Karaoke Forums

Are HD Karaoke tracks Considered Video's?

I know that playing music video's a a gig require special licensing.

My question is because these new karaoke songs produced in HD (with the cool looking backgrounds) give me this impression they are relative to music video's, would you consider them as such?

Summary:

This licence allows you to copy music videos using encryption and compression into computer hard drives for the purpose of diplay at events within Canada.

Some terms of this license include:

This licence is valid for one year

CONNECT Music Licensing and the record companies are not obligated to provide you with source music videos.
Videos copied are for events within Canada only.
You are responsible for music video delivery expenses to and from the record companies.
You are accountable for any loss or damage to the music video(s). Please use cost disclaimer from TV.
Costs to copy music videos are your responsibility.
Music videos may be used for the intended purpose of the record company only.
CONNECT Music Licensing may at any time recall any music videos as directed by the record company.
You are required to transfer videos from CONNECT Music Licensing approved sources.
The digital video supplier is required to copy music videos at equal or higher quality as intended by the record company.
The video compilations that are created may not contain any commercial messages nor may the music be edited or altered in any way.
You will be required to submit a list of desired videos to CONNECT Music Licensing prior to creating video compilations for record company approval.
The music videos copied must meet or exceed the quality intended by the record companies.
Monthly reports should be provided to CONNECT Music Licensing displaying information on subscribers, manufacturers and revenue details. This should be e-mailed to CONNECT Music Licensing.
You are responsible to obtain any performing rights society, publishers, or other licenses necessary outside of this agreement.
You may not sell music video compilations. These compilations are for LEASE only and are subject to recall at the end of the agreement or at CONNECT Music Licensing's discretion.
Fees:

The licence fee is the greater of $650.00 or determined by the number of events held in the venue, the average ticket price of the event, the average attendance at the event and the number of music videos used at each event.

All karaoke is considered to be video productions.

All karaoke is considered to be video productions.

Unfortunately this is true (ABKCO v Stellar), but it shouldn't be. That was the lawsuit that greatly contributed to the demise of karaoke, at least the demise to its current state. It's what unwittingly let to massive piracy not only by some producers but by end users as well. I only wish I knew then what I know now. I would have appealed this all the way to the Supreme Court.

I think that case greatly contributed to the 'no fly list' over time as well - at least IMO.

I never really thought of it in those terms, but how so? There have always been artists that despise karaoke and didn't want their songs being sung in public thinking that the general public will butcher their songs. Well often times that's true, but some of the worst butcher jobs I've ever heard were done by "bands".

There's nothing that says fingernails on a chalkboard more than a band full of Portuguese immigrants with very heavy accents doing "Get Down On It" by Kool and the Gang. Still can't get that one out of my head 25 years later.

Considering the fact that most artists are very insecure, I think their aversion to Karaoke is more likely because they know someone out there will perform their song better than they did.

have heard remakes whose arrangements put the original artist to shame.

If someone wants to make a karaoke track, with the lyrics attached to the music etc. You pay for all the royalties that you are supposed to, but when you create that karaoke track, it is called a 'karaoke work" with a set of master rights that belong EXCLUSIVELY to the company that produced it. Exactly the same way that when you record a song, it is considered a new work, with master rights..

You know James, it pretty much already works that way now, except there's no definition in the copyright code as something being a "karaoke work", but then again, believe it or not there's no definition in the code for a "musical work" either. If you're interested, the section in the copyright code (Title 17) that has the definitions is section 101. There's definitions for audio/visual works, phonorecords, literary works, but nowhere could I find a definition for "musical works". Which begs the question ... "Was that an oversight, or was it by design?"

.

Okay, I get you now. When you said "master rights", I was thinking you literally meant "master rights" of which is commonly referred to the rights to the composition and the recording, but obviously you meant something a bit different.

So if these "master rights" allowed the rights holder to do anything he/she pleases with the song, how would you deal a with master rights holder who wanted to use the song as an anthem for something contrary to the composers beliefs, or would you not deal with it at all. Let's say for example that the rights holder with the "master rights" decides to use this song in an abortion clinic's PSA and the composer is a devout Christian who is anti-abortion, how do you square that scenario?