Hi Phil, What is the mechanism by which a composer such as Paul McCartney would get money from a festival not playing any of his music? Dont understand ... Mike
-----Original Message----- From: JULIE BARKER [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 11 April 2008 10:30 To: [email protected] Subject: [HG] UK copyright PRS / MCPS The below email outlines very much the system as it operates in the UK. Performing Right Society [PRS] deals with performance royalties and M.C.P.S deals with permission to record a work. All live venues are licenced and many will submit a set list of works performed so if you admire Giles Chabenat enough to want to perform his music put it on the form, if you do not it will be assumed that the music performed at the event has been composed by a well-known popular composer. We would not want Paul Mc' Cartney or Elton John get royalties that should go to Giles. As for M.C.P.S, well if you include other peoples works on a cd you need to get permission and pay a royalty on that track based on a percentage of the retail price; for example... When I recorded hurdy-gurdy versions of Lou Reed's All Tommorrows Parties and Donovan's Hurdy-Gurdy Man I had to pay MCPS on those tracks. Royalty for one track was aroung £12 for a run of 1000 [it was a while ago so don't take this as gospel]. Meanwhile an un-ashamed plug. The new Drohne album Le son du Bois is available now on cd and download, hear samples on the website www.dohne.co.uk <http://www.dohne.co.uk> and www.myspace.com/philipgmartin <http://www.myspace.com/philipgmartin> . Philip [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello. Earning money from someone else's work triggers the compensations to the copyright owners. Before that the use is relatively free. 1. If you want to perform a cover version of some nice song, it is ok and not illegal -even when done in public. Here in Finland the organiser of the event is the one who pays for the use of copyrighted material. The performer just writes a report to the national copyright agency with a list of performed music -if you only play non-copyrighted material such s folk music or medieval music, then there is nothing to report. Then the agency bills the organiser. Some play a fixed amount per year or the payment depends on the nature and the size of the event: small fair for the school once a year, xx euros. They even have a fixed annual payment for street performers. Performing a copyrighted song is not illegal, but the copyright remains as right of the author even though you had done a major arrangement. (Actually major changes are also morally questionable) Just playing the song with other instruments than originally intended is not usually considered as an arrangement that gets copyrighted protection as your "independent work" connected to someone else's piece. So for us hg-players: throwing out the chords and replacing them with drones and playing the melody in octaves is not considered as an arrangement in the sense of copyrights. 2. Recording songs originally made by others is legal too, but publishing and public performance or use of private demos in public (usual case if one gets into local radio-show) requires permission from the copyright owner. Usually that can be obtained, but still there is a practise that the owner do not give the arrangement rights to the makers of new versions. The payment and agreement usually is arranged with or via copyright agencies. For example radios keep records as everydya procedure (nowadays automativally from the information digitally stored to cd (it is possible to add this even if you make a home-recording) and send reports to agencies. 3. Notations can be done for private use. Publishing a notation of someone else's copyrighted song is illegal. The tabulature -sites in the internet have had troubles mostly from the companies that own the rights to publish the notes, to sell or lease them is common practise by composers in the music business. 4. In performances every player should have original notes (in case they need to be used), if the notes ever were published anywhere in the world. Use of photocopies is illegal. In notes there can be found sometimes disclaimers about asking permission from the composer to perform the piece etc, but I'm not sure, if they are quite legal. 5. Here the use of any music for educational purposes in schools is free, you can use copies too to certain reasonable limit. Have one in the library, copy the used amount of notes -that's legal. For music schools there is a fixed payment. Of course they have to own the published note to be allowed to copy it. Usually the law gives the limits to both users and authors: if you want to enjoy the protection after publishing your work, then you have to accept a certain level of public access to the work without earning from it. Most composers are just happy to have managed to make music that inspires others. Ruthless twisting of basic ideas from someone else is another thing, who would like to hear a lament twisted to polka, for instance... Esa Mäkinen Arle Lommel kirjoitti: > Well, here in the U.S. every time a Disney item seems to be ready to > come out of copyright, the Congress gets busy and extends copyright > far beyond the original conception. Thus the Sonny Bono Copyright Term > Extension Act has been called the Disney Protection Act. > > -Arle > > On Apr 10, 2008, at 6:14 PM, Colin wrote: > > Correct and the copyright of the SONGS still has 20 years to run BUT > > the sound recordings are still copyright to the Beatles and record > > companies and so, after 2013, their first album can be played > > anywhere without having to pay anything to anyone along with several > > Elvis albums etc. .They won't get a penny from them (although the > > songs themselves will still be copyright until 2033). > > " The UK treasury is set to refuse extending copyright on sound > > recordings from 50 years to 95 years when a report looking at > > intellectual property rights in the UK is published next week, in a > > situation that could see EU copyright expire on some Beatles songs > > in 2013. > > > > "Across the European Union, authors of songs and their families > > benefit from copyright for the whole of their lives plus 70 years, > > while performers of songs and their producers benefit for just 50 > > years from the date of recording - as in the case of some Cliff > > Richard songs from 1958 and some Beatles songs from 1963." > > http://euobserver.com/9/22961/?rk=1 > > I suppose this means that you can mime to the tune, but not play it. > > As I said, copyright is a labyrinth to negotiate. > > Colin Hill > > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Billy Horne" > > > > > To: > > Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2008 10:04 PM > > Subject: [HG] Re Music > > > > > >> Hi, > >> Colin wrote > >> "There's also a bit of a murmur here about the copyright running > >> out on the Beatles songs within a few years as well so get ready > >> for that (Norwegian wood sounds quite nice on HG, doesn't it?)." > >> Colin Hill > >> > >> Does not a Mr M Jackson owe all those great B`tunes? > >> > >> Billy Horne > > Philip G Martin aka Drohne www.drohne.co.uk This email, including any attachment, is a confidential communication intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. It contains information which is private and may be proprietary or covered by legal professional privilege. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender upon receipt, and immediately delete it from your system. Anything contained in this email that is not connected with the businesses of this company is neither endorsed by nor is the liability of this company. Whilst we have taken reasonable precautions to ensure that any attachment to this email has been swept for viruses, we cannot accept liability for any damage sustained as a result of software viruses, and would advise that you carry out your own virus checks before opening any attachment.
