- This topic has 20 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 7 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Alan
If it helps your not completely alone I had the same issue with a track. They used 15 to 30 seconds of it 54 times on the MSG Network Fight Night….according to Tunesat…..but I could not find it on numerator searched and searched …there just seems to be to many gears in the music machine that can break and no one knows how to fix it or wants to….I enjoy making music and putting it in libraries but I kept telling myself …I must be crazy so “Welcome to the Machine”…………..I’ll continue keeping the dream alive by hitting the snooze button.@MichaelL- i don’t disagree with you, and I probably misspoke to say that all the rights went away. However, when the contract says “you grant to us . . . all rights that you own” regarding performances – that’s not license language. That’s granting ownership. Art is right that it is only for a term, but for at least that term, the rights are exclusive to BMI.
Later language allows the writer to ask BMI for certain specific performances to be excluded but you have to stand on one foot and balance three plates on your head to successfully get through the exclusion language.
How I read it is that BMI owns the copyright, for the term, with regard to performances. I wondered how the PRO’s were able to compel the writer to pay the PRO royalties if the writer performs his/her work in a bar or restaurant. The writer signs over the performance rights to the PRO. That’s why.
you grant to us . . . all rights that you own
Hi jdt9517,
Licensing is a major part of my practice and “grant” is the proper term used in licensing agreements. The licensor is “granting” someone or some entity the right to do something with their intellectual property. If composers were actually giving ownership of their copyrights to BMI the language would be “you transfer to us all rights you own…”
Without getting too deeply into the mechanics of copyrights, the bundle of rights under Section 106 is exclusive, but composers’ agreements with BMI are non-exclusive, which means that composers are still free to exercise their full bundle of rights. For example, members of US PROs are free sell their music on RF sites and to enter into direct license deals as they choose. That would not be the case if they were actually giving ownership of their copyrights to BMI.
I wondered how the PRO’s were able to compel the writer to pay the PRO royalties if the writer performs his/her work in a bar or restaurant.
The writer/performer does not pay the PRO for his/her performances in a bar or restaurant. The bar/restaurant pays an annual blanket license to the PROs for music performed in their establishment, based on the seating capacity of the venue (Notice the ASCAP or BMI sticker, sometimes displayed on the entrance).
In theory, the PROs distribute the money collected from the blanket licenses to the composers whose works are performed. The obvious problem is that bars and restaurants do not file “cue sheets” to inform the PROs what music is performed in their establishments. Thus, the PROs have no way of knowing what music was actually performed. The money goes into a “black box” of sorts and gets distributed based on the PRO’s formula, which is weighted toward popular, recognized works. Unknown composers have little chance of being compensated for these types of performances. ASCAP members can apply for special awards based on live performances.
Outside the US, the situation is similar, with popular, recognized music being compensated instead of the actual composer’s whose music was performed. Also, in some countries “unclaimed” performances go into a fund that the Collective Management Organizations claim to use for musicians’ “general welfare” and the “good of society.”
Direct licensing models are a good solution or commercial background music because each performance is counted and the proper composers get paid.
Has anybody looked into registering the songs in these promos with Soundmouse? Similar to Tunesat, it uses audio software to detect when your cues get played and then automatically generates cue sheets and sends them to PROs. ASCAP (& BMI?) will only pay on certain types of promos if it receives a cue sheet generated by Soundmouse. I recently discovered a short form infomercial, which is one of the promo types that ASCAP requires you use Soundmouse for, that has thousands of plays via Tunesat so I’ve registered the cue with Soundmouse but have still yet to see any cue sheets or royalty payments in my ASCAP account. I also feel a bit jerked around by ASCAP, especially because Soundmouse is will not share any info with composers, only the PRO’s, so there’s no way to tell whether it’s picking up any of my cues. Seems a bit shady.
If not getting paid and you have proof it’s being used, consider taking legal action.
If not getting paid and you have proof it’s being used, consider taking legal action.
Against whom? ASCAP.
And @ Scott R, I completely agree with you about the soundmouse issue. It does seem a bit ridiculous that ACSAP contracted soundmouse to be a detection service partner, but the catch is that publishers/ composers need to upload all the files to soundmouse only to not get a detection report to study.
My experience with soundmouse has been very frustrating. They seem to be based in Europe for starters. They did confirm that I’d never see a report for my tracks. Their upload and metadata entry process is far from simple. I currently have 700 tracks uploaded but no one can help me credit writer and publisher PRO information within their “add track details” ecosystem.
I contacted customer support asking if it was possible to do a batch edit to all tracks because the writer is the same for each track and so is the publisher. Sound mouse replied “I will look into this and get back to you soon.” about week has passed and no one has responded.
If anyone reading here has had an easy process uploading production tracks to Soundmouse, I’d love to hear your thoughts. PRS uses them too.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.