I have been asked to post the following to the forums in response to some recent pages posted that have incorrect info.
Hi ***,
I hope that this was a serious and honest ATTEMPT to by you to provide the RIGHT information to the karaoke public. And many know that there is a heap of incorrect information floating about out there in cyber-land, but they don’t know what is correct and what is not correct LEGALLY. And there laws and rulings that cover most of it, but it’s not for a layman to interpret much of it because it can be confusing AND most people are going to try to “read” what they want or hope to see, even if it is not correct. That’s how the confusion begins. Unfortunately, you have added to that confusion and erroneous information with your summary below. You also failed to cite your sources of research and information so that they could be judged or determined to be credible.
Some of the common mistakes you repeated are:
1) Confusing “artist” vs. songwriter;
2) confusing ® “circle R” copyright (Composition copyright for words and music) and ℗ “circle P” Sound Recording copyright for the audio track
3) that the audio recordings in karaoke tracks are original recordings from the artists record labels. With the exception of Disney karaoke products, some Christian labels and very few others, all the karaoke tracks that are in the English language are RE-RECORDINGS whose ℗ “circle P” Sound Recording copyright has nothing to do with the original artist’s label and is owned by the karaoke producer who either recorded it or contracted someone on a “work for hire” basis to create it.
4) Performance Rights Organizations (PROs) such as ASCAP, BMI and SESAC cover the performance and use of karaoke music. PROs collect royalties for the songwriters NOT for the record labels
Let’s start with an easy “primer” from the National Music Publishers Association
http://www.nmpa.org/legal/music101.asp and some of the information that can be found on their site
Key to Referenced Music Industry Terms
Record Labels. The terms “record label,” “label,” and “record company” are used as shorthand to refer to an entity that has ownership rights to the master recording of a sound recording, including the right to distribute reproductions.
Typically, a major record company has many “labels,” which are subsidiaries or brands, specializing in different genres. However, for shorthand, the term “record label” is used herein to refer to both a record company and its label.
Recording Artists. Recording artists generally enter into recording contracts with record companies. If the recording artist is also a songwriter, the recording artist will often enter into a contract—as a songwriter—with a
publishing company.
Music Songwriters (including Composers). Music songwriters typically assign their copyrights in the musical compositions (or songs) that they have created to music publishing companies, which exploit the composition
or “work,” including collecting royalties from record labels, and share those royalties with the works’ creators.
Recording Artist/Songwriter. This is a shorthand term used to describe music songwriters and composers who perform and release recordings of their own musical works.
A few other places you can cite (which I have reviewed for accuracy) are below:
http://www.digmedia.org/issues-and-poli ... t-in-music It is important to note that there are two separate copyrightable components of any single recording of a musical work: the composition and the sound recording.
MUSICAL COMPOSITION The musical composition consists of the music, as written, including any accompanying words. The author of a musical composition is generally the composer and the lyricist, if there are lyrics. A musical composition can be in the form of a notated copy (for example, sheet music), or in a sound recording, such as a master recording or a phonorecord, such as an LP, cassette tape, CD or a digital phonerecord “DPD,” such as an MP3 or other digital file. See: Modernizing Music Licensing to Promote Innovative Business Models
SOUND RECORDING The sound recording, on the other hand, results from the fixation of a series of musical, spoken, or other sounds into a tangible medium that can be played back. The author of a sound recording is the performer(s) whose performance is fixed, the record producer/engineer who processes the sounds and fixes them in the final recording, or both. Not the author of the underlying musical work, however. Copyright in a sound recording is not the same as, or a substitute for, copyright in the underlying musical composition.
Except for in the case of terrestrial, analog radio, a separate license must be obtained from the BOTH the copyright owner of the “musical work” AND the “sound recording” as described above, before a particular sound recording of a musical work can be used. Currently, terrestrial analog radio enjoys an exemption from the requirement to obtain a license for the sound recordings they play (they still have to get a license for the underlying musical works, however). Performance Rights Act
Distribution and Performance of Musical Works
Section 106 of the 1976 Copyright Act gives the owner of copyright in original musical works, the exclusive right to do and to authorize others to:
To reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords;
To distribute copies or phonorecords of the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
To perform the work publicly.
That means that you must obtain the authority to either 1) make and distribute copies of a musical work, or 2) to publicly perform a musical work. See: Modernizing Music Licensing to Promote Innovative Business Models
Distribution and Performance of Sound Recordings
Section 106 of the 1976 Copyright Act gives the owner of copyright in a sound recording of a musical work, the exclusive right to do and to authorize others to:
To reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords;
To distribute copies or phonorecords of the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
In the case of sound recordings, to perform the work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.
That means that you must obtain the authority to either 1) make and distribute copies of the sound recordings, or 2) to publicly perform the sound recordings, by means of a digital transmission.
Some of this is also covered correctly in this article:
http://www.copyrightcommunity.com/songs ... difference Songs vs Sound Recordings: Know the difference
Posted by CopyrightSolverUsing MusicTuesday, September 21st, 2010
Two types of copyrights routinely cause frustration and confusion for many church leaders striving to honor copyright compliance. U.S. Copyright Law allows for eight specific types of works of authorship that can be copyrighted , and two of these are frequently misunderstood. They are music (or songs) – including any accompanying words, and sound recordings – aural reproduction of some material (music, speech or sound), which may or may not itself be copyrighted.
It’s understandable that folks struggle to separate the two. For example, when your worship team needs to make copies of “God of Wonders” as recorded by Paul Baloche for rehearsal purposes, it’s a common misconception that you just need one license to do so. In fact, the song (written by Marc Byrd and Steve Hindalong) is a music copyright and owned by a the songwriter or publisher, in this case New Spring, Meaux Mercy and Storm Boy Music. Paul Baloche’s specific arrangement, rendition and recording of the song is a sound recording copyright and it is owned by the record label, in this case, Integrity Music. The music copyright is usually owned by the songwriter or one or more publishers, and the sound recording is owned by a separate party–the artist or more often a record company. The owner of the sound recording can usually be determined by locating the P symbol on the back of the CD. Note: the owner of the sound recording is often NOT the owner of the song.
It’s very important to grasp this basic distinction between songs and sound recordings to plan for obtaining licenses and paying royalties, as it impacts a variety of types of uses, exclusive rights, licensing types and fees.
Here are some examples of products and uses that may involve clearances for the rights for the music and the sound recording:
Making of audio recordings: This involves the “reproduction rights” to mechanically reproduce the music and the sound recording. The license for the music or song is called a “mechanical license,” and it must be obtained from the owner or administrator of the song. The compulsory rate for mechanical licenses is set by the U.S. Copyright Board and is currently $.091 per song per unit manufactured and distributed for up to 5:00 minutes or $.0175 per minute for over 5:00 minutes. This rate and license applies to both physical product (CDs) or audio digital files for download, which is called a DPD mechanical license. If you are making your own original recording of the song, you only need to obtain a mechanical and/or DPD license. However, if you’re reproducing the song directly from a third party recording (lifting it or burning it), then you also need to obtain a “master use license” from the record company, and the average royalty fee for the master is $.25 per track per unit. Record labels may choose to deny the master use license, so it is important to obtain the license prior to reproducing the audio track.
Synchronizing music to audiovisual products (DVDs or download files): This involves the “reproduction rights” to synchronize the music and the sound recording to your own original audiovisual product. A synchronization license must be obtained from the song owner(s), and the rates vary from publisher to publisher with an average of $.25 per song per unit (DVD or download), with minimum fees of $40-60/song ($150-500 for secular publishers); the master sync fees are $60-100/song ($350-$500 secular labels).
Streaming music online: This involves the “performance rights” to publicly perform via the internet or by digital transmission the song and the sound recording. Like the audio recording and audiovisual product, you must obtain separate licenses for each: synchronization license from the song owner, and a synchronization master license from the record company.
Performance rights organizations (PROs) represent the song internet performance rights on behalf of songwriters and publishers; ASCAP, BMI and SESAC in the U.S. You can obtain a blanket license directly from each PRO, or the one-stop WORSHIPcast license for churches and ministries, which covers 17 million songs represented by all three PRO songs and costs about $750-900 per year. These licenses do not, however, cover the digital sound recording performance rights, which must be obtained directly from the owner of each recording, or through SoundExchange, which licenses and collects royalties for digital sound recordings for internet satellite radio (such as SIRIUS XM), internet radio, cable TV music channels and similar platforms for streaming sound recordings.
From Page 6 of the H. R. 848 also known as ‘‘Performance Rights Act’’ (February 2009).
VerDate
To provide parity in radio performance rights under title 17, United States
Code, and for other purposes.
‘‘(2) NECESSITY FOR OTHER LICENSES.—Not withstanding the grant by an owner of copyright in a sound recording of an exclusive or nonexclusive license of the right under section 106(6) to perform the work publicly, a licensee of that sound recording may not publicly perform such sound recording unless a license has been granted for the public performance of any copyrighted musical work contained in the sound recording. Such license to publicly perform the copyrighted musical work may be granted either by a performing rights society representing the copyright owner or by the copyright owner.’’.
This is clearly distinguishing the difference in the two copyright holders and is saying that the right to perform the sound recording is dependant on obtaining a license from the sound recording copyright holder AND the composition copyright holder (which rights can be granted by the PRO and the royalties collected by them. Note that karaoke producers are more akin to record labels and thus are not members of ASCAP, BMI or SESAC and do not receive ANY revenue collected from venues who must have PRO licenses to have music in their venues. So, any venue who thinks that the karaoke companies are compensated or that they are “covered” are flat out wrong.
This is the entire email I have been asked to forward VIA Kurt.
Let the discussions begin.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
. I personally have no problem posting info here when requested from those who have more important things to do than visit these forums.
