Slashdot Mirror

It ain't the companies that conservatives think are biased. It's the people - liberals are more likely to take punitive action against people for having a different political viewpoint. Conservatives had it drilled into them for decades by liberals that businesses aren't supposed to discriminate based on criteria irrelevant to operating the business. But liberals are more than happy to discriminate against conservatives in a business environment. How many times have you read a story about some conservative politician using a song in their campaign, and the band which made the song stating they didn't give permission for the politician to use their song? Yes they did give permission - the venue licensing agreement gives anyone using the venue rights to play any song published by the major studios, and in exchange the band gets part of the fees collected for the licenses.

Have you ever heard the phrase "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."? We're getting to the point where most liberals disagree with that statement. My theory is the difference stems from how conservatives and liberals view each other. Conservatives generally view liberals as stupid. Liberals generally view conservatives as evil - which in their minds justifies discriminatory and retaliatory actions against conservatives.

IMHO this willingness to shame, humiliate, and punish people for having different opinions is currently the greatest threat to Democracy. Democracy only works if people are willing to express, live by, and share different opinions without fear of reprisal. The moment people fear stating their opinions, Democracy loses its advantage over oligarchies and autocracies (e.g. fascist states).

Something isn't right here... I took two semesters of copyright law in college, and cinemas specifically are exempted from this IIRC. You should consult another copyright attorney. Is your cinema inside the US?

Read this -
http://www.ascap.com/music-car...

Answer is here. Essentially if you have a gathering that is not family and friends, you'll probably have to pay. If it's just your family and friends, then you're good (but if you're a bartender, good luck trying to get the judge to believe that all your clients are friends).

Some people mistakenly assume that musicians and entertainers must obtain licenses to perform copyrighted music or that businesses where music is performed can shift their responsibility to musicians or entertainers. The law says all who participate in, or are responsible for, performances of music are legally responsible. Since it is the business owner who obtains the ultimate benefit from the performance, it is the business owner who obtains the license. Music license fees are one of the many costs of doing business.

it's not the musicians, it's the business. Same reason (or should be, but often isn't) business owners charge a cover when music is being played in the venue (although, often times said cover is also paid to the musicians themselves).

Are you forgetting about the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers, and the Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada, among others?

That's just bizarre:
http://www.ascap.com/members/payment/surveys.aspx

Radio is basically the only thing that works that way - and I'm guessing it's only for ASCAP. But that's the songwriter's royalty. I believe they pay royalties based on complete count for the recording to SoundExchange (the license for the actual recording for the song instead of the writing credits). And probably all other songwriters exchanges too (BMI/SESAC/etc). It's ridiculous that they're not just requiring something that the radio stations already have to do for SoundExchange. They really need to get with the times.

Right they obviously have that down to a T. But, the question is, do they pay royalties based on that information?

Based on ASCAP's info, I think the answer is no.

http://www.ascap.com/members/payment/keepingtrack.aspx

ASCAP only periodically (not continuously) polls radio stations. Then pays artists only if their songs were paid.

The song in question is covered under ASCAP licensing.

As long as the venue has made its yearly ASCAP tribute payment that never gets to the authors, there is absolutely nothing the authors of this song can do about it.

More likely than not, he's registered with BMI or ASCAP.

Indeed, Eye of the Tiger is available for public performance with ASCAP.

You were asking the wrong organization. ASCAP (American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers) licenses playback of music in public places, at least in the U.S.A. The RIAA is more of a marketing/lobbying/lawsuit factory designed to fight for the interests of the publishers, very different goals. I probably shouldn't be surprised that no-one there sent you over to ASCAP, but I still have a naive hope that industry insiders would at least know the other heavy hitters in their own industry...

ASCAP and BMI already charge businesses (nigh clubs/etc) that earn revenue from live bands covering music and even music being played in a jukebox. Since this is already in place I wonder why ASCAP/BMI wouldn't go after youtube.com rather than try and make the performers responsible.

Here are their respective links:

http://www.ascap.com/
http://www.bmi.com/

I listen to the radio if one of my coworkers puts it on,

BZZZT! Your company must ASCAP for a public performance license if anyone at your work is playing a radio that can be heard by anyone besides themselves (your office is not a "a small circle of a family or its social acquaintances"). If that isn't acceptable, listeners are welcome to use headphones.

http://www.ascap.com/licensing/licensingfaq.html

I'd like to think this would encourage more of the smaller news websites to get actual reporters out there, rather than just being news aggregators. It would be a shot in the arm for the industry, create jobs, and provide us with more varied reporting instead of having the same story repeated 10k times.

Since they're comparing this to the fees that are charged by ASCAP, for say a bar to play recorded music for its patrons, I would imagine your assumption would be equivalent to a bar wanting to play Metallica for its patrons and instead of paying the $400 a year (and I'm just taking a stab at this, I think it depends on the size of the bar and frequency of music) they go out, put together a band, have them write their own music, record it for the bar and then the bar plays it for the patrons. Now, when you say that it would "provide us" then you would also be assuming that said bar would be okay with anyone playing this music in other bars or allow any individual to enjoy it without recouping their losses.

I don't think your assumption is very sound. In fact, I would wager Geeknet, Inc. would food up to a few grand a year to be a licensed news outlet or shut down Slashdot before it started taking on reporters that generate expenses in their footwork trying to find news. If Slashdot did start producing original news, it'd probably be best for them to try to join the AP news clearinghouse to recoup those costs.

I'm not saying it's a good thing, I just think your assumption of which way this will push websites, blogs, etc is grossly misguided. My predictions are either out of business or impose a new cost to do business.

ASCAP began collecting royalties for public performance in 1914.

The bar and tavern owner has been peddling the same excuses for non-payment for 96 years.

Early on, founding member Victor Herbert brought a lawsuit against Shanley's Restaurant for refusing to pay royalties. The fight took two years and went to the Supreme Court. ASCAP prevailed. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote the decision of the Court: "If music did not pay, it would be given up. Whether it pays or not, the purpose of employing it is profit and that is enough." The Era of The Player Piano (The Early 1900s)

Like this: http://www.ascap.com/about/board-intro.html

Or this: http://bmi.com/about/entry/533112

Personally, I've been giving Paul Williams too much credit for being cool. This stuff shows he might be kind of a dick.

Go to their donation site and donate 0.01 on your credit card. This will drain their funds because the processing fees will be much larger than the donation (processing fees are a percentage plus a transaction amount). Transaction amounts vary from 0.10 to 0.25, so anything less than a dime definitely results in a net loss.

For the second screenshot, I verified the donation link works: https://members.ascap.com/ma/EwaWeb/pub/startOnlineDonation.do
This means it probably isn't a hoax.

There is nothing about this on the ASCAP web site nor does the weblink seem to work if it's typed in.

Orly?

In addition to this, after a quick search for Creative Commons on ASCAP's website, I found this lovely article which gives the same give peace a chance/save the whales vibe as their letter did.

Retailers and restaurants in the states have been living with performance rights issues since the nickelodeon days.

ASCAP was founded in 1914:

Early on, founding member Victor Herbert brought a lawsuit against Shanley's Restaurant for refusing to pay royalties. The fight took two years and went to the Supreme Court. ASCAP prevailed. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote the decision of the Court: " The Era of the Player Piano (The Early 1900s)

"If the rights under the copyright are infringed only by a performance where money is taken at the door, they are very imperfectly protected. Performances not different in kind from those of the defendants could be given that might compete with and even destroy the success of the monopoly that the law intends the plaintiffs to have. It is enough to say that there is no need to construe the statute so narrowly. The defendants' performances are not eleemosynary. They are part of a total for which the public pays, and the fact that the price of the whole is attributed to a particular item which those present are expected to order is not important.

It is true that the music is not the sole object, but neither is the food, which probably could be got cheaper elsewhere. The object is a repast in surroundings that to people having limited powers of conversation, or disliking the rival noise, give a luxurious pleasure not to be had from eating a silent meal. If music did not pay, it would be given up. If it pays, it pays out of the public's pocket. Whether it pays or not, the purpose of employing it is profit, and that is enough." Herbert v. Shanley Co., 242 U.S. 591 (1917)

Holmes was not one to waste words, summing up the circuit court's decision and reversing it in three short, plain-spoken, paragraphs.

I think you're confused about all of the music industry groups that try to get paid for music. ASCAP is pretty much the biggest organization for songwriters. Yes songwriters for the big labels, but also those for smaller labels as well.

Its not very exclusive. You can join for a one time fee of $25. http://www.ascap.com/about/howjoin.asp Then you can hate yourself for the rest of your life ;)

Ah, but you don't understand how the racket works - venues that provide live music in the US pay fees to ASCAP thugs (or whoever the publisher of that music is), not RIAA thugs, and those thugs are supposed to pay the songwriter (which is actually done indirectly - usually they pay the studio and the studio is supposed to pay the artist, which pretty much never happens), so the artist is really out of the loop. Venues that play both recorded and live music have to pay to both RIAA and ASCAP thugs.

    Speaking as a published artist, I have never seen a penny of ASCAP or RIAA money (we sold a modest amount of albums for an indie in one of my bands - around 10k) - probably from the studio illegally holding it from me. If it was worth it, I'd continue my long history of litigation both against ex-bandmembers and the studio (confiscated gear that was mine sold by the studio to recoup recording fees and the singer and guitarist that stole all of the bands money to support drug habits - it was not a pretty ending...), but the reality is the lawsuit would cost me more both in money and time than I'd recoup.

Would mathematics still be copyrightable?

Yes, a sufficiently large number can represent a copyrighted work. It can be represent a piece of music or a computer program. (A program is a list of instructions that describes a mathematical process in a way that a machine can carry out.) A program is copyrighted as a literary work, but the process that the program describes cannot itself be copyrighted in the United States per 17 USC 102(b). That's why some inventors have been trying to use patent law, which is designed to protect processes, to secure exclusive rights in algorithms.

Because any piece of music can be written down as a series of bytes

While we're still on the subject of musical copyright for a moment: Define the "hook" of a musical work as the first few notes of the memorable part. Then the Kolmogorov complexity of a hook can be estimated as having 40 bits or fewer, based on encoding each of the first eight notes in five bits: four bits for the pitch (0 to 15 relative to a standard scale), and one bit for whether the note is short or long. So there are only about a trillion musical hooks, and the birthday problem suggests that collisions start to become likely around the square root of that (a million). The music-theoretic rules of which pitches fit well together reduce the space even further. For comparison, the repertories of the major U.S. performance rights organizations, which have already surpassed 15 million (8.5 million for ASCAP and 6.5 million for BMI). So collisions such as "He's So Fine" vs. "My Sweet Lord" (Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music, 420 F. Supp. 177 (S.D.N.Y. 1976)) quickly become inevitable.

That would be ASCAP, not the RIAA.

"ASCAP protects the rights of its members by licensing and distributing royalties for the non-dramatic public performances of their copyrighted works. ASCAP's licensees encompass all who want to perform copyrighted music publicly."

http://www.ascap.com/about/

No, it isn't. According to ASCAP's own definition:

A public performance is one that occurs "in a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered."

Which businesses? "Hounded" in what way? By whom? Where have they been denied their exemption under the law?

http://www.opuzz.com/2007/08/ascap-initiates-lawsuit-for-playing.html

"Are you a business owner or manager? Are you aware it is illegal to play copyrighted music on the premises (for example, music on hold, in-store music) without a music license?"
"Last week in Seattle two dozen venues were cited in a lawsuit by ASCAP for failing to properly license their music. "

http://www.ascap.com/press/2007/073107_infringement.html

"New York, NY, July 30, 2007: The American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) today announced that it has filed 26 separate infringement actions against nightclubs, bars and restaurants in 17 states.

In each of the cases filed today, the business establishment has publicly performed the copyrighted musical works of ASCAP's songwriter, composer and music publisher members without obtaining a license from ASCAP to do so."

http://www.ascap.com/licensing/licensingfaq.html

"8. I'm interested in playing music in my restaurant or other business. I know that I need permission for live performances. Do I need permission if I am using only CD's, records, tapes, radio or TV?

Yes, you will need permission to play records or tapes in your establishment." ...
"10. I want to use music-on-hold in my business. Do I need permission?

Yes. When you place a caller on hold and transmit music via your telephone lines, that is a public performance of the music. It is your responsibility to obtain permission to perform ASCAP songs from ASCAP or directly from the copyright owner."

etc.

Which businesses? "Hounded" in what way? By whom? Where have they been denied their exemption under the law?

http://www.opuzz.com/2007/08/ascap-initiates-lawsuit-for-playing.html

"Are you a business owner or manager? Are you aware it is illegal to play copyrighted music on the premises (for example, music on hold, in-store music) without a music license?"
"Last week in Seattle two dozen venues were cited in a lawsuit by ASCAP for failing to properly license their music. "

http://www.ascap.com/press/2007/073107_infringement.html

"New York, NY, July 30, 2007: The American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) today announced that it has filed 26 separate infringement actions against nightclubs, bars and restaurants in 17 states.

In each of the cases filed today, the business establishment has publicly performed the copyrighted musical works of ASCAP's songwriter, composer and music publisher members without obtaining a license from ASCAP to do so."

http://www.ascap.com/licensing/licensingfaq.html

"8. I'm interested in playing music in my restaurant or other business. I know that I need permission for live performances. Do I need permission if I am using only CD's, records, tapes, radio or TV?

Yes, you will need permission to play records or tapes in your establishment." ...
"10. I want to use music-on-hold in my business. Do I need permission?

Yes. When you place a caller on hold and transmit music via your telephone lines, that is a public performance of the music. It is your responsibility to obtain permission to perform ASCAP songs from ASCAP or directly from the copyright owner."

etc.

Which businesses? "Hounded" in what way? By whom? Where have they been denied their exemption under the law?

From ASCAP:

8. I'm interested in playing music in my restaurant or other business. I know that I need permission for live performances. Do I need permission if I am using only CD's, records, tapes, radio or TV?

Yes, you will need permission to play records or tapes in your establishment.

Perhaps I was mistaken and should've referred to recordings instead of the radio. The page describes exemptions, but they only apply to radio and TV broadcasts, and only to certain businesses and speaker setups: you still need a license if your business covers 3750+ sq ft and has more than 6 speakers, for instance.

How about not asserting challenges alleging an "inconsistency" without possession of the requisite knowledge to establish it?

How about not lying by omission by ignoring the licensing requirements for music recordings and the size- and speaker-count-based exceptions to the radio and TV exemptions?

according to the ascap articles of association, its a non exclusive license for ascap to sublicense the work. the creator retains ownership.

The copyright terms are "life of creator plus x years." Also, there are different kinds of rights for performance, composition, etc. This does apply to songs as well. A quick google turned up this link: Copyright: Protecting Your Songs

If you really want to do them in, call ASCAP!

The thing is reason #1 is already a very small percentage of musicians. 10% of CD's are profitable:

Another factor commonly overlooked in assessing CD prices is to assume that all CDs are equally profitable. In fact, the vast majority is never profitable. Each year, of the approximately 27,000 new releases that hit the market, the major labels release about 7,000 new CD titles and after production, recording, promotion and distribution costs, most never sell enough to recover these costs, let alone make a profit. In the end, less than 10% are profitable, and in effect, it's these recordings that finance all the rest.

On top of that, the percentage of musicians making much of a profit on music sales at all is so low that this hardly matters.

Further reading:
http://www.azoz.com/music/features/0008.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20030313214407/http://www.riaa.org/PR_STORY.CFM?ID=491

Here's a discussion of some of the "expense" deductions: "there are many deductions made for items such as packaging costs; free goods; responsibility for the payment of producer royalties; reserve accounts; return privileges; midline, budget-line, record-club, and foreign royalty reductions; 90% sale provisions; new-technology rate reductions (which may even affect CD royalties); cut-out and surplus-copy provisions; video, tour support, and promotion expenses; recording costs; advances for not only the current album, but past albums as well; ownership of websites; and merchandising rights. In addition, if the artist is a songwriter, there are provisions in the recording agreement (known as the "controlled composition clauses"), which reduce and limit, among other things, mechanical royalties."

While you are correct in that many venues do not pay the ASCAP public performance fee, you would be mistaken if you think that ASCAP doesn't pay attention to which venues that pull in big revenues aren't paying that fee.

ASCAP's position on the whole thing.

By and large, the fee is affordable for most non-dive venues, and gets paid as a matter of doing business.

I worked in the very fscked up industry?

Nope, the label owns only the musicians contract and terms and the recording itself (NOT the music) - they license the lyrics from a publisher. See ASCAP below.

You own the CD and can listen to it in private. If you broadcast or perform it publicly it in ANY way, you owe the lyricist money as per the licensing rules. This battle has been fought and lost multiple times in court (e.g. webcasting). Note that only the lyric writer is owed money - the musicians don't get a dime (that includes me for my recordings, thus my bitterness). Read up on the Harry Fox agency:
http://www.harryfox.com/index.jsp

The musicians contract with the record company for their services on the recording - that is independent of the lyrics. See the links below.

see Record Label here:
http://www.ascap.com/licensing/termsdefined.html

the MPA covers sheet music and compositions (NOT live performances)
http://mpa.org/copyright_resource_center/copying

Artists with songs that are deemed too similar can attempt to sue the infringing artist, but this is difficult to prove. There are some high profile wins, like Huey Lewis vs Ghostbusters and Vanilla Ice vs David Bowie/Queen (settled out of court), but it's very difficult to copyright a riff because of the limited "vocabulary" in music - How many variations of 12 notes and 4 beats per bar are there (the most common structure)? Even combined into chords you get a lot of repeats due to the structure of western music (based on thirds). Think of a note like a letter and the song as words (and rhythm the cadence of the speaker) - at some point you can claim yours is original enough to be (say) poetry, but a short phrase (riff) that would be analogous to 2-3 words is VERY hard to prove. Only very memorable lines even stand a chance of winning (e.g. the 7 bar bass line to Pink Floyd's Money might qualify, for instance, or the multi-line guitar riff from Metallica's One, but Bob Dylan's Knockin' on Heaven's Door? Never gonna happen).

Probably the same way the blank media levy is collected/distributed: lump sums given out to the songwriters' and musicians' guilds, which is then distributed by the guild on basis of need. Quite a fair way to do things, really, and one that the majority of Canadian musicians support wholeheartedly.

Distributing on the basis of "need" is a poor way to do it from the standpoint of incentives. Why would an artist bother to create good music when they could just sit around being "needy"?

A much better approach would be to emulate the relationships performance rights organizations (ASCAP and BMI) have with radio stations. The money that is collected from their blanket licenses (http://www.ascap.com/licensing/radio/radiofaq.html) is distributed to artists based on how many times their songs are played. In other words, you should monitor the pattern of downloading activity and distribute the income on that basis.

You've got it backwards. All stations - Terrestrial and over-the-air - pay royalties to the copyright holder of the song itself. These royalties are paid to organizations like ASCAP and BMI, who then distribute the money to the songwriter. The royalties this article discusses are collected by SoundExchange on behalf of the copyright holder of the "performance" of the song (ie the recording the radio station plays). This copyright is generally held by the record company.

Terrestrial stations have so far been exempt from paying the performance royalties, but it looks like that may change.

The copyright for the school pictures usually lies with the person who paid for them. They are considered 'works for hire'. The group shots probably belong to the school, but it would depend on the contract they signed.

Some of the shots were traditional school pictures. These may have been works for hire, but have you read the fine print on any of the kids school pictures lately. They don't seem to be works for hire as they threaten death to your firstborn if you even think of scanning one and e-mailing it to your long lost great aunt.

Other shots which were most likely traditional studio work is formal family portraits and such of the family growing up. These in particular are the photos which would bankrupt me at $5,000 per violation. Between the brides family and the groom, there were a bunch of these. Other pro photos included Winner's circle photos (He raced cars) and studio photos of babies and pre-school toddlers. I no longer have the show, but figure a 15 minute show with an average slide transition of once a second. Some persisted for several seconds and other's piled on a page in rapid progression. Of the snapshots I would guess about 5% were pro. The show had about 900 photos. About 45 were pro, not counting the school portraits. Just scanning the phots at $5,000 per photo is a $220,000 violation. Add in the 4 songs, the public performance, and then printing 20 copies of all that on DVD's and then passing them out. Oh the horror of it. Now do two more weddings....

The music however is an issue, the performance is legal under the mandatory licensing laws (you did pay ASCAP didn't you?), however the permanent copy is an issue - subject to a 3K minimum penalty.

What's so special about the music? Only 4 works were infringed. How is public display of commercial photographs and copying them any less protected?

ASCAP.. One wedding a year for 3 years.. Have you looked into getting the license. I looked into it and found it impossible.

http://www.ascap.com/index.html
http://www.ascap.com/about/payment/paymentintro.html
http://www.ascap.com/about/payment/royalties.html
http://www.ascap.com/siteguide.html

I linked to the site as the site is loaded with don't copy notices all over it.

Nothing on this page covers playing a CD in public.
http://www.ascap.com/licensing/generallicensing.html

I found a whole bunch of junk on reporting copyright violations, sharing the profits of song witers and performers and even how to join ASCAP so I can register my works and pay dues. Finding the page to license the 4 music tracks for the public performance is very difficult to find.

Off to BMI.. Maybe I can find the rate to play 4 songs at a wedding..
http://www.bmi.com/

Aha, a link in the small print at the bottom of the page. Need a license?
http://www.bmi.com/licensing/?link=footer
About Us
Music speaks to the heart. Music also plays an important role in thousands of businesses--from radio, television and cable broadcasts, to streaming music over the internet, to live and recorded music used in restaurants, hotels and retail stores. BMI Licensing clears the performing rights for thousands of business which rely on music to entertain customers and increase profits.

What does this mean for your business? BMI saves you money! BMI represents over 350,000 creators of music, the songwriters, composers and publishers of more than 6.5 million musical works! Licensing makes the process simple, easy and cost-effective to obtain the musical clearance you need.

Aah Ha.. Now we are getting someplace. Lets find the rat

The copyright for the school pictures usually lies with the person who paid for them. They are considered 'works for hire'. The group shots probably belong to the school, but it would depend on the contract they signed.

Some of the shots were traditional school pictures. These may have been works for hire, but have you read the fine print on any of the kids school pictures lately. They don't seem to be works for hire as they threaten death to your firstborn if you even think of scanning one and e-mailing it to your long lost great aunt.

Other shots which were most likely traditional studio work is formal family portraits and such of the family growing up. These in particular are the photos which would bankrupt me at $5,000 per violation. Between the brides family and the groom, there were a bunch of these. Other pro photos included Winner's circle photos (He raced cars) and studio photos of babies and pre-school toddlers. I no longer have the show, but figure a 15 minute show with an average slide transition of once a second. Some persisted for several seconds and other's piled on a page in rapid progression. Of the snapshots I would guess about 5% were pro. The show had about 900 photos. About 45 were pro, not counting the school portraits. Just scanning the phots at $5,000 per photo is a $220,000 violation. Add in the 4 songs, the public performance, and then printing 20 copies of all that on DVD's and then passing them out. Oh the horror of it. Now do two more weddings....

The music however is an issue, the performance is legal under the mandatory licensing laws (you did pay ASCAP didn't you?), however the permanent copy is an issue - subject to a 3K minimum penalty.

What's so special about the music? Only 4 works were infringed. How is public display of commercial photographs and copying them any less protected?

ASCAP.. One wedding a year for 3 years.. Have you looked into getting the license. I looked into it and found it impossible.

http://www.ascap.com/index.html
http://www.ascap.com/about/payment/paymentintro.html
http://www.ascap.com/about/payment/royalties.html
http://www.ascap.com/siteguide.html

I linked to the site as the site is loaded with don't copy notices all over it.

Nothing on this page covers playing a CD in public.
http://www.ascap.com/licensing/generallicensing.html

I found a whole bunch of junk on reporting copyright violations, sharing the profits of song witers and performers and even how to join ASCAP so I can register my works and pay dues. Finding the page to license the 4 music tracks for the public performance is very difficult to find.

Off to BMI.. Maybe I can find the rate to play 4 songs at a wedding..
http://www.bmi.com/

Aha, a link in the small print at the bottom of the page. Need a license?
http://www.bmi.com/licensing/?link=footer
About Us
Music speaks to the heart. Music also plays an important role in thousands of businesses--from radio, television and cable broadcasts, to streaming music over the internet, to live and recorded music used in restaurants, hotels and retail stores. BMI Licensing clears the performing rights for thousands of business which rely on music to entertain customers and increase profits.

What does this mean for your business? BMI saves you money! BMI represents over 350,000 creators of music, the songwriters, composers and publishers of more than 6.5 million musical works! Licensing makes the process simple, easy and cost-effective to obtain the musical clearance you need.

Aah Ha.. Now we are getting someplace. Lets find the rat

The copyright for the school pictures usually lies with the person who paid for them. They are considered 'works for hire'. The group shots probably belong to the school, but it would depend on the contract they signed.

Some of the shots were traditional school pictures. These may have been works for hire, but have you read the fine print on any of the kids school pictures lately. They don't seem to be works for hire as they threaten death to your firstborn if you even think of scanning one and e-mailing it to your long lost great aunt.

Other shots which were most likely traditional studio work is formal family portraits and such of the family growing up. These in particular are the photos which would bankrupt me at $5,000 per violation. Between the brides family and the groom, there were a bunch of these. Other pro photos included Winner's circle photos (He raced cars) and studio photos of babies and pre-school toddlers. I no longer have the show, but figure a 15 minute show with an average slide transition of once a second. Some persisted for several seconds and other's piled on a page in rapid progression. Of the snapshots I would guess about 5% were pro. The show had about 900 photos. About 45 were pro, not counting the school portraits. Just scanning the phots at $5,000 per photo is a $220,000 violation. Add in the 4 songs, the public performance, and then printing 20 copies of all that on DVD's and then passing them out. Oh the horror of it. Now do two more weddings....

The music however is an issue, the performance is legal under the mandatory licensing laws (you did pay ASCAP didn't you?), however the permanent copy is an issue - subject to a 3K minimum penalty.

What's so special about the music? Only 4 works were infringed. How is public display of commercial photographs and copying them any less protected?

ASCAP.. One wedding a year for 3 years.. Have you looked into getting the license. I looked into it and found it impossible.

http://www.ascap.com/index.html
http://www.ascap.com/about/payment/paymentintro.html
http://www.ascap.com/about/payment/royalties.html
http://www.ascap.com/siteguide.html

I linked to the site as the site is loaded with don't copy notices all over it.

Nothing on this page covers playing a CD in public.
http://www.ascap.com/licensing/generallicensing.html

I found a whole bunch of junk on reporting copyright violations, sharing the profits of song witers and performers and even how to join ASCAP so I can register my works and pay dues. Finding the page to license the 4 music tracks for the public performance is very difficult to find.

Off to BMI.. Maybe I can find the rate to play 4 songs at a wedding..
http://www.bmi.com/

Aha, a link in the small print at the bottom of the page. Need a license?
http://www.bmi.com/licensing/?link=footer
About Us
Music speaks to the heart. Music also plays an important role in thousands of businesses--from radio, television and cable broadcasts, to streaming music over the internet, to live and recorded music used in restaurants, hotels and retail stores. BMI Licensing clears the performing rights for thousands of business which rely on music to entertain customers and increase profits.

What does this mean for your business? BMI saves you money! BMI represents over 350,000 creators of music, the songwriters, composers and publishers of more than 6.5 million musical works! Licensing makes the process simple, easy and cost-effective to obtain the musical clearance you need.

Aah Ha.. Now we are getting someplace. Lets find the rat

The copyright for the school pictures usually lies with the person who paid for them. They are considered 'works for hire'. The group shots probably belong to the school, but it would depend on the contract they signed.

Some of the shots were traditional school pictures. These may have been works for hire, but have you read the fine print on any of the kids school pictures lately. They don't seem to be works for hire as they threaten death to your firstborn if you even think of scanning one and e-mailing it to your long lost great aunt.

Other shots which were most likely traditional studio work is formal family portraits and such of the family growing up. These in particular are the photos which would bankrupt me at $5,000 per violation. Between the brides family and the groom, there were a bunch of these. Other pro photos included Winner's circle photos (He raced cars) and studio photos of babies and pre-school toddlers. I no longer have the show, but figure a 15 minute show with an average slide transition of once a second. Some persisted for several seconds and other's piled on a page in rapid progression. Of the snapshots I would guess about 5% were pro. The show had about 900 photos. About 45 were pro, not counting the school portraits. Just scanning the phots at $5,000 per photo is a $220,000 violation. Add in the 4 songs, the public performance, and then printing 20 copies of all that on DVD's and then passing them out. Oh the horror of it. Now do two more weddings....

The music however is an issue, the performance is legal under the mandatory licensing laws (you did pay ASCAP didn't you?), however the permanent copy is an issue - subject to a 3K minimum penalty.

What's so special about the music? Only 4 works were infringed. How is public display of commercial photographs and copying them any less protected?

ASCAP.. One wedding a year for 3 years.. Have you looked into getting the license. I looked into it and found it impossible.

http://www.ascap.com/index.html
http://www.ascap.com/about/payment/paymentintro.html
http://www.ascap.com/about/payment/royalties.html
http://www.ascap.com/siteguide.html

I linked to the site as the site is loaded with don't copy notices all over it.

Nothing on this page covers playing a CD in public.
http://www.ascap.com/licensing/generallicensing.html

I found a whole bunch of junk on reporting copyright violations, sharing the profits of song witers and performers and even how to join ASCAP so I can register my works and pay dues. Finding the page to license the 4 music tracks for the public performance is very difficult to find.

Off to BMI.. Maybe I can find the rate to play 4 songs at a wedding..
http://www.bmi.com/

Aha, a link in the small print at the bottom of the page. Need a license?
http://www.bmi.com/licensing/?link=footer
About Us
Music speaks to the heart. Music also plays an important role in thousands of businesses--from radio, television and cable broadcasts, to streaming music over the internet, to live and recorded music used in restaurants, hotels and retail stores. BMI Licensing clears the performing rights for thousands of business which rely on music to entertain customers and increase profits.

What does this mean for your business? BMI saves you money! BMI represents over 350,000 creators of music, the songwriters, composers and publishers of more than 6.5 million musical works! Licensing makes the process simple, easy and cost-effective to obtain the musical clearance you need.

Aah Ha.. Now we are getting someplace. Lets find the rat

The copyright for the school pictures usually lies with the person who paid for them. They are considered 'works for hire'. The group shots probably belong to the school, but it would depend on the contract they signed.

Some of the shots were traditional school pictures. These may have been works for hire, but have you read the fine print on any of the kids school pictures lately. They don't seem to be works for hire as they threaten death to your firstborn if you even think of scanning one and e-mailing it to your long lost great aunt.

Other shots which were most likely traditional studio work is formal family portraits and such of the family growing up. These in particular are the photos which would bankrupt me at $5,000 per violation. Between the brides family and the groom, there were a bunch of these. Other pro photos included Winner's circle photos (He raced cars) and studio photos of babies and pre-school toddlers. I no longer have the show, but figure a 15 minute show with an average slide transition of once a second. Some persisted for several seconds and other's piled on a page in rapid progression. Of the snapshots I would guess about 5% were pro. The show had about 900 photos. About 45 were pro, not counting the school portraits. Just scanning the phots at $5,000 per photo is a $220,000 violation. Add in the 4 songs, the public performance, and then printing 20 copies of all that on DVD's and then passing them out. Oh the horror of it. Now do two more weddings....

The music however is an issue, the performance is legal under the mandatory licensing laws (you did pay ASCAP didn't you?), however the permanent copy is an issue - subject to a 3K minimum penalty.

What's so special about the music? Only 4 works were infringed. How is public display of commercial photographs and copying them any less protected?

ASCAP.. One wedding a year for 3 years.. Have you looked into getting the license. I looked into it and found it impossible.

http://www.ascap.com/index.html
http://www.ascap.com/about/payment/paymentintro.html
http://www.ascap.com/about/payment/royalties.html
http://www.ascap.com/siteguide.html

I linked to the site as the site is loaded with don't copy notices all over it.

Nothing on this page covers playing a CD in public.
http://www.ascap.com/licensing/generallicensing.html

I found a whole bunch of junk on reporting copyright violations, sharing the profits of song witers and performers and even how to join ASCAP so I can register my works and pay dues. Finding the page to license the 4 music tracks for the public performance is very difficult to find.

Off to BMI.. Maybe I can find the rate to play 4 songs at a wedding..
http://www.bmi.com/

Aha, a link in the small print at the bottom of the page. Need a license?
http://www.bmi.com/licensing/?link=footer
About Us
Music speaks to the heart. Music also plays an important role in thousands of businesses--from radio, television and cable broadcasts, to streaming music over the internet, to live and recorded music used in restaurants, hotels and retail stores. BMI Licensing clears the performing rights for thousands of business which rely on music to entertain customers and increase profits.

What does this mean for your business? BMI saves you money! BMI represents over 350,000 creators of music, the songwriters, composers and publishers of more than 6.5 million musical works! Licensing makes the process simple, easy and cost-effective to obtain the musical clearance you need.

Aah Ha.. Now we are getting someplace. Lets find the rat

Yes, you will need permission to play records or tapes in your establishment. Permission for radio and television transmissions in your business is not needed if the performance is by means of public communication of TV or radio transmissions by eating, drinking, retail or certain other establishments of a certain size which use a limited number of speakers or TVs, and if the reception is not further transmitted (for example, from one room to another) from the place in which it is received, and there is no admission charge. Your local ASCAP licensing manager can discuss your needs and advise how ASCAP can help you. /blockquote.

Check out these links.
http://www.ascap.com/licensing/generalfaq.html
http://forums.gearwire.com/aesthetics/841-cover-band-didnt-have-rights-songs-restaurant-owner-sued.html

"The idea of getting filthy rich didn't really start until the 70's?" Huh? Ever hear of the Payola scandal of the 50's? Do you think that the recording labels paid disc jockeys to play their musician's stuff because they really, really thought that their music was important and that money had nothing to do with it? How about that payola had been well known in the Big Band era of the 30's and 40's?

Money has been part and parcel of music since long before recorded music, or do you think that it was just ars gratia artis (art for the sake of art)?

In the mid 1800's, before mechanical means to reproduce music existed, musicians made money by selling sheet music. They performed concerts not to get paid (or at least, not to get paid very much), but as a way of advertising. People could go into a music store and buy a sheet music copy that they could take home and play themselves. Unfortunately, copyright laws largely didn't exist then, so different publishers could sell competing versions of that same piece of music and never pay the artists anything. Stephen Foster, one of the premier composers of popular American music in the 1800's, died penniless. "Oh, Susanna", netted him less than $100. This is why ASCAP was created - not because they wanted to make piles of money, just because musicians and composers got tired of other people making piles of money and while they got none.

One could argue that their situation was little different than today, but today at least the artist knows that there are licensing body(s) taking in the royalties. Unfortunately ASCAP, BMI and RIAA don't agree on how musicians should be paid.

Great question!

The short version is that because ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC (known as PROs, or Performance Rights Organizations) are all private companies that are, at their core, really just bunches of copyright holders collecting together, they measure usage and divide up money however they want. They all do it differently, based on different data. ASCAP, for example, owns (or at least invested heavily in) MediaGuide, a company that has computers listening to every radio station in most major markets in the country and using audio fingerprinting to make playlists of everything that's on. Some PROs require radio and TV stations to make lists of everything they play for a certain part of every year. I think some of them use SoundScan record sales data. And people putting on concerts sometimes have to (or at least are allowed to) submit lists of the songs played. They extrapolate from all that data to get a picture of everything that's getting played everywhere. The estimation doesn't have to be perfect -- it just has to be good enough to satisfy a majority of the votes among the copyright holders who run the PRO. In practice, there are pretty complicated formulas, and I think it generally works on a "points" system. (You get more points for having your song played on NBC than on your local college radio station, etc.)

As for payments, it's all blanket licenses -- Chevy's, for example, pays a flat fee annually that's negotiated based on the ways Chevy's uses music. For example, an establishment with live music every night is likely to pay more than an establishment that plays the radio. (Ever wonder why some chain restaurants have stupid non-Happy Birthday birthday songs? It's to lower their ASCAP fee.)

Want to know more? Dig around this info about the ASCAP payment system: http://www.ascap.com/about/payment/paymentintro.ht ml

All-in-all you wrote an outstanding commentary.

Memo