Hello Mike
I can understand why you don't understand.
Basically an event pays a PRS licence and a proportion of that licence will
go to the creators of the works performed.
If a PRS return is filled-in they can identify the works and their composers.
If a return is not made it is assumed that the most popular composers works
are played. This is based on the returns they do have from radio, concerts etc.
The UK Musicians Union has spent the last 6 years trying to change this state
of affairs and some headway is being made; however, if returns are not
filled-in there is always going to be a danger that apathy could lead to a
return to the old ways.
Phil
Eaton Mike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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 and 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.
Philip G Martin aka Drohne
www.drohne.co.uk
