Posts Tagged ‘copyright infringement’

« Older Entries

Don’t Toss A Banana To A Monkey If You Don’t Want The Monkey To Eat It

Wednesday, June 15th, 2016

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.   

Dear Law and Disorder:

So, it seems we have ourselves a bit of questionable “inspiration” on our hands. The inventive work of one of our roster artists uses overhead projectors, multiple screens, puppets, actors, live feed cameras, multi-channel sound design, and a live music ensemble, to create shows. And, this technique has been popping up in other artists’ shows after the copy-cat artists have either attended one of our group’s shows or participated in one of their workshops. One person in particular attended a workshop and has now created her own show where she admits that she learned her techniques at one of our workshops. How do we prevent this kind of theft of intellectual property? Do they have any recourse to put a stop to (at a minimum) what seems to be straight-up plagiarism?

So if I understand this correctly, the group is holding workshops where they teach others their techniques, but want to make sure that those techniques are never used. They have two options: (1) make everyone who attends one of their workshops sign a contract that they will immediately forget everything they are taught; or (2) if they don’t want people copying their techniques, stop teaching workshops on how to copy their techniques! That’s like tossing a banana into a cage full of monkeys and expecting them not to eat it!

While copyright infringement is illegal, plagiarism is not. Plagiarism is an academic concept most of us are taught in school and is all about citing sources and giving credit. Plagiarism is not about copying; its about giving attribution to your sources. While similar, copyright infringement means that someone has copied an artist’s specific words, images, pictures, music, or other creative material without permission to do so. (Merely giving credit or attribution is insufficient.) The important concept here is that it’s the “material” being copied, and not the ideas or concepts behind the material.

Copyright infringement requires direct copying of actual scripts, images, pictures, music, etc. Copyright does not protect or prohibit the copying of ideas or concepts. Merely being inspired by another’s work or employing similar techniques and styles is not direct copying. In fact, the copyright laws are designed to discourage copying, but encourage imitation. So, for example, if I see a dance group performing to the music of Phillip Glass while dressed as pigeons, I can create the exact same routine for my own company—provided I do not copy the specific choreography or costumes of the other group. I would have to design my own pigeon costume (and, of course, get my own dramatic license from Mr. Glass’s publisher.) Similarly, if I see a show using overhead projectors, multiple screens, puppets, actors, live feed cameras, multi-channel sound design, and a live music ensemble, I can use the except same concepts and techniques to create my own shows—especially if I was taught how to do so by the original company. I just cannot copy the specific images, sounds, designs, or scripts of the original company. In short, your group cannot be the only one on in the world the uses overhead projectors, multiple screens, puppets, actors, live feed cameras, multi-channel sound design, and a live music ensemble. Your group can be the best. It can be the first. It can be the originator. But it cannot be the “only.”

I would certainly recommend that the group register copyrights for both its scripts and videos of its productions as that would make them easier to protect in the event of an instance of direct copying. That and stop encouraging imitating by teaching others how to imitate!

_________________________________________________________________

For additional information and resources on this and other GG_logo_for-facebooklegal, project management, and business issues for the performing arts, visit ggartslaw.com

To ask your own question, write to lawanddisorder@musicalamerica.com

All questions on any topic related to legal, management, and business issues will be welcome. However, please post only general questions or hypotheticals. GG Arts Law reserves the right to alter, edit or, amend questions to focus on specific issues or to avoid names, circumstances, or any information that could be used to identify or embarrass a specific individual or organization. All questions will be posted anonymously and/or posthumously.

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

The purpose of this blog is to provide general advice and guidance, not legal advice. Please consult with an attorney familiar with your specific circumstances, facts, challenges, medications, psychiatric disorders, past-lives, karmic debt, and anything else that may impact your situation before drawing any conclusions, deciding upon a course of action, sending a nasty email, filing a lawsuit, or doing anything rash!

 

 

 

Tags:, , , , , , ,
Posted in Copyrights, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Licensing | Comments Closed

Who Has To Pay The Likes of ASCAP, BMI, Etc?

Thursday, February 18th, 2016

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.   

I haven’t found an example that matches the situation of a 501(c)(3) I am familiar with. They throw a once-yearly art festival that spans a weekend (2days). They don’t charge the public any admittance. They raise money by charging fees for booth (10×10) spaces for (visual) arts vendors to sell their merchandise. They raise money for: their operating expenses, student art scholarships, member art scholarships, honoraria for program presenters at meetings, a fund for a permanent “home” for the 501c3 where they can hold meetings and store various gear for the meetings between times. They also have an open air music stage at that festival where local musicians perform. The musicians are paid under $150.00 for a 2 hour performance that includes 5 minutes each for set-up, a break, and stage clear-off. Most, but not all of the pieces performed are written by the performers. The “audience” is anyone who wanders by and stays to listen for a while. So, who, if anyone, has to pay fees to the likes of ASCAP, BMI, etc.?

It sounds like the 501(c)(3) organization in your scenario is trying to raise money for some very admirable and worthy goals: art scholarships, arts education, and even providing a place for local musicians to perform. In fact, these goals sound so worthy that I’m sure you wouldn’t object to the organization using your house for meetings or taking your car whenever they needed it to transport students to art classes, all without your permission and without paying you any fees. While you might be more than willing to donate your home or car on occasion, my suspicion is that you’d at least like to be asked first. As a general rule, the involuntary donation of other’s property without their permission—even if it’s for a really good cause—is also called “stealing.”

A musical composition—just like a home or a car—is considered property. It is no less valuable—indeed, I would argue, it is of greater value—than anything else you are required to pay for that has a physical price tag attached. A musical composition belongs to the composer who wrote it and/or the composer’s publishing company. Under U.S. Copyright Law, whoever owns a musical composition also has the absolute right to control and determine all uses of the property—this includes the right to perform the music live, record the music, play a recording of the music for the public, change the lyrics, make arrangements, or just about anything else you can think of to do with music; including the right to determine whether or not to donate the use of the composition for a worthy cause or project.

This means that any time a musical composition is performed live or a recording of the composition is played—whether it’s at a theater, concert hall, or out-door street festival (for-profit or non-profit)—“someone” needs to obtain the composer’s permission and, in most cases, pay a usage fee called a “Performance License.” ASCAP, BMI and SESAC are not roving bands of brigands waiting to pounce on unsuspecting non-profits who are merely trying to promote the arts. Rather, these organizations are trying to promote the arts too—primarily by reminding people (including other artists) not to take music for granted as a valueless commodity. ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC are organizations that represent composers, issuing performance licenses and collecting fees on their behalf.

If musicians are performing original music they composed themselves, then they can certainly agree to perform their own music for free. That can be a condition of hiring them to perform in the first place. However, if a musician or band is playing (“covering”) music composed by others, then just because the musicians agree to perform for a reduced fee, or even for free, doesn’t mean that the composers have allowed their music to be performed for free as well. A performance requires a performance license.

As for whose responsibility it is to obtain the necessary license, its legally everyone’s responsibility. If an unlicensed song is performed at a festival (even a free festival), then the U.S Copyright Act allows all the parties involved in arranging the performance—the artist as well as the venue or festival, and sometimes even the promoter, producer, or booking agent—to be liable for copyright infringement. So, while you could require the musicians to obtain their own licenses with regard to any music they are performing which they have not composed themselves, in my opinion that is a foolish policy. Why? Because most musicians will simply not bother and elect to take the risk of not getting caught. However, if they do get caught, it is the venue or festival who will be liable as well. It doesn’t matter that the festival may have required another party to obtain the license. That simply entitles the festival to sue the other party. The festival itself will remain liable to the composer.

So, in your case, while there are a number of factors that can determine the cost of obtaining performance licenses—the size of the venue, the price of tickets (or lack thereof), the number of performances, etc.–ultimately, it’s in the festival’s or organization’s best interest to ensure that the necessary permissions and licenses are obtained. While it might be tempting to proceed under the expectation that no one will get caught or the publishers and copyright owners will not sue small artists or struggling non-profits, that’s the same as robbing a bank and hoping the police won’t find you. Not to mention, in an industry where so many purport to operate under the noble purpose of promoting the value of art and artists, I can’t imagine the rationalization of stealing it for any purpose, regardless of how noble.

__________________________________________________________________

For additional information and resources on this and otherGG_logo_for-facebook legal, project management, and business issues for the performing arts, visit ggartslaw.com

To ask your own question, write to lawanddisorder@musicalamerica.com

All questions on any topic related to legal, management, and business issues will be welcome. However, please post only general questions or hypotheticals. GG Arts Law reserves the right to alter, edit or, amend questions to focus on specific issues or to avoid names, circumstances, or any information that could be used to identify or embarrass a specific individual or organization. All questions will be posted anonymously and/or posthumously.

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

The purpose of this blog is to provide general advice and guidance, not legal advice. Please consult with an attorney familiar with your specific circumstances, facts, challenges, medications, psychiatric disorders, past-lives, karmic debt, and anything else that may impact your situation before drawing any conclusions, deciding upon a course of action, sending a nasty email, filing a lawsuit, or doing anything rash!

 

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Arts Management, Copyrights, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Liability, Licensing, Music Rights, Non-Profits, Presenters, Publishing, Venues | Comments Closed

A Tribute To Copyright Infringement

Wednesday, September 16th, 2015

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.   

Dear Law and Disorder

Could you please advise how a copyright application would be filed for a tribute musical of deceased popular singer? The show would consist of all of his songs. Would it be better to file it as a compilation or concert? Can all the songs be included in one application? Thank you

Is this, by any chance, the long awaited musical “Indian Love Call”, a tribute to the intoxicating sounds of Slim Whitman? I heard there’s a lost studio recording somewhere featuring Slim Whitman, Tiny Tim, Axl Rose, and Celine Dion performing a cover of “Total Eclipse of the Heart.” It would make a great Act I finale.

For most musicals, a copyright registration application would include the book, music, and lyrics written by the authors. However, tribute musicals such as Mamma Mia, Jersey Boys, All Shook Up and Beautiful, which are also known as “jukebox” musicals, are different in that they typically feature works which has been previously performed and composed by others. The authors and creators of such musicals must license all the music from the original composer or composers. This gives them the rights to use the music and lyrics in the musical, and usually to record a cast album, but gives the creators of the musical no ownership rights in the individual works themselves. You cannot claim copyright ownership, or file a copyright registration, with regard to any material that is not original or which you do not either own or create yourself.

Producing a tribute musical about a singer can pose a number of additional challenges in that, unless the singer also wrote the music he sang, you would need to obtain licenses from the publishers and composers of the songs the singer performed. In addition, the name, appearance, or costume of the deceased singer might be considered trademarks controlled by his estate.

If your production is a scripted musical (ie: with a story, plot and characters), as opposed to a concert, then you could claim a copyright in the book and spoken dialogue, and, perhaps, the order in which the music was performed, but not in the music and lyrics themselves. Even arrangements or orchestrations would need to be licensed from the original composers and could not be included in your copyright registration unless your license agreement permitted you to do so.  If your production is actually more of a tribute concert, then there may actually be very little you can copyright or own.

The whole point of registering a copyright is to claim ownership and stop others from copying or infringing your work. However, in the field of tribute performances, there may actually be more the publishers or composers of the music and the estate of a deceased singer can do to stop you than you can do to stop others. Remember, a “tribute” is not a magic word that means “copyright or license free.” The entertainment field is littered with the carcasses of concerts and performances that were stopped because the subject of a tribute did not like, want, or approve the gesture. In any artistic venture, before investing the time, talent, and energy it takes to create and protect your work, you first want to make sure you are not improperly using the time, talent, and energy of other artists that came before you.

___________________________________________________________________

For additional information and resources on this and other GG_logo_for-facebooklegal, project management, and business issues for the performing arts, visit ggartslaw.com

To ask your own question, write to lawanddisorder@musicalamerica.org.

All questions on any topic related to legal, management, and business issues will be welcome. However, please post only general questions or hypotheticals. GG Arts Law reserves the right to alter, edit or, amend questions to focus on specific issues or to avoid names, circumstances, or any information that could be used to identify or embarrass a specific individual or organization. All questions will be posted anonymously and/or posthumously.

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

The purpose of this blog is to provide general advice and guidance, not legal advice. Please consult with an attorney familiar with your specific circumstances, facts, challenges, medications, psychiatric disorders, past-lives, karmic debt, and anything else that may impact your situation before drawing any conclusions, deciding upon a course of action, sending a nasty email, filing a lawsuit, or doing anything rash!

 

Tags:, , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Copyrights, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Licensing, Music Rights, Publishing, Trademarks | Comments Closed

How Is Copyright Infringement Like An Ugly Car?

Thursday, November 20th, 2014

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.   

Dear Law and Disorder:

What rights does a translator have? I translated a non-English script into English. All of the prior translations were very bad, which is why I did my own.  Everyone agrees mine is the best, even the original author. However, now that I am getting offers to produce my English version, the author and his publisher are insisting that, if I want to proceed, then they will own the translation and just pay me royalties for English productions using my translation. That doesn’t seem fair. The translation is all my work. I thought translators own the copyrights in their translations, so, don’t I already own it?

Robyn always tells me I never met an analogy I didn’t like, and I feel one coming on now.

Let’s assume I own a car which drives well, but is a hideous colour of besmirched baby blue (which, as it happens, was, in fact, the hideous colour of the first car I ever owned—a ’72 Buick Skylark which had belong to my grandfather, but I digress). You believe that you can re-paint my car and make it look like a Ferrari and offer to do so. Assuming I accept your offer, just because you paint my car doesn’t mean you now own the car or have any rights to drive it. I might owe you for your time and materials, but even if you make the car look better, the car itself still belongs to me. More importantly, let’s assume that I decline your offer, but you break into my garage and paint my car anyway. Even if you were somehow successful in turning my Buick into a Ferrari, you would still not have any ownership rights or control. You’d also be guilty of trespassing. (Incidentally, my mother did this very thing, erroneously believing that I would be touched and delighted with her thoughtfulness in having my car repainted, without my knowledge, from besmirched baby blue to her choice of vibrant puce. I was not.)

A copyright is like a car. The owner of a copyright has the exclusive right to determine who uses it and how—including the rights to edit it, make copies of it, perform it, record it, re-arrange it, re-orchestrate it, translate it, or create derivative works from it. A “derivative” work is anything that “derives” from the original work, such as a play or novel made into a film, a composition used to create a toy music box, etc. In short, there is nothing you can do without the owner’s permission and, in exchange for such permission, the owner can set any terms, reasonable or unreasonable, that the owner wants—including the right to refuse permission entirely. (Ok, there are one two minor exceptions, but they don’t apply to your question.)

If you want to translate someone else’s work, you must have the original author’s permission. If you don’t like the terms of the author’s permission, don’t do the translation and move on to another project. You are correct that, if translations contain a sufficient amount of creativity (as opposed to, say, a Google translation), then the translation is, itself, subject to its own copyright owned by the translator. However—and this is a BIG “however”—if you didn’t have the original author’s permission to make the translation in the first place, then your copyright is meaningless. It doesn’t matter how artistically nuanced, sensitive, or authentic it may be. As an unauthorized translation, any use of the translation would constitute an infringement of the original author’s copyright. Owning the copyright in the translation merely gives you the right to stop others, including the original author, from using it, but it doesn’t give you any right to use it without the original author’s permission.

Learn from my Mother—step away from the car!

_________________________________________________________________

For additional information and resources on this and otherGG_logo_for-facebook legal and business issues for the performing arts, visit ggartslaw.com

To ask your own question, write to lawanddisorder@musicalamerica.org.

All questions on any topic related to legal and business issues will be welcome. However, please post only general questions or hypotheticals. GG Arts Law reserves the right to alter, edit or, amend questions to focus on specific issues or to avoid names, circumstances, or any information that could be used to identify or embarrass a specific individual or organization. All questions will be posted anonymously and/or posthumously.

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

The purpose of this blog is to provide general advice and guidance, not legal advice. Please consult with an attorney familiar with your specific circumstances, facts, challenges, medications, psychiatric disorders, past-lives, karmic debt, and anything else that may impact your situation before drawing any conclusions, deciding upon a course of action, sending a nasty email, filing a lawsuit, or doing anything rash!

 

Tags:, , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Arts Management, Copyrights, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Liability, Licensing, Music Rights, Publishing | Comments Closed

Hypothetically Speaking About Liability

Thursday, May 1st, 2014

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.

Dear Law and Disorder:

If a hypothetical rental company is hired, either by a venue or by the client using a venue, to supply the sound and/or video system for a corporate, non-profit or association event; and this hypothetical rental company is asked to provide “top 40” music to be used during “walk in”, dinner, award winner walks up to the stage, etc. where in the liability chain would this rental company be? What if the end client hands the hypothetical rental company a stack of CD’s or worse, a drive full of MP3’s and requests/insists that they be played? If “ultimately” the owner of the venue is responsible of verifying that proper licensing has been obtained but “everyone involved” is at risk of being named in a lawsuit if proper licensing has not been obtained, how does the vendor in the middle point to either the venue or the end client as the responsible parties?  Is it enough to spell out specific language in the rental agreement? <sarcasm> I know that you are, no doubt, shocked to hear that this scenario might be possible.  However, IF it were to become “common practice” among rental companies to happily play whatever they and/or their client wanted without so much as a hesitation, it would be difficult for any hypothetical rental company to compete if they were the one’s constantly harping on usage rights with their clients. </sarcasm> 

In truth, I’m less shocked by the possibility of the scenario you propose than astonished—nay, agog—by your desire to be proactive about it—even hypothetically. It’s a welcome reprieve from the “let’s not call GG Arts Law until we’ve actually been sued by Disney” approach we are more familiar with.

Merely being named in a lawsuit doesn’t mean that you will necessarily be found responsible—or, as lawyers like to say “liable.” Liability requires that you had a duty to do, or not do, something which you did or did not do. In your hypothetical, its not entirely accurate to say that “ultimately the owner of the venue is responsible for verifying that the proper licensing has been obtained.” Rather, if licensing is required, everyone involved in the performance has a duty to make sure that the proper licenses are obtained—not just the owner of the venue, but the hypothetical rental company and the rental company’s client. Its more accurate to say that, while, ultimately, the owner of the venue is more likely to get sued, everyone involved could be held responsible.

However, you are correct that the hypothetical rental company can put language in its rental agreement that says that whomever is hiring the company (either the venue itself or the person renting the venue, or both) agrees to obtain all necessary licenses and, in the event the rental company is sued and found to be liable for copyright infringement, will cover all of its legal costs and expenses, as well as any damages it might be ordered to pay. The technical term for such a clause is “indemnification and hold harmless”, but there’s no need to use magic legal terms so long as the meaning is clear. While having such a clause in its rental agreement will neither protect the hypothetical rental company from getting sued nor protect it from being liable, it will give the company a contractual basis to turn to the party that signed the rental agreement and say “you agreed to take care of this problem. Fix it!”

Even with an indemnification and hold harmless clause in its pocket, whether or not the hypothetical rental company can happily play whatever it and/or its hypothetical client wanted without so much as a hesitation really depends on the venue where the company has been hired to provide services and where such venue lies on what I call the Risk-O-Meter.  On the low end of the meter lies most for-profit venues (hotels, rental halls, restaurants, conference centers, etc) which more often than not will have obtained the necessary blanket licenses from the major performance rights organizations (ASCAP, BMI and SESAC) to permit that stack of CD’s or a drive full of MP3’s to be played. So, no worries. On the high end you will find the non-profit venues, schools, community centers, and social halls which either don’t know they are supposed to get performance licenses or incorrectly believe that because they are non-profit they are also non-commercial and are exempt from the statutes, rules, laws, and other social orders by which the rest of us must abide. (While not all commercial venues are non-profit, almost all non-profit venues are also commercial.) Your need to harp on usage rights is directly proportionate to where you lie on the Risk-O-Meter—hypothetically speaking, of course.

__________________________________________________________________

For additional information and resources on this and otherGG_logo_for-facebook legal and business issues for the performing arts, visit ggartslaw.com

To ask your own question, write to lawanddisorder@musicalamerica.org.

All questions on any topic related to legal and business issues will be welcome. However, please post only general questions or hypotheticals. GG Arts Law reserves the right to alter, edit or, amend questions to focus on specific issues or to avoid names, circumstances, or any information that could be used to identify or embarrass a specific individual or organization. All questions will be posted anonymously and/or posthumously.

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

The purpose of this blog is to provide general advice and guidance, not legal advice. Please consult with an attorney familiar with your specific circumstances, facts, challenges, medications, psychiatric disorders, past-lives, karmic debt, and anything else that may impact your situation before drawing any conclusions, deciding upon a course of action, sending a nasty email, filing a lawsuit, or doing anything rash!

 

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Artist Management, Arts Management, Contracts, Copyrights, For Profits, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Liability, Licensing, Music Rights, Non-Profits, Presenters, Publishing, Recordings, Venues | Comments Closed

A “Thank-You” Note Is Not The Same As A License

Thursday, November 21st, 2013

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.

Dear Law and Disorder:

I was wondering if I have my own blog and post a music video from iTunes in the blog, giving full credit to the musician, including the musician’s original link, would this be legal? And can you please specify on what full credit means.  Further, if I can’t do this, how do you go about getting permission from the musician??  Thank you!

A “copyright” is literally the right to make copies. A copyright “infringement” is when you make a copy of something without the owner’s permission.

Almost everything you can find on the internet (photos, images, videos, text, etc.) is someone else’s property. Part of the challenge of understanding digital rights is that the ease with which we can download and copy materials on the internet tends to make us forget that copying any materials without permission is still copyright infringement.

Without question, many people post pictures, videos, and other materials and are more than happy to have others repost and share them; but that decision is entirely up to the person who owns the materials. In other words, just because a car is parked on the street, doesn’t mean its free for the taking.

Purchasing and downloading a video from itunes only gives you the right to enjoy it. It doesn’t give you the right to re-post or copy the video. As such, posting someone else’s video on your blog would constitute copyright infringement unless you had permission from the owner of the video.

If you are commenting on or reviewing the video or the artist, then, arguably, you might be able to claim that posting the video constitutes “fair use.” However, the more of an item you post, the less “fair use” it becomes. So, an excerpt of a video is more likely to be “fair use” than posting the entire video. The better option would be for you to post a link to the video rather than post the video itself. In other words, you would be inviting your readers to go to itunes or the artist’s own website to view the video. This way, the owner can control whether or not they want the video to be shared.

I know many people who subscribe to the theory that, in practical terms, you should post anything you want until someone tells you to take it down. However, in practical terms, that’s also called “really bad advice.”

As for giving “full credit”, giving an owner credit in any form or manner neither gives you any rights to post materials nor absolves you of copyright infringement. Stealing a car, but leaving a thank you note crediting the owner, doesn’t make it any less a crime. If you want to get actual permission to repost a video, photograph, or any other copyrighted material, then you need to get permission (aka “a license”) from the owner—which may or may not be the artist. More often than not, video rights are controlled by record labels. Nonetheless, when seeking licenses, the best place to start is always the musician’s publisher, manager, or agent.

__________________________________________________________________

For additional information and resources on this and otherGG_logo_for-facebook legal and business issues for the performing arts, visit ggartslaw.com

To ask your own question, write to lawanddisorder@musicalamerica.org.

All questions on any topic related to legal and business issues will be welcome. However, please post only general questions or hypotheticals. GG Arts Law reserves the right to alter, edit or, amend questions to focus on specific issues or to avoid names, circumstances, or any information that could be used to identify or embarrass a specific individual or organization. All questions will be posted anonymously.

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

The purpose of this blog is to provide general advice and guidance, not legal advice. Please consult with an attorney familiar with your specific circumstances, facts, challenges, medications, psychiatric disorders, past-lives, karmic debt, and anything else that may impact your situation before drawing any conclusions, deciding upon a course of action, sending a nasty email, filing a lawsuit, or doing anything rash!

 

 

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Arts Management, Copyrights, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Licensing | Comments Closed

How Does An Unauthorized Arrangement Become Grand Theft Auto?

Wednesday, August 21st, 2013

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq. Dear Law and Disorder: Several years ago, our small ensemble hired a composer to arrange and re-orchestrate a work for us to play. The work itself, which is still under copyright, was originally written and arranged for a large orchestra. Recently, we made a video of our group performing the piece, put it on YouTube, and the composer’s publisher had it taken down. The publisher also told us that the composer had not authorized any arrangements or re-orchestrations. They also told us we couldn’t even perform it live anymore. Is this true? Even though we paid for the re-arrangement ourselves? Even though we have always obtained performance licenses through BMI? We have been performing this arrangement for years and the publisher has never objected before. It doesn’t seem fair. We have engagements in 2013/2014 to specifically perform this piece as part of our repertoire. When you obtain a performance license through ASCAP, BMI or SESAC, you obtain the right to perform a work as written. This includes the right to “interpret” the work to reflect your own style, artistry, expression, etc. However, it does not include the right to re-orchestrate or re-arrange a work in a manner that changes the fundamental nature of the work. For example, obtaining a performance license to perform a work written for a chamber ensemble does not give you the right to “re-arrange” it for four banjos and a zither—as tempting as that may be! The fact that you paid for the re-arrangement doesn’t give you any rights to perform it, if the re-arrangement itself was unauthorized. That’s like stealing a car, but arguing that it wasn’t a crime because you paid for the gas. (My partner, Robyn, says I never met an analogy I didn’t like…so let’s go with that.) However, on the plus side, such as it is, should the composer/publisher of the work ever decide they like your arrangement, they can’t use it without your permission either. The right to the re-arrangement belong to the owner of the re-arrangement—which could be your ensemble or the composer of the re-arrangement, depending on how your commission agreement was drafted. (Remember, the mere act of paying for something doesn’t inherently convey any rights.) The fact that you have been performing this arrangement to date without any trouble might buy you an argument—albeit a weak one—that your past performances were “implicitly” licensed. However, now that the publisher has officially told you that your arrangement is unauthorized, any future performances beyond this point would constitute copyright infringement. The line has been drawn. I know it doesn’t seem fair when a composer, author, publisher, or copyright owner refuses to give you the rights you need—especially in a situation such as yours where your arrangement obviously has artistic merit or else you wouldn’t be getting engagements to perform it. However, bear in mind that those same rules also protect your own rights. Imagine your position if someone had taken that video you posted on YouTube and, without your permission, altered it or used it in such a way that you found artistically objectionable. You would be just as adamant that they must stop. Also, bear in mind that its almost always easier (not to mention legally required) to get rights by asking and negotiating ahead of time, rather than taking what you want and then asking for forgiveness or permission after the fact. It’s the difference between borrowing and stealing a car. __________________________________________________________________ For additional information and resources on this and other legal and business issues for the performing arts, visit ggartslaw.com To ask your own question, write to lawanddisorder@musicalamerica.org. All questions on any topic related to legal and business issues will be welcome. However, please post only general questions or hypotheticals. GG Arts Law reserves the right to alter, edit or, amend questions to focus on specific issues or to avoid names, circumstances, or any information that could be used to identify or embarrass a specific individual or organization. All questions will be posted anonymously. __________________________________________________________________ THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER: THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE! The purpose of this blog is to provide general advice and guidance, not legal advice. Please consult with an attorney familiar with your specific circumstances, facts, challenges, medications, psychiatric disorders, past-lives, karmic debt, and anything else that may impact your situation before drawing any conclusions, deciding upon a course of action, sending a nasty email, filing a lawsuit, or doing anything rash!

Tags:, , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Artist Management, Arts Management, Contracts, Copyrights, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Licensing, Music Rights, Publishing, Recordings | Comments Closed

“Fair Use” Just Isn’t Fair!

Wednesday, May 29th, 2013

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq. Dear Law and Disorder: I have read your clearly stated articles about mechanical use and rights.  What about “fair use”? Aren’t there specific scenarios where permission is not needed to use a recording of someone else’s music? Beware of what you ask. You are about to open a box whereupon a thousand nasties will fly out! Now that you have been duly warned…. Copyright Law gives the owner of a copyright the exclusive right to perform, edit, arrange, or reproduce a protected work in copies or recordings, as well as the exclusive right to authorize others to do so. Anyone who copies, performs, or records a protected work without the copyright owner’s permission, even including small excerpts, is guilty of copyright infringement. Fair Use is a legal doctrine whereby certain usages of a particular work “may” be considered permissible without the copyright owner’s permission, if the purpose for which the work was used is determined to be “fair”, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, research, and parody. As the U.S. Copyright Act is intended, albeit arguably, to afford the maximum protection of copyright owners and the creators of protected works, it does not set forth specific usages that are inherently “fair.” Rather, the analysis and determination of what constitutes Fair Use is left entirely to a judge to decide in her or her sole discretion. In other words, should you decide to use any portion of a protected work without the owner’s permission, you won’t know whether your use is a permissible Fair Use or a prohibited infringement until after the copyright owner files a lawsuit claiming an infringement and everyone goes to court, makes arguments, and the judge decides. The only guidance given by the U.S. Copyright Act is the following four-part test which judges use in making the Fair Use analysis and determining whether or not a particular use is “fair”: (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for non-profit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. As you may imagine, the application of these factors is both highly fact specific and highly subjective. Any one factor can tip the balance for or against Fair Use. More significantly, just because one judge determines a specific usage to be Fair Use within a specific scenario does not mean that a different judge will determine that a similar usage will be Fair Use in a similar scenario. Determinations can, and do, change from judge to judge. Case law is filled with conflicting examples of recordings where one judge ruled that a specific usage of a melody was a parody (Fair Use) and another judge in another state said a similar use of a different melody was satire (not Fair Use). Similarly, judges have ruled the use of as little as thirty seconds to be an infringement and usage of entire works to be Fair Use. Essentially, this means that Fair Use is an exception, or defense, to a claim of infringement, not a right in and of itself. To be fair, there are many legal scholars who would argue, correctly, that Fair Use is not a mere defense, but is, in fact, an important right that balances copyright law with the First Amendment and that the current system gives far too much power to wealthy copyright owners who can use the mere threat of lawsuits to quash any usage of their works, even usage that might legitimately constitute Fair Use. I don’t necessarily disagree with this position. However, it’s more aspirational than reflective of the current realities that you and I have to deal with. Until Congress comes up with better guidelines (and the likelihood that Congress can “come up” with much of anything these days is slim), we are stuck with the current system and all its inherent flaws and inconsistencies. Despite the distinctions between Fair Use and infringement being uncertain and difficult to define, there are, nonetheless, a few certainties which you can depend upon: There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledgement of the source of the copyrighted material does not constitute Fair Use and is not a substitute for obtaining permission where permission is required. Just because something is used by a non-profit and/or used for “education” does not mean its “fair.” Materials you find on the Internet is neither inherently public domain nor Fair Use. Just because you do not sell anything, does not make your use of someone else’s work Fair Use. At the very least, when determining whether or not using someone else’s work without permission might be Fair Use, take only the smallest amount of a copyrighted work necessary to accomplish your goal of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, research, and/or parody. As a general rule, the more you take, the less likely your use will be considered “fair.” It is also reasonable to assume that if you are using any part of a copyrighted work for promoting or marketing your services or performances, or your organization’s services or performances, even if no copies are being sold, it probably IS NOT fair use. Of course, the safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material. __________________________________________________________________ For additional information and resources on this and other legal and business issues for the performing arts, visit ggartslaw.com To ask your own question, write to lawanddisorder@musicalamerica.org. All questions on any topic related to legal and business issues will be welcome. However, please post only general questions or hypotheticals. GG Arts Law reserves the right to alter, edit or, amend questions to focus on specific issues or to avoid names, circumstances, or any information that could be used to identify or embarrass a specific individual or organization. All questions will be posted anonymously. __________________________________________________________________ THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER: THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE! The purpose of this blog is to provide general advice and guidance, not legal advice. Please consult with an attorney familiar with your specific circumstances, facts, challenges, medications, psychiatric disorders, past-lives, karmic debt, and anything else that may impact your situation before drawing any conclusions, deciding upon a course of action, sending a nasty email, filing a lawsuit, or doing anything rash!

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Agents, Artist Management, Arts Management, Copyrights, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Liability, Licensing, Music Rights, Non-Profits, Presenters, Publishing, Recordings, Venues | Comments Closed

Can We Loan Sheet Music?

Wednesday, November 28th, 2012

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.

Dear Law and Disorder:

May we loan music that we own for orchestral performances by other non-profit organizations (schools, community orchestras, etc? Would the other group still need to obtain performing/recording permissions? Could we be liable if they don’t?

It depends how define “own.” If by “own”, you mean that you purchased the sheet music, then, yes, you can loan it or give it to whomever you want. It’s like purchasing a book or CD: when you’re done reading it or listening to it, you can loan it to a friend, donate it to a library, or even re-sell it. You just can’t copy it, perform it, or record it—and neither can the organization you loan it to.

Ownership of a physical copy of books, sheet music, CDs, or other copyrightable material is not the same thing as owning the copyright. Owning a physical copy merely gives you the right to physically possess it—or give it away—not do anything else or convey any other rights. So, if you’ve purchased the sheet music and you loan or give it to another organization, regardless of whether or not the other organization is a non-profit or for-profit, they will still have to obtain the necessary rights if they want to perform or record it. Should they fail to do so, they will be liable for copyright infringement, not you.

If, on the other hand, you have merely “licensed” or “rented” the sheet music, then you cannot loan or give it to anyone else. That would be like sub-letting an apartment without permission. When you license or rent, its just for you.

__________________________________________________________________

For additional information and resources on this and other legal and business issues for the performing arts, visit ggartslaw.com

To ask your own question, write to lawanddisorder@musicalamerica.org.

All questions on any topic related to legal and business issues will be welcome. However, please post only general questions or hypotheticals. GG Arts Law reserves the right to alter, edit or, amend questions to focus on specific issues or to avoid names, circumstances, or any information that could be used to identify or embarrass a specific individual or organization. All questions will be posted anonymously.

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

The purpose of this blog is to provide general advice and guidance, not legal advice. Please consult with an attorney familiar with your specific circumstances, facts, challenges, medications, psychiatric disorders, past-lives, karmic debt, and anything else that may impact your situation before drawing any conclusions, deciding upon a course of action, sending a nasty email, filing a lawsuit, or doing anything rash!

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Arts Management, Contracts, Copyrights, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Liability, Licensing, Music Rights, Non-Profits, Recordings | Comments Closed

Does Original Music Exist Anymore?

Wednesday, November 21st, 2012

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.

Dear Law and Disorder:

I have a small venue. All 3 licensing companies are claiming I need to pay them for my karaoke and music that occurs weekly, but the bands that I have sign contracts making sure they only play their original music, nothing copyrighted. These companies have been strong-arming me with threats that there’s no such thing as original music anymore and that I must pay or I will be heavily fined. Is this true and, if so, is there blanket licensing that I may acquire for all 3?

Well, if there’s “no such thing as original music anymore”, that’s news to me and, I suspect, the thousands of composers out there!

If you require your bands to perform only original music that they composed themselves, then you do not need to obtain performance licenses from ASCAP, BMI or SESAC. The bands can give you all the permissions you need. However, if the bands breach their contract by “sneaking in” a few covers and performing music written by other bands or artists, then you would be liable for not having the proper performance licenses in place. (The band would be liable, too—for both breach of contract AND copyright infringement—but the performing rights organizations are more likely to go after you than the band.)

The karaoke is another matter. Karaoke machines, like jukeboxes, require licenses to be used in public venues such as yours. If you are featuring weekly karaoke nights, then you definitely must obtain karaoke licenses. The good news, such as it is, is that you can, indeed, obtain blanket karaoke licenses from each of the three performing rights organizations. The licenses will be based on the size and income of your venue.

Thanks for writing…and thanks to all of you who have written in, supported our blog, and asked great questions! Keem ‘em coming! Happy Thanksgiving!

________________________________________________________________

For additional information and resources on this and other legal and business issues for the performing arts, visit ggartslaw.com

To ask your own question, write to lawanddisorder@musicalamerica.org.

All questions on any topic related to legal and business issues will be welcome. However, please post only general questions or hypotheticals. GG Arts Law reserves the right to alter, edit or, amend questions to focus on specific issues or to avoid names, circumstances, or any information that could be used to identify or embarrass a specific individual or organization. All questions will be posted anonymously.

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

The purpose of this blog is to provide general advice and guidance, not legal advice. Please consult with an attorney familiar with your specific circumstances, facts, challenges, medications, psychiatric disorders, past-lives, karmic debt, and anything else that may impact your situation before drawing any conclusions, deciding upon a course of action, sending a nasty email, filing a lawsuit, or doing anything rash!

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Arts Management, Copyrights, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Liability, Licensing, Music Rights, Venues | Comments Closed

« Older Entries