Posts Tagged ‘copyright law’

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

What Do You Mean I Need To PAY For Music?

Thursday, January 23rd, 2014

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.

Greetings,

I have recently been contacted by ASCAP asking for fees based on music played by live musicians. Are we required to pay if we do not pay the musicians? Any musician who plays at the location is not compensated for their efforts.

Is anyone else who works at or for your location compensated for their “efforts”? Waiters? Staff? Vendors or suppliers? Do you have to pay for liquor if you give it away? Who pays for the electricity or the heat? People can always agree to donate goods and services, and many do. However, as a general rule, society discourages the involuntary donation of other’s property without their permission—even if it’s for a really good cause.

A musical composition—just like a computer, a watch, 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 US 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. Any location where music is performed—whether it’s a theater, concert hall, or other venue (for-profit or non-profit) where music is performed live or whether it’s a restaurant or store that plays recorded music for their patrons’ listening pleasure whilst shopping or eating—needs to obtain the composer’s permission and, in most cases, pay a usage fee called a “Performance License.”

ASCAP, like BMI and SESAC, is an organization that represents composers and helps them by issuing performance licenses and collecting fees on behalf of the composer. It helps locations, too, because, rather than having to contact every composer individually, you can purchase a performance license from ASCAP to cover all of the composers they represent. It’s like one-stop shopping. However, as they don’t represent every composer, most locations need to purchase licenses from BMI and SESAC, as well.

If your musicians are performing original music they composed themselves, then they can certainly agree to perform their own music for free. However, if they are playing (“covering”) music composed by other artists, then just because the musicians agree to perform for free doesn’t mean that the composers have allowed their music to be performed for free as well. If ASCAP contacted you, it’s because music is being performed in your location and ASCAP is trying to ensure that you have obtained permission from each composer they represent to have their music performed. While there are a number of factors that can determine the cost of obtaining performance licenses—the size of your venue, the price of tickets, the number of performances, etc.–ultimately, it’s your responsibility to ensure that the necessary permissions and licenses are obtained.

__________________________________________________________________

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 Artist Management, Arts Management, Copyrights, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Licensing, Music Rights, Publishing, Recordings, Venues | Comments Closed

Is The Term “Work-For-Hire” A Magic Phrase?

Thursday, December 12th, 2013

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.

An orchestra wants to commission a composer we represent to create an arrangement of a piece they want to perform. We were hoping that our composer would retain ownership of the arrangement so that in the future if the orchestra, or anyone else, ever wanted to play his arrangement, he would get a royalty. However, the most important thing is that we want the composer get credit for the arrangement whenever it is performed. In the commission agreement they sent us it says that the orchestra will get the right to perform the arrangement for one year, but it also says that: “Artist agrees that this work stated above shall not generate further monetary remuneration to the Artist (ie: a “work for hire”).” This doesn’t make any sense. If we agree to this, would our composer at least get credit ever time his arrangement is performed?

You’re correct. The commission agreement contains conflicting terms. It’s bad enough when attorneys use “legalese”, but when normal people try to use legal phraseology that they do not understand–or, worse, that they “think” they understand—chaos, rather than clarity, often ensues.

As a general rule, the person who creates something automatically owns it and controls all rights. The mere fact that you pay someone for their services does not inherently mean that you own the work they produce or have any rights to the work. For example, paying someone to design your website does not mean you also purchase ownership of the design or have any rights to use the design. Similarly, commissioning someone to provide creative services (such as composing music) does not mean that you own the material they create or have any rights to perform the composition. All rights remain with the author of the work unless either there is an agreement between the parties specifying rights and ownership or the work constitutes a “work for hire.”

A “work-for-hire” means that the person who paid for the work is considered to be the author and owns all rights to the work. However, under U.S. copyright law, a “work-for-hire” occurs in only one of two very specific scenarios:

1)         When an employee creates material for an employer within the scope of the employee’s employment, the employer and not the employee is considered to be the author and the employer automatically holds the copyright. The employee gets nothing but a pay check; or

2)         A work is specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a collective work; a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work; a translation; a supplementary work; a compilation; an instructional text; a test; answer material for a test; or an atlas AND the parties expressly agree in a written contract signed by both parties that the work shall be considered a work made for hire.

In your case, I am sure that the orchestra believe that merely using the magic words “work for hire” will automatically transfer all rights and ownership in the arrangement to them. It does not. Why? Because although there is a written contract, the arrangement will not be used as a contribution to a collective work; as part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work; a translation; a supplementary work; a compilation; an instructional text; a test; answer material for a test; or an atlas. (Yes, this is a very odd and restrictive list. Blame Congress…while you’re at it, blame the lobbyists for the motion picture industry, text book industry, etc.) Unless both elements are present, it does not create a “work for hire.” If the orchestra wanted to own the arrangement, the commission agreement would need to include an assignment of copyright and a grant of all rights and title. As it doesn’t, if you were to sign the agreement, the orchestra would, in fact, have no rights to the arrangement. However, you’d also be taking advantage of the orchestra’s obvious lack of knowledge of copyright law as, clearly, they believe they would be owning the arrangement. Should they ever attempt to assert their rights, your composer would need to bring a lawsuit to assert his ownership and nullify their claims. This would not only result in needless legal expenses, but probably make any other orchestra think twice about commissioning your composer.

Rather than engage in legal games, if your composer is not willing to transfer ownership to the orchestra, I would strongly advise you to bring that to the orchestra’s attention and discuss the matter. If the orchestra insists on owning the arrangement, then you can decide whether or not to decline the commission or edit the commission agreement to specify the parties’ intentions. Should your composer decide to assign ownership to the orchestra, the parties can always agree that your composer would be given credit as the composer. However, that must also be specified in the contract! Preferably, in English.

__________________________________________________________________

 

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 Agents, Artist Management, Arts Management, Contracts, Copyrights, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Licensing, Music Rights, Presenters, 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

Using Existing Recordings–Not So Fast!

Wednesday, April 10th, 2013

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.

Dear Law and Disorder:

A few weeks ago you wrote a great article about how to obtain a mechanical license when someone wants to record music. But what about using a recording that already exists? We would like to promote an upcoming concert at our venue by putting some recordings of the artist on our website. Since the artist gave us the recordings, are we ok?

Thanks…and no, you may not be ok.

Any time you want to use an existing recording of a composition, whether to put on your website, or as a soundtrack to a film or video, you will need to get permission (aka “a license)” from the composer (which often means contacting the composer’s publisher) as well as permission (aka “a license”) from the owner of the recording (which is often a record label.) That’s right, you may need to get two separate licenses! Why? Because copyright law creates a separate copyright in compositions and a separate copyright in the recording of a composition.

Just because an artist or an artist’s manager gives you a recording and gives you permission to use that recording, doesn’t mean that the artist owns the recording or has the rights to give. Even if it is a recording of the artist’s own original composition or if the composition itself is in the public domain, the artist may not own the recording. In which case, the artist cannot give you permission to use it, much less the artist’s manager.

Shortly after I posted the earlier blog you mentioned (The Mechanics of Mechanical Licenses, March 6, 2013), Peter Christ of Crystal Records Inc. (http://www.crystalrecords.com) sent me an email which exactly and accurately addressed this issue. He graciously agreed to let me post it here:

Your explanation was very clear and should help those who want to record music that is not public domain. However, it does not address the situation of a person who wants to use a recording already made, and on a record label, for their web site or their movie or other background music use. It should be made clear that the publisher needs to be contacted and ALSO the record label or other copyright owner of the recorded music.

We sometimes find out that our copyrighted recordings are being used as background music for films or on someone’s web site. This is not legal without our permission, and when it is discovered, the legal expenses can be very high for the perpetrator.

 

Some people want to do it right, and we frequently get requests for license to use our recordings for films, web, etc. We always appreciate that someone is honest and knowledgeable enough to request a license. However, in most cases, they do not realize they need a license both from the record company and from the publisher of the music. And in many cases, the music was recorded under an AFM contract and additional payment must be made through the union to the musicians on the recording. It should be pointed out that even if the music itself is public domain, the recording is most likely not, so permission from the record company, and possibly the union, is definitely needed. So the two minutes or so they want to use can get quite expensive.

Thank you for your excellent column in Musical America.

See, I don’t make this stuff up just to make your lives complicated! Bottom line, when it comes to music rights there are three rules: never assume—always ask—and know who to ask.

__________________________________________________________________

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, Copyrights, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Licensing, Music Rights, Presenters, Publishing, Recordings, Venues | Comments Closed

Commissioners Beware!

Wednesday, January 23rd, 2013

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.

Dear Law & Disorder:

When a composer/songwriter is commissioned to write a song, who owns the copyright to the song? The commissioner or the writer? And for either party, when the other owns the copyright, what kind of controls and/or royalties does the holder have?

As with just about everything in the arts and entertainment industry, these are issues that should be negotiated between the parties. As there are no industry standards (I know I say that a lot, but its worth repeating…there are NO industry standards!), everything is up for grabs in terms of royalties, controls, ownership, etc.

Unfortunately, it’s not uncommon for the parties either not to have a commissioning agreement or for one party merely to “assume” that commissioning a work automatically conveys certain rights. Nothing could be further from the truth. In the absence of a written agreement, copyright law determines ownership and, in such cases, the law is quite simple: the mere act of payment does not convey any rights or ownership. The only exception would be if an employee is paid to create or write something for their employer or if there is a written “work-for-hire” agreement between the parties. Otherwise, the commissioning fee only pays for the artist’s services. Ownership of the underlying work, including all rights, remains with the author.

So, for example, if a commissioner agrees to pay a composer $10,000 to write a concerto, unless there is a specific agreement between the parties that the commission fee includes performance or recording rights, the commissioner is entitled to nothing other than the joy of knowing he or she has paid for beautiful music. If the commissioner also wants to own the song, or record or perform it, then those terms need to be specifically negotiated and agreed to between the parties. This does not necessarily mean that the commissioner is required to pay extra for such rights. Everything is negotiable. It’s perfectly acceptable, and quite common, to include certain performance or recording rights as part of the commission fee. Its also just as common for the composer to be entitled to royalties or other payments in addition to the commission fee. Even in a case where the commission fee includes an assignment of full ownership, the composer can still ask for royalties as well as reserve performance and recordings rights of their own.

In short, all rights must be specified. If you are commissioning music, know what you are paying for. If you are being commissioned, know what you are selling. Never assume!

________________________________________________________________

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, Employees, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Licensing, Music Rights, Publishing | Comments Closed