|
Post by obrienp on Dec 7, 2015 20:05:55 GMT
Great thread. Found that really interesting; not that I am likely to want to do it myself but I know of a few up and coming artists locally who could benefit from this advice.
|
|
|
Post by Pickers Ditch on Dec 7, 2015 20:20:02 GMT
And with regard to pickersditch's post, I'm under the impression that filming a live tune / set and putting a studio track to it is fine with many booking agents etc for 'promotional work' as long as you call it a 'promotional video', and not a 'live video'. TT Not sure about that to be honest, Deuce. In our case (a bunch of enthusiastic amateurs), our CDs were done "live" in the studio as described above with no filming and were distributed as promos and / or sold to punters at gigs etc. and were accurately described as such. Another third CD was a recorded live gig (warts and all)in Ipswich by BBC Radio Suffolk. A few of the numbers were subsequently broadcast by the Beeb on radio. The BBC gave us a DAT copy straight from the desk, but although we edited it solely to clear the gaps between numbers, with no further overdubs, mixing etc. we have never published it as we're still not sure of the legalities of doing so. We played a pukkah live gig in a well known pub and was paid a normal gig fee by the landlord. The songs are all covers but our arrangements. It was recorded by BBC Radio Suffolk for them to select numbers for subsequent broadcast. Seems a bit of a minefield, so we just have it as a record of a crazy, great evening of us playing in an East Coast pub to a good crowd. Something for the grand children, perhaps?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2015 20:41:54 GMT
And with regard to pickersditch's post, I'm under the impression that filming a live tune / set and putting a studio track to it is fine with many booking agents etc for 'promotional work' as long as you call it a 'promotional video', and not a 'live video'. TT Not sure about that to be honest, Deuce. I wasn't either, but it was a discussion from a promoters forum. TT
|
|
|
Post by Michael Messer on Dec 7, 2015 21:53:36 GMT
Hi TT,
The percentage you pay for covers, depends on how many covers are on the album. That is determined by MCPS/PRS when you register the material to get ISRC codes. ISRC codes are embedded in the digital file at the mastering stage. The codes enable the royalties on airplay and use of the recording to reach the publishers/writers/owners of the material. ISRC codes are free.
If the CD/album is all original material by you (for example), then you do not need an AP2 licence. You can do whatever you want with your own material. However, if you want to earn royalties from airplay, streaming and public performance of the material, you do need to join MCPS/PRS, because as well as being a licensing agency, they are a royalty collection agency and are there to protect the owners of the material..
If you play in pubs that have a PRS licence for live music, you should be able to fill in a performance form that lists the songs/material you played. If all your paperwork is in place and you are a member, eventually you will receive royalties for public performance. It's not much for a gig at the local, but it is all above board and the correct way to do it.
Joining MCPS and PRS is I think about £50 for a lifetime membership.
The reasons that record companies push artists to write original material is (a) so they can get a slice of the publishing, and (b) so they don't have to pay for an AP2 licence.
It used to be illegal to manufacture CDs or records of covers without a licence, but these days it is not the manufacturer's responsibility, it is the artist/record company's responsibility.
You are allowed promotional CD copies that you do not have to pay for in your licence fee, but they have to be printed with 'for promo use only' on them.
Download is exactly the same; you buy a licence that allows you to sell X amount of downloads, and when that amount is used up, you would be billed for another X amount of downloads. For small labels it is done as 2200 downloaded tracks costs X amount. 30 second samples cost extra! Each has its own licence - downloads, samples, etc...
Filming or recording a live performance of someone else's material is fine for personal and promotional use, but as soon as you are selling it, that is a whole other thing.
If you are unsure of the legalities of all this and would like to get the full lowdown, call MCPS/PRS and have a chat with them. They are helpful and always happy to advise.
Phew.....I didn't know I know all this!! ....joking aside, this is how I have lived for the past 35 + years, so as I am sure you can see, it is important to understand how it works, why it is there, and that it is to your advantage that it is done correctly.
Anyone recording old blues songs by anyone that we have all heard of, is totally mistaken if they think the material is in the public domain because it is old. That is a total urban muso's myth!
I hope that is helpful.
Shine On Michael. ....AKA MM's Music Law Advice Service ;-)
|
|
|
Post by Michael Messer on Dec 7, 2015 22:07:09 GMT
Pickers Ditch,
You can release material recorded by the BBC, but you have to pay them a large percentage. This is only fair as they did allow the artist to record at their studios.
I have literally dozens of MM BBC Radio sessions that I have considered releasing at some stage, but it is quite expensive to do. My sessions are mostly from BBC Radio 1 and 2, but I think you might find regional stations a little more lenient.
I would never cheat the BBC. They are a world unto themselves and a very small one. Stealing a recording from a regional BBC station could result in a total ban from all of the BBC. It would not be worth it. Canada is the same with CBC. Italy is the same with RAI ....etc.
I am pleased people are finding this thread interesting. It is a much misunderstood subject. As a professional musician/recording artist with a family to feed, I needed to understand!
Shine On Michael
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2015 7:17:18 GMT
Thanks MM Do you know if radio stations / the BBC (eg local) will play 'promo use' material covers? TT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2015 8:52:44 GMT
Here in France I was told by a local radio station that they can't even play original songs unless they've been officially published. And cover versions are strictly regulated -- which is why more and more bars are reluctant to hire bands, so they don't have to deal with all the paperwork involved in case the band plays other people's material.
But even though Disney et al destroyed international copyright law in their favor, there's still a pretty strong body of public domain blues songs, right?
|
|
|
Post by Michael Messer on Dec 8, 2015 10:21:31 GMT
...there's still a pretty strong body of public domain blues songs, right? Wrong! This is what I have said a few times in this thread. Anyone thinking that because it is a blues/folk song and because it is old, that it is in the public domain, is in most cases, wrong. TT, you are more likely to get a track played on regional FM stations that are not BBC. Privately owned radio stations are more relaxed about this type of thing. Also, many regional Internet radio shows play non registered CDs and mp3s. Shine On Michael
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2015 13:45:48 GMT
...there's still a pretty strong body of public domain blues songs, right? Wrong! This is what I have said a few times in this thread. Anyone thinking that because it is a blues/folk song and because it is old, that it is in the public domain, is in most cases, wrong. Yes! I couldn't believe it at first! It appears that, in the US at least, songs have to have been published before 1923 in order to be in the public domain (and even then, I believe there are plenty of loopholes). Which pretty much cuts out the entire catalog of blues songs. All the more reason to compose your own material, of course. (In Europe it's a little less restrictive - the artist has to have been dead for 70 years. So Robert Johnson's catalog is considered in the public domain.) Here's an excellent explanation of how we've all been screwed by this: Here's a list of public doman songs and more info
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2015 14:05:57 GMT
OK - I probably have this all wrong... According to that vid, in 1998, USA copyright laws changed. Just prior to this, USA copy right laws lasted for 56 years. So it seems in 1997, all copyrights in USA up to 1941 had expired. If this is so, that's a lot of early blues material available. Did those expired copyright tunes then become copyrighted again? And if so who to? Having no knowledge (of anything much), I wonder if anyone knows if, e.g. robert johnson tunes, the johnson family, disney, paul mccartney or just some lucky bloke own the copyrights? TT
|
|
|
Post by Michael Messer on Dec 8, 2015 14:11:06 GMT
I am afraid that Robert Johnson's material is not in the public domain in any territory.
SESAC signed the catalogue of Robert Johnson for exclusive rights representation in 2002.
What happens is that old catalogues of material gets bought by publishing companies and in many cases the deceased artist's catalogue is 'looked after' by the company that controls their estate.
Shine On Michael
|
|
|
Post by Pickers Ditch on Dec 8, 2015 14:36:56 GMT
Yup, that's show BUSINESS, folks. Slightly off topic - I signed with Epic as a band member in 1969. In 1970 I packed up playing, got married, did the day job thing and didn't start playing again until 1996 and then only as an enthusiastic amateur. A month or so later I got a 'phone call from our old 1969 guitarist. "Hey, I hear you're out and about playing again. Be careful boy, you remember that contract with Epic you signed? It was for 30 years so watch what you do until end September 1999! Best of luck!" Bl**dy Hellfire, I'm only a bass player.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2015 19:07:41 GMT
OK - I probably have this all wrong... According to that vid, in 1998, USA copyright laws changed. Just prior to this, USA copy right laws lasted for 56 years. So it seems in 1997, all copyrights in USA up to 1941 had expired. If this is so, that's a lot of early blues material available. Did those expired copyright tunes then become copyrighted again? And if so who to? Having no knowledge (of anything much), I wonder if anyone knows if, e.g. robert johnson tunes, the johnson family, disney, paul mccartney or just some lucky bloke own the copyrights? TT Yep, that part's not completely clear. I have the feeling the change was made retroactive --so that swallowed up everything. Of course, Disney -- the company that built its entire fortune on using other people's ideas -- was behind all this. I'm happy for artists to make as much as they can while they're alive. After that... well, my kids will just have to make their own way.
|
|