Performing copyright

[twanguitar]

Can anyone throw light on a matter which causes me more angst the more I go into it?  It concerns a performer such as an organist who performs in public, and that includes the internet nowadays.

As I currently understand it, one is not allowed to perform a composition by any composer who has not been dead for at least 70 years without paying a royalty fee to an organisation called PRS For Music.  I have contacted them about this and asked them the following questions:

1.  If one is not charging people to listen, is this still necessary?  Their answer: YES.

2.  Does it make any difference if one is merely an amateur organist who doesn't get paid much, if at all?  Their answer: NO.  The same rules apply.

3.  So what about an amateur organist playing a voluntary by, say, Vaughan Williams (d. 1958) at the end of a service?  (e.g. Rhosymedre)  Their answer: Not sure, but the rules might not apply to religious services.  (A great help I must say).

4.  What about playing the same piece at a fund-raising recital for the church and in the same building as in 3 above?  Their answer: the rules DEFINITELY apply.

5.  What about playing the same piece at a recital where there is no charge for admission nor even an optional collection?  Their answer:  The rules DEFINITELY apply.

This is one extremely aggressive organisation and every performer needs to be aware of them.  Their tone was unhelpful, to put it politely, even when they didn't know the answer (see 3 above).  I know one hairdressing salon run by a distant relative who was nearly taken to court by them merely because they came in icognito to her premises one day to see if she had a radio switched on.  She did, but has had to remove it.  They were methodically going through the entire Yellow Pages for Manchester and visiting every single business address.

So, whether we eventually find somebody who can advise properly in this area or not, do be careful.

TG

[David Pinnegar]

This is one extremely aggressive organisation and every performer needs to be aware of them.  Their tone was unhelpful, to put it politely, even when they didn't know the answer (see 3 above).  I know one hairdressing salon run by a distant relative who was nearly taken to court by them merely because they came in icognito to her premises one day to see if she had a radio switched on.  She did, but has had to remove it.  They were methodically going through the entire Yellow Pages for Manchester and visiting every single business address.

Hi!

Thanks for drawing this to everyone's attention.

I run a B&B and had a television in the room which in fact no-one watched as the signal is so very bad. The PRS attitude is oppressive and I have removed the televsion from the room. I find their policy on this objectionable as there is no way that money collected can actually go to the beneficiaries of composers whose music is being appreciated, and that, after all, is the proper purpose of copyright and copyright sourced funds.

The way in which monies are being collected at the moment is reminiscent of a certain Italian business practice and the result is a dead hand on the performance and appreciation of more recently composed classical music. Is it 70 years or 90?

For certain no royalties are due for the playing of music in the course of a religious ceremony.

I have become the priest of a Temple of Apollo, embued with columns derived from the Temple on Delos and worship Apollo on a regular basis.

For this reason it would well behold Christian churches to reactivate the Renaissance view of embracing the Greek myths as part of the biblical heritage, clearly recognised by the authors of the AV in the translation of the "men of renown" in Genesis 6 and later referred to in Job chapter 1.

I believe that just as we see imagery of the Last Judgement commonly portrayed, the freize above the East door of the Parthenon depicted the First Judgement in the split between the forces of good and of bad, with Aphrodite and Artemis representing the forces of Greed, both of the flesh and of material benefits; Hermes, Deceit - lying and cheating; Ares, Hate and war. These accord with the Buddhist view of having to eliminate Desire, Deceit and Hate from one's heart and one's life in order to achieve Nirvana.

Best wishes,

David P

[Barry Williams]

In law there is a charge for performing copyright music in an act of divine worship.  At the moment PRS chooses not to collect those duties.

The approach of PRS has, over many years, been deeply aggressive and frequently offensive.  One well-known organist simply does not play copyright music because PRS tried to force him to produce copies of all his recital programmes.  (They failed, for it is the place that is licensed, not the player.

MCPS is not that different.  A friend of mine has just been required to pay about £275 for a recording he has made with just one piece of contemporary music on it.  MCPS has refused to tell him how much the composer will get.  (The composer happens to be his be his former organ teacher, so the information will come out and, knowing my friend, be rather public.

None of this does anything to encourage contemporary composers or the development of music generally.

I urge the utmost caution when dealing with PRS and MCPS. 

Barry Williams

[KB7DQH]

 ASCAP in the Good Ol' USA is no different :o :-[ >:(

Eric
KB7DQH

[KB7DQH]

And, to avoid copyright infringement, I am linking to the following online article which should be read in its entirety to give one an overview of the issues being raised in this and another thread on this forum...

http://www.woodpecker.com/writing/essays/royalty-politics.html

Eric
KB7DQH

[twanguitar]

Thanks very much everybody for taking my question so seriously and responding so quickly.  I'm not sure where to go from here though.  I wonder whether websites which host lots of organ music (e.g. contrabombarde for Hauptwerk performances) are aware of the risks they might be running if they are not buying licenses (and with what income, I wonder, because they don't seem to charge anything for listening).  Another is organsandorganistsonline.  This is only a rhetorical question for me because these examples are not my problem though.

There are lots of other apparently amateur-run sites which stream theatre organ music, and most of this must surely still be in copyright because the composers of much light music in the inter-war years or shortly after are either still alive (just) or have not been deceased for the requisite 70 years (though David Pinnegar thought it might be 90).  Are they aware of the problem I wonder?  Again, rhetorical, though.

I am seriously thinking of never giving a recital again which contains any work which might still be in copyright.

TG

[revtonynewnham]

Hi

In the past I've found MCPS to be very helpful - but maybe that's changed since the merger with PRS a few years ago.  I've not had any reply to an e-mail I sent them before Christmas.

My dealings with PRS are have been sorting out royalties for recordings I've made in the past (the last 2 have been all public domain works, or my own arrangements of public domain tunes) so no issue there.

When I check in Dec last year, their web-site still quotes 70 years after the composer/author's death as the cut-off date after which works become public domain.

I'm pretty sure that a lot of material on You Tube doe infringe copyright - and You Tube have been known to remove videos when they've been notified by the copyright holder - and I wonder how many churches are actually covered for concerts on their premises.  Those, like us, who hold a CCL license can include PRS cover for a (relatively) small additional fee (which we have done).  Use of commercial audio recordings in services technically requires payment of a royaly - but by agreement at present MCPS?PRS (and presumably PPL - Phonographic Performance Ltd who license the public playing of commercial recordings) don't currently make a charge (but of course, this could change).  For some reason, this does not include the use of commercial video recordings, which do need to be licensed.

Copyright is a minefield!

Every Blessing

Tony

[dragonser]

Hi,
I think that it is a minefield.
from what I understand [ which may be incorrect ] there are different copyright laws in different countries, so what may be in the public domain in one country may not be in another....
so it depends where , for example , a web site is hosted as to whether the music there is Public domain or not.

regards Peter B

[Colin Pykett]

Interesting thread, this.  I get quite a lot of complaints that there are hardly any theatre organ sound files on my website, despite there being several theatre organ electronic simulations mentioned on it.  Some 'complainants' have verged on the abusive on other websites about this (e.g. calling me 'elitist', etc).

The reason is quite simply the one mentioned in one of the above posts - the vast majority of theatre organ-style composers are not yet out of copyright, if one accepts that they have to have died at least 70 years ago.  I would just LOVE to put some of the beautiful renditions of players such as the late Percy Vickery on my site.  I have a recording of him playing his signature tune 'When You Wish Upon a Star' which he made on one of my simulations when he and his delightful (and late) wife Joan made when they last visited in 2003.  There are lots of other numbers as well.  But I can't, for copyright reasons, put them on the site.  I play them to myself and a few visitors from time to time privately, and more often than not I have difficulty controlling my emotions when I hear him playing now that he has gone.

Don't misunderstand.  I believe it is absolutely proper for composers to reap a proper reward for their work, and that there is a legal framework which exists to ensure this happens.  Also, the law is the law, whether we like it or not.  But it can be a bit tough on occasions.

Best

Colin Pykett

[Barrie Davis]

Hi
I find CCL very difficult, 2 of the churches within the team have congregations of 30 or less, they have stopped using any music reproduced by photocopying etc and stick to the new Hymns Old and New. CCL pester me on a regular basis regarding these churches almost demanding they pay the licence fee. I know the whole thing is a nightmare.
I had always thought, until you corrected my thinking, that music in worship was exempt.
The main church in my team only holds a CCL should it acquire a PRS licence as well, we do use a lot of cds at Funerals and Weddings?

Barrie

[Barry Williams]

The licensing arrangments are almost as complex as the law itself.

What many people fail to realise is that certain items, such as 'Morning has broken' are outside the CCLI arrangments.  A separate fee needs to be paid each time this is used, other than from an hymn book.  The current charge is about £26.50.  There are quite a few modenr items in this category.

There is much information in 'Everything Else An Organist Should Know' about copyright and performing rights, including details of the permissions needed for carol singing in the street!

The book entitled '150 Choral Choruses' (being the most popular choruses arranged for choir and organ), that Robert Leach and I are publishing, will most certainly be outside any CCLI arrangments, because CCLI refuse to recognise the law that arrangements of themselves attract copyright.

Barry Williams

[barniclecompton]

I suppose its ok for those who play by ear then!

[revtonynewnham]

Hi
I find CCL very difficult, 2 of the churches within the team have congregations of 30 or less, they have stopped using any music reproduced by photocopying etc and stick to the new Hymns Old and New. CCL pester me on a regular basis regarding these churches almost demanding they pay the licence fee. I know the whole thing is a nightmare.
I had always thought, until you corrected my thinking, that music in worship was exempt.
The main church in my team only holds a CCL should it acquire a PRS licence as well, we do use a lot of cds at Funerals and Weddings?

Barrie

Hi

We have a CCL license primarily because we project song & hymn words, and have started recording services and sometimes need copies of music for other musicians.  We also have a PRS license to cover concerts, etc.

The performance of music during worship is exempt, but copying the music isn't (although for some reason, copyright in the printed page only lasts 25 years from publication date - even though the material on the page (i.e. words, etc) are still in copyright - it's a real minefield!

In reply to someone else - even playing by ear, if you're playing copyright works, is covered by the legislation.

Anyone for improvisation (then the copyright becomes yours as soon as it's committed to a tanglible form).

Every Blessing

Tony

[Barry Williams]

"Anyone for improvisation (then the copyright becomes yours as soon as it's committed to a tanglible form)."

It is slightly more complicated than that, for one can commit a breach of rights whilst creating an arrangement, both in performance and when commited to tangible form.  Moreover, that arrangement, even if unauthorised, will have its own copyright, which can then be breached by others who use it without permission.



Barry Williams

[David Pinnegar]

Hi!

70 years?

Yet Reger died in 1916 and MCPS is collecting funds from YouTube from
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4jvJDGQXEc

Shouldn't Reger be in public domain 95 years after he died?

At least YouTube seems to have an appropriate arrangement of passing revenue that may be lawfully due which makes it easier on those of us who in simple good faith are trying to keep enthusiasm for classical music alive.

Best wishes

David P

[Barry Williams]

I wonder whether the dues arise from the performance rather than the composer.

Also, one has to remember that in France the time limit for copyright is suspended during the period of the World Wars, so composers such as Vierne and Widor remained in copyright for longer than usual.  Then there is the anomaly caused by the UK's late attempt to harmonise with EC law.  This resulted in Elgar (amongst others) coming back into copyright until a few years ago.  (The time limit was increased from fifty to seventy years.)  Now that Elgar is out of copyright again I have started to play the Sonatas in public, having once been hounded (and as the performer I was not liable in any way) by PRS over a performance of the first movement of the first Sonata.  They tried to send me a bill for the whole sonata for a recital given to raise funds for Christian Aid.  The then Director of Christian Aid, The Reverend Dr Kenneth Slack, with assistance of a member of the Elgar family, landed on PRS very heavily and the matter was dropped.  This was in 1975, but the utter unpleasantness of the correspondence, which had a tone and aggression completely unwarrented by the legal powers of PRS, has remained with me forever.  Others have had similar experiences much more recently. 

I am very concerned that MCPS seem not to pass on a proper proportion of the fees collected on behalf of member composers. 

I may have more to report on that in due course.

Barry Williams

[revtonynewnham]

Hi

There are several copyrights that may be involved - the original composer and lyricist (if there is one), thn the rights to make mechanical recordings (i.e. CD's etc), then there's another copyright involved if you want to play those recordings in public, or on radio/tv.  There's yet another right for the performer(s) in such recordings.  And yet another if the recording is used as incidental music for a film or tv or a stage play and so on.  Then there's the copyright in the printed page of the score! Videos also have similar copyrights - and I've probably missed some out.

Thankfully, I've not (yet) had dealings with MCPS or PRS other than in producing CD.s (except one show in a theatre where I had to supply copyright info for them to report to PRS, which was pretty straightforward).

I suspect that CCL's distribution of fees - certainly for their blanket PRS license where they don't ask for any info - is less than fair, but I really don't want the hassle and the cost of dealing with PRS direct for a handful of events a year.

I suspect that many web sites (including You Tube) ignore copyright until someone complains!  As Barry has pointed out, that's not a wise move.

A few years ago, i produced a Christian radio programme which was distributed via an internet station in South Africa - and the station owner was told that there was no problem with copyrights, etc.  That is not the case here in the UK (which is one reason why I stopped when the station folded - I can't afford the fees).  US-based Internet radio host Live365 require broadcasters to adhere to the copyright regulations in their own countries, and pay any fees that they are liable for.

A real minefield! 

Every Blessing

Tony

[Barrie Davis]

The whole thing is a minefield. I have had yet another telephone call today asking why the 2 Churches in my team will not be buying a new licence, they seem to be unable to grasp the fact that this is no longer needed. They appear to me, rightly or wrongly, just seem to be after money for the sake of it.

[Jonathan Lane]

The whole thing is a minefield. I have had yet another telephone call today asking why the 2 Churches in my team will not be buying a new licence, they seem to be unable to grasp the fact that this is no longer needed. They appear to me, rightly or wrongly, just seem to be after money for the sake of it.

They're a bit like TV licensing!  'You are committing and offence and will be prosecuted.'  'We will be visitng to inspect your premises.'  - we get this all the time at the workshop, and our former cottage in Yorkshire would have hundreds of letters there every time we went, I just wanted them to call when I was there, so I could say 'Why am I breaking the law' and lead them on a merry ride before telling them there is no TV!

Jonathan

[Barry Williams]

'We will be visitng to inspect your premises.'

Unless the law has changed very recently, there is no power of entry in resepct of this matter.

Most of the people who call are postmen on overtime and they always ask the wrong question:  "I want to see your TV Licence."  When they call here there are told, firmly but politely, that everything that needs a licence in this house is duly licenced.  I do not give any other information.

There is no requirement (again, unless the law has changed very recently,) to notify anyone that you do not have a television, or to make a statement to that effect at any time to anyone.

About six per cent of the population choose not to have a television.  They are entitled, under Article 4, (HRA 1998) not to be pursued unreasonably for a licence they do not need.

It could well be that PRS and MCPS find their intrusive activities fall into the same category.

Barry Williams