Legal Or Not? Options

[kaboombahchuck]

Most clubs where DJs and cover bands play pay fees to ASCAP or BMI. This makes what ever is played in their clubs leagle (just like radio stations do). I have seen clubs shut down for not paying fees.

[prrcomm]

I've found this conversation stimulating, to say the least. It;s obvious a whole lot of people are PO'd at the Bigs, and, in a lot of ways, I can see their collective point. But, I must say that, when I was in country radio, I was close to a lot of the folks in the bigs, and, for the most part, found them to be decent people. That being said, I think there's some confusion on copyright law, royalties, and so forth. If I may...

If you read anything about copyright law, you'll read that a work is copyrighted (NOT "copywritten") from its moment of inception. Copyright registration just makes that a matter of public record and establishes the claimant as legal owner. YOU CANNOT GIVE UP YOUR RIGHTS UNLESS YOU SIGN THEM AWAY TO SOMEONE ELSE.

In a commercial recording, there are TWO copyrights: the underlying work, that is, the song itself and the performance copyright, the actual sound recording. They are exclusive of each other. The underlying copyright usually belongs to the author or the song's publisher TO WHOM THE AUTHOR HAS TENDERED HIS OR HER RIGHTS in exchange for promotion, royalty collection, and other compensation. The performance copyright generally belongs to the record company, because it has recorded the song. But, the record company MUST RECIEVE PERMISSION FROM EITHER THE AUTHOR OR THE PUBLISHER TO DO SO. There is a concept called "compulsory license" which means that once a song is performed in public one time, a license MUST be issued by the copyright holder.

A record company is in the business of making and selling records. An artist does, however, sign over rights to allow them to do what they do. Given that, I know they get out of hand sometimes.

In today's climate, here's what I'd do. If a record company wants to sign you, that means they think you can sell records for them. These days artists are not as naive about "the business" as in days past. So if it happens to you, YOU call the shots. YOU retain publishing (it's not hard to start your own company). YOU retain creative control over production, etc. If they don't like it, go somewhere else. There are plenty of independent labels that will be happy to have you. Of course, there'll have to be SOME give and take. Or else, start your own label! With the Internet, you can get your music out there more easily than ever.

Writers receive royalties from public performance (through ASCAP, BMI or SESAC) and mechanical reproduction (record sales). If your song is published, you receive 50% of public performance royalties, and a designated percentage of mechanical reproduction royalties (at the very least what is called the "statutory rate"). Publish your own stuff, you get it all.

I wish everyone luck with his or her music, no matter what your viewpoint. It's all about the music.

[coldharbour]

But anyway they had to change their music, because of legal stuff. The funny thing is that sampling was ok for a while, but then someone made a heap of money from sueing sampling artists, and everyone wanted in. Who was it? De La Soul sampling som Turtles track no one ever heard?

PE used sampling very creatively, but the companies started getting interested as sampling became mainstream and some artists and producers started ripping off tracks straight, like sampling the whole chorus of a track and rapping over it, etc. That kind of stuff just couldn't be overlooked.

Stealing is taking something away from another, sampling is playing around with something, while not in any way hampering the original, its creator or its use. You can't do that with a car. Apples and oranges here.

Depends on the case, but if someone wanted to sample my track I sure wanted that person to ask permission first and I'd like to hear the music and the context before giving it the green light. Not so that I just read somewhere that my track has been sampled in a track for the election campaign of George W. Bush, if you catch my drift.

The wrong thing with the wild west of sample clearences, is that we can't afford to make the music we like. Even PE couldn't afford it.

There's a lot of things people can't afford. I'd like to record in Tokyo with Trent Reznor producing - I think that would effect my music much more than sampling some old track - but I can't afford it. PE probably could. I don't think sampling is the only way being creative or evolving music.

Coldharbour, hahaworld and others: What do you think of the situation? Have you got any ideas on solving copyright issues, both with respect to sampling and file-sharing? Or is everything ok as it is? Not trying to beef, i'm just curious 

I think sampling things should be the way they are - if someone wants to sample your track they should ask your permission. It's up to you if you want a pint of beer beer or USD 10.000 for it, really. Unless of course your material is administred by some big company, but then again it has been your choice to do so.

Do any of you consider what DJ's do, that is mix and remix songs and play them at various clubs and events, to be illegal or wrong?  I know several DJ's at legit clubs that download music all day and then they do mash-ups, remixes, etc.

Personally, I think it's cool because they're still highlighting the original artist but also showing their own creativity as well. But for those of you who are anti-downloading, doesn't this fall under the "using someone else's music for financial gain" as most of the DJ's do not create the music themselves.  Or is this okay because the DJ is getting your music out there to the masses, so it's a fair trade-off?

It's definitely not legal do download music from p2p and then play it on a club. If you get caught you'll have to pay fines, depending on how many tunes you have with you. Worst case scenario : there was this case about a year ago where an Italian DJ was fined 1.4 million euros (USD 1.8 million) for having a couple of thousand pirate music files in his computer and playing them in a nightclub.

Like "kaboombahchuck" wrote, the clubs and venues have deals with copyright bureaus and part of the ticket sales go to the copyright fees. I think this depends on the country, but in Europe all venues must have these kind of deals.

However, this covers only playing records that have been bought on CD, Vinyl, etc. If you buy music from for instance iTunes Music Store the license of the music you buy covers only your private use. You have to pay extra license fees in order to play those tracks for the public. If you don't have the license you'll be fined if you get caught.

But mash-ups, remixes, edits - I do them all the time, but I use original material that I have either bought or obtained from the record company or producer / artist to put them together. I'm not certain how it goes legal-wise, but if someone should ask I say "this is my work" or show a blank-CD telling that "I just got this from someone".

Writers receive royalties from public performance (through ASCAP, BMI or SESAC) and mechanical reproduction (record sales). If your song is published, you receive 50% of public performance royalties, and a designated percentage of mechanical reproduction royalties (at the very least what is called the "statutory rate"). Publish your own stuff, you get it all.

Publishing companies' royalty shares differ. In Europe the most common share is 1/3 for the publishing company and 2/3 for the songwriters, this is true even with the big houses I've worked with.

It's true that you can publish your own stuff (or just leave it unpublished, makes no difference if you're working for instance for a small domestic market) but then you'll be missing the extra effort that comes with the publishing houses. They're very eager to get your music heard as their income depends straight from the income you're making.

As "prrcomm" wrote, there are also good people working for the companies. If you're starting out you do best offering your stuff to some small indie company who has maybe one or two full time people working, but if they really like your stuff they work hard and don't abandon you. They usually even answer the phone and mail. In big companies people change constantly and when the nice A&R guy who signed you leaves, the new A&R guy might hate your stuff and put you on a sidetrack.

I wish everyone luck with his or her music, no matter what your viewpoint. It's all about the music.

Right on.

This post has been edited by coldharbour: Wed 5 Apr 2006, 12:12

[straydog]

A few remarks:

There are decent people everywhere, of course. Usually those that are close to the actual music production (not managers etc.). But, no matter what their intentions, they usually have little power to change overall company policy.

In Greece there is only one company allowed to deal with royalties and they don't allow partial commercial use (not sure if it's the correct term, but anyhow you're not allowed to ask for money from the TV or the Radio only, or whatever you see fit, it's all or nothing.). Otherwise you're stuck with bored goverment guys and have to do all the legal hunting yourself. Monopoly...

A few years ago some artists went against them in court, demanding they should allow this partial use, and increase minimum percentage for newly signed artists from 11% to 25% (might be a slight mistake in numbers, don't have the time to look it up). Artists won the court, but the company never actually did what it should. Why? Because they found out it would be cheaper for them to pay the monthly fine than actually increase their giveouts to artists. Justice can't be blind when it has money in its hands...

Don't know if it still works that way now since I'm still not publishing records, and unless some newspaper writes something, my information is a bit outdated. Anyway, I hope that sometime we get close to the rest of Europe.

The internet has been a huge revolution for artists and independent companies alike, we should indeed try to figure out ways to make it so that things become fairer and better, before salesmen seize absolute control of it....

"Depends on the case, but if someone wanted to sample my track I sure wanted that person to ask permission first and I'd like to hear the music and the context before giving it the green light."

I wouldn't want to check out the music so much, since I think I'm not in position to judge how someone interprets it, but political? Sure.

Yes, it's still all about the music....
And this is a very interesting conversation indeed.

(Off to play some tunes)

[abcdaniel]

coldharbour, I think we could go on forever...

There's a lot of things people can't afford. I'd like to record in Tokyo with Trent Reznor producing

True, I should have written:

We can't afford to make the music we have the right to make.

Music, like all other arts, are part of public dialogue in our society. We have the right to use it. Quotations and collages are ok in other arts and dialogues, and it is ok in music too. Money or no money.

It might be nice to regulate sampljng, so that no one would feal cheated, just as playing cover songs and dj:ing is regulated. As far as I know, you cannot refuse someone to cover your song, as long as they don't do major changes to it. You will, however, get all the underlying work royalties, but the recording royalties goes to the covering artists.

That's where the 20% to sampled artists fit in. To provide some moderation betwen creativity and the providers of pieces used creatively.

I mean, you don't have to ask permission to play and cover a song (at least in Sweden we got the right to cover everything we want, globally, except in some very important instances), why would you have to ask permission to sample?

It would be really f'ed up if George Bush should cover one of my songs, but he hasn't got the right to do so publicly. You have to ask permission from us, if you want to use our works for religious, political, commercial or pornographic purposes. At least if you're a member of the Swedish right-holder associaiton. If this is a concern, check with your own organization.

That fine the Italian dj had to pay really makes my blood boil. That is witch-burning. It is such a petty crime compared to much other. 2000 mp3 files, that's maybe 20 000 EUR in retail vinyl at most, and if he has reported his playlists, then the artists on his harddisk would have recieved royalties anyway. 1,4 million EUR in fines!!! Copyright legal fanatism at its worst.

Happy musicmaking!

[JusClownin]

To me, money corrupts culture. Yeah, yeah, I know, I have my head in some never-to-be utopia, but honestly, if there was nothing to gain, money or otherwise, would you be so upset if someone sampled your work or covered your song?

Personally, even with the small-time stuff I do, I absolutely feel thrilled whenever one of my friends recites one of my verses or hums one of our choruses. It's not that I do it for that attention, but it sort of reinforces self-confidence in what you do.

I think like any other artform, the artist does what is appealing to him/her, first and foremost. Whenever I read interviews of certain popular artists say that they barely listen to their own recordings it blows my mind. I have to ask: 1)Is it because the end-result is so far from what the original concept was; after so many hands, ie producers, etc., have got into the mix...or 2)They're tired of playing the songs so much, thus listening to them as well.

Again, I love listening to the stuff I do, is it just me or do you all really love your own work too? And if so, then I say, keep doing what you do - and just worry about it when you're trying to sell it. Maybe use it as a platform to get noticed then find ways to do whatever it is legit. For instance, I can't make music, but I think I can freestyle pretty cool on good beats. If I ever wanted to make this a career, of course, I'd seek ways to have someone make beats for me specifically. But until that happens, I'm surely not going to deprive myself of musical expression.

[zooot]

when the clever part of your work was the clever part of someone else's work you should not be compensated cause you are not clever.

[uvbnskoold]

Ummm... yeah. You don't wanna know what I think.

JusClownin.... just put the stuff up on www.metacafe.com or www.youtube.com and stuff like that. Places like that are ripe with "illegal" or "copyright infringed" works and it's all in good fun. I believe there is actually something about "parody" in law that you can get away with doing a parody of a song without infringing on the original artist's rights, so long as it is obviously a parody.

Seriously people... everyone's going to have there own opinion, and they are entitled to that opinion whether it supports copyright law or not. Try to have an open mind before flaming someone for having different beliefs than you... all too often that is how bad things happen.

Uvee.

[zooot]

The question is "does it goes under the "fair use" tolerance or not"…

I'm not sure they would bother really for a little "fan" site, but if it gains audience, the money sound will make the lawyers jump in.

i am trying to put a cd out and can't find the fair use rules. some of the material contains a lot of quotes and i need to know if there is a tine or messier limit.

[Mac Daddy]

when the clever part of your work was the clever part of someone else's work you should not be compensated cause you are not clever.

Zoot, yes, I agree 100%. I think you missed the joke and the point. I have often been the fool for speaking out and asking a question. But, I end up wiser for it, and so do all the others who are silent. That's what it was... an iJoke.