Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Works from 1924 entered the public domain this year. If all of the copyright formalities were followed, works from 1946 will not enter the public domain in the U.S. until 2042.
Oh, yeah… and please avoid so-called “royalty free” libraries. They have a portion (or all) of their music they license for free, and you get nothing but what is usually a very small piece of the back-end. These libraries devalue music for all of us and make it difficult to obtain fair rates for the use of our music.
I think you may be confusing “royalty free” with “performance free,” which truly is a problem. Most of us here have music in RF libraries like Pond5 and AudioSparx. They do not give music away for free. They license music for an average of $40 per track, but can go much higher. In the case of P5, I regularly receive backend from BMI as both a writer and publisher for TV shows, for which I also received license fees (unlike many TV focused libraries). I’ve even gotten an IMDB credit through a P5 placement.
A few observations/questions:
Outside the context of non-interactive digital streams, U.S. performers aren’t generally eligible for NR remuneration.
Rident collects royalties for non-interactive digital streams, which is what SoundExchange collects. Is joining Rident redundant if your works are already registered with SE?
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.
I just realized that at least under the BMI agreement, we give away our copyrights to BMI:
This is not correct. Copyright owners have what is commonly referred to as a “bundle of rights,” as set forth below:
17 U.S. Code Section 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works.
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;
(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and
(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.The grant of rights from composers to their PRO, in this case BMI, is a limited, non-exclusive license. It is not a transfer of copyright ownership. The grant is limited in that it does not give BMI authority to exercise the full bundle of exclusive rights set forth in Section 106. The language below only applies to Section 106(4) and Section 106(6), which cover the right to publicly perform a copyrighted work.
Except as otherwise provided herein, you hereby grant to us for the Period:
(a) All the rights that you own or acquire publicly to perform, and to license others to perform, anywhere in the world, in any and all places and in any and all media, now known or which hereafter may be developed, any part or all of the Works.I hope this clears things up.
Perhaps it’s worth noting that instead of paying late, BMI actually paid writers a few days early in March to help us deal with Covid. We’ll see what happens in June.
I’m not sure if, or where, the FCC fits into this equation. The Copyright Royalty Board may be the proper venue: https://crb.govhttps://crb.gov.
They are, of course, closed as the world and our nation deal with a global health and economic crisis.
My understanding about group registration is that it could be.a problem if the destinations of the compositions comprising the group registration go to different entities, e.g. some pieces go to X library, some go to Y library, etc. Since they share the same copyright number, all the compositions in the group would really ‘belong’ to the new publisher/library when you may not want them to. Is there validation to this?
What you are describing was true under the old system of registering “collections” of works. My understanding of the new group registrations for unpublished works, implemented last year, is that each work will have a unique registration number. There are, however, other requirements. For example, “To qualify for this option, all the works must be created by the same author or the same joint authors, and the author or joint authors must be named as the copyright claimant for each work.”
define “unpublished”? What happens after “published” and what is the definition for copyright’s sake?
17 U.S. Code §101.
“Publication” is the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display, constitutes publication. A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication.In reality, for the market we are in, copyrighting every piece of music is financially not feasible.
Under the current fee schedule, you can register 10 unpublished works in a “Group Registration” for $55. That seems feasible.
Is it advisable to wait for the actual copyright number before using music in any way online?
The US Supreme Court recently held that for purposes of litigation registration has occurred when when the Copyright office takes the final step of issuing the registration, not when the application is submitted. The timing of registration and publication can have a serious impact on your ability to receive statutory damages and legal fees in the event that someone infringes on your work after publication and before the registration is final.
I really enjoy earning “double” the money as writer and publisher.
I do too and that does happen for my for music that’s in RF libraries. I also really enjoy getting paid upfront for my tracks AND getting backend for that music too. So, I do both.
.surely though your publisher had to have filed a claim on the spot? Someone had to inform BMI about the project.
That’s quite possible, Music1234. The publisher is a well-known PMA library.
Does ASCAP and/or BMI ever just track and pick up the commercials for you – like they should – with no effort on your part?
Last year, BMI paid me for a Bud Light radio spot. No tracking anyone down. No chasing after royalties. Zero effort on my part. It was a nice surprise.