft, because there were so MANY magazines out in the world. Then, the model changed, & low-level fiction writers count themselves fortunate to get a dime a word (+/- a couple of cents), or about what a hack was getting in the 1920s.

Up until the 1980s, it was possible for musicians of moderate skill to earn a (slim) living playing in pubs & bowling alleys (& always hoping for a spot opening for better-known bands). I'm in a small town (8K population) on the edge of nowhere, & back in the mid-1970s it wasn't unusual to have 5+ bands playing any given weekend -- some local, some regional, a few about to break nationally. Now, we barely see that number of DJ shows, & rarely more than one band per month. In 1979, my band could easily get $250/night (only so low because we happened to like the venue); now, getting twice that -- if only for our skills level & popular appeal -- is difficult to find, & booking even four gigs/week almost impossible. Dunno what's happened, but the Good Old Days are likely gone.

A few years back, I sent an email to ASCAP asking whether an unnamed venue (which hadn't put on live music in years) would need to pay their fee, even if I were doing an unpaid show & performing ONLY songs that I verifiably wrote.

Their reply was a polite-but-rigid "Yes."

Dunno that they have ANY legal right to do so, but fighting them is like fighting Disney: they can easily drown dissenters in paperwork.

The only real choice would be for musicians to keep writing & recording & gigging & posting. The Meanies will go after a few "example" cases & sue individuals to death (maybe literally) --  but the slim hope there is that enough musicians who're harassed or fearing that they COULD BE harrassed in similar manner could become the basis for a class-action suit that'd need to pry open the actual workings of ASCAP/RIAA/etc... which they will NOT allow without an FBI-level disclosure raid.

But, really, what's the choice but to wait for the knock at the door? Given the potential "lost" revenues, what's to stop ASCAP et al from sending goon squads on city-wide sweeps of coffee houses & frat parties? Until then, all you can do is your best, & not live in fear.

Elantric

#20
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/25/magazine/touring-cant-save-musicians-in-the-age-of-spotify.html?_r=3

Touring Can't Save Musicians in the Age of Spotify
By MIKE ERRICOJAN. 25, 2016


Dave Grohl of the band Foo Fighters performing in Ansan, South Korea, in July after breaking his leg. Credit Ed Jones/AFP/Getty Images
Every couple of months, I see another post in my Facebook feed about a band that was cut off by an 18-wheeler or skidded on a patch of black ice and rolled their van into a ditch. Some members are injured, and they're launching a Kickstarter campaign to pay for medical bills and to get back on their feet.

My heart (and often, money) goes out to them. But if you need to crowdfund your hospital costs, you were never on your feet to begin with. After many years as a touring artist myself, I'm honestly surprised that the person in that ditch has never been me.

Touring is, of course, the most ancient business model available to artists — and in many ways, it remains a vital part of their livelihood, even while the surrounding industry undergoes major upheaval to accommodate the new paradigm of streaming music. In response to the shift in revenue sources, standard recording contracts now intrude into the numerous nonrecording aspects of an artist's career. But the advice given to the creative generators of this multibillion dollar industry is still one that would be recognizable to a medieval troubadour: Go on tour.

And yet from a business standpoint, it's hard to find a model more unsustainable than one that relies on a single human body. This is why we have vice presidents, relief pitchers and sixth men. When applied to music's seemingly limitless streaming future, the only scarce resource left is the artists themselves. You would think the industry would protect such an important piece of its business model, but in fact, the opposite is true.

The contribution of live touring to the music industry's bottom line is enormous, and the number is only growing. Consider Taylor Swift: According to Billboard, her live show grossed $30 million in 2013, with another $10 million in merchandise sold. And depending on whom you believe, she made anywhere from $500,000 to $6 million from her catalog on Spotify that year. While she is certainly making money in retail sales and digital downloads, both of those metrics are spiraling downward as people migrate away from the concept of owning music at all. Nielsen recently released numbers indicating substantial drops in both CD and digital-track sales, which are down almost $100 million year over year from 2014; streaming music continues to grow, but the revenue it generates isn't close to making up the difference, yet.

This means that the bulk of Swift's income rides on her ability to get to venues safely and perform. It also makes her much-examined decision to pull her 2014 release "1989" from Spotify the financial equivalent of her taking a few months off. Regardless how you look at it, the health of her singing voice is far and away the single most important aspect of her business.

Record labels have followed the money and addressed these changes in the contracts they offer to recording artists. In the predigital era, labels profited only from the physical recordings they funded, but as that income began dwindling, a new logic was applied to the artist-label relationship. Labels argued that by promoting the recordings they owned, they were also promoting the artist's career as a whole, and were entitled to profit from the full spectrum of artist's revenue streams — the "360 deal," named for the totality of its coverage.

But labels do not take on the additional risks associated with their additional profits. Instead of protecting the health of their revenue-generating engine, they simply point to an artist's independent-contractor status, which releases them from any liability they would be on the hook for if artists were labeled employees. Rather than sparking a labor dispute, these 360 deals quickly became the new normal. As a result, administrators, support staff and office spaces are insured against the risks of doing business, while the company's income generators — the creators of their master recordings — are on their own.

Artists today are not only touring more to make up for their own lost recording-sales revenue; they're also being compelled to by the labels that also stand to profit. This makes it a great time to be a fan of live music: From the rise of electronic dance music to the regular resurrections of the Grateful Dead, a major musical event is never far away. But the physical price that artists pay for this easy access is steep. Last summer, Foo Fighters' Dave Grohl was forced to cancel shows when he fell from a stage in Sweden and broke his leg. Other artists with 2015 tour-date cancellations on account of injuries, surgeries and other health issues included Sam Smith, Miranda Lambert, Steve Aoki, Little Big Town, Meghan Trainor, Nickelback, the Black Keys and Kelly Clarkson.

That's a lot of injuries — and millions of dollars lost. The European shows canceled by Foo Fighters alone, including a headlining slot at the Glastonbury Music Festival, cost the band nearly $10 million in fees and travel expenses.) And of all the instruments on a given tour, the vocal cords are the most vulnerable to the harsh environment the road virtually guarantees; basically anything that inconveniences the ordinary traveler becomes a business risk for the singer. Regardless of the circumstances, the singer has to call on this small, unprotected instrument to deliver on a daily itinerary that can extend from a morning drive-time radio show to the meet-and-greet after the performance.

From royalty rates to basic safeguards against the standard hazards of doing business, recording artists begin the negotiating process with a deck that is stacked against them. This lopsided balance of power allows labels to treat all artists as replaceable until proven otherwise, and both sides know that there is always a long line of hopefuls outside auditions for "The Voice" or "America's Got Talent" to undercut a young artist's bargaining power.

The question of why recording artists have been unable to organize and collectively bargain the way other artists have — actors and screenwriters, for example — is one that has dogged them since the dawn of the record deal. Musicians do have a union, the American Federation of Musicians, but it's not a particularly strong one; it primarily represents members of symphonies, and it hasn't been on a national strike in 70 years. Recording artists are not really considered core members, because their tenures within the union tend to be shorter than those of lifelong pit musicians and orchestra members. Music is also a traditionally decentralized, live art form with an ingrained renegade spirit. Hollywood, by contrast, has a single dominant hub.

Perhaps musicians' renegade spirit is what ultimately will save the next generation of recording artists, who are increasingly forgoing record deals altogether and going it alone. As true independents, they work the margin between the technology that makes recordings cheaper to create and a public that is steadily buying fewer of them. Without a label taking a bite out of multiple revenue sources, the numbers can actually work. Others are coming together in groups centered on advocacy and pressing for changes to the laws that dictate royalty payments in the new streaming economy — something that could mean all the difference when injury, accident or age brings a touring musician's career to a halt. But in the meantime, the vans and buses roll on.

Mike Errico is a writer, recording artist and professor of songwriting at NYU's Clive Davis Institute of Recorded Music.


DreamTheory

Quote from: Ephestion on October 06, 2014, 07:40:15 AM
Are there any royalty free or copyright free songs in the world?

Many hymns predate copyright laws, and have clever lyrics. I like to take ones I don't know and just use the lyrics and write my own music. Then go back and play the original music. Another cool thing about hymns is that they are classified metrically so that tunes and words of the same classification are interchangeable. Some of the tunes started out as drinking songs or whatever, so why not take them back and use them for non-religious songs? Just sayin'

Also folk songs are public domain. See collections by F. J. Child (Scottish Ballads) and Allan Lomax (American).
electric: Epiphone Dot semihollow body, acoustic: mahogany jumbo, recording: Cubase Artist 11 or Tascam DP008

Elantric

QuoteAre there any royalty free or copyright free songs in the world?

Google search on "Public Domain Songs"

http://www.pdinfo.com/public-domain-music-list.php

http://publicdomain4u.com/public-domain-top-ten-songs
Public Domain Top Ten Songs
Here are the ten most popular songs this month based on downloads @Publicdomain4u.com!
The songs listed below link to an MP3 download.
1. Ed Meeker – "Take Me Out To The Ball Game"
2. Billie Holiday – "They Can't Take That Away From Me"
3. Asa Martin – "She Ain't Built That Way"
4. Annette Hanshaw – "Ain't He Sweet"
5. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart – "Eine kleine Nachtmusik"
6. Paul Whiteman Orchestra – "Doo Wacka Doo"
7. Oratorio Chorus – George Frideric Handel's "Hallelujah chorus – Messiah"
8. Scott Joplin – "The Entertainer"
9. Cripple Clarence Lofton – "Monkey Man Blues"
10. Mississippi John Hurt – "Avalon Blues"


Tony Raven

QuoteThat's a lot of injuries — and millions of dollars lost.
And then there's the fact that musicians are sometimes not the best businessmen. I remember when a major Minneapolis band rented an RV for a brief regional tour. The thing burst into flame on the first leg, taking all their equipment with it. The RV was insured (in the lease)... but none of the gear.

I've been told that small aircraft have killed MANY more musicians than drugs AND liquor AND guns AND fast cars all added together. I get the sense that air transport, like what Richard Pryor said about cocaine, "is God's way of telling you that you have too much money": it makes you LOOK cool, it quickly burns cash, AND it indicates that your profit potential outweighs the risks of you getting seriously dead. A blatant example is SRV: he & Clapton finished a show at Alpine Valley Music Theatre (Wisconsin), & despite trepidations about the haze & fog & low-hanging clouds (& maybe the fact it was like half past midnight!), were apparently ordered by their managers to get aboard right damn snappy so as not to be late for their next gigs. Also apparently to save time, the choppers were told to go OVER a small (1,000 ft) artificial mountain, rather than around. SRV's ride was only 50 feet short.

Oh, well -- look what it did for album sales, eh? ::)

A few years back, Janis Ian went to buy back rights to her early albums, most of which haven't been rereleased in years. Her offer was turned down flat. She says she was told, "You're going to die sometime."  :o