I’m an amateur at all of this but I’m trying to make heads or tails of music rights. I did not find this article very helpful. In fact it has confused me when you say I may have to get another license for my royalty free music library.
“A performance license is usually required for the space where your video will be played. Musicians often sign up with a performance rights organization such as ASCAP or BMI, who then collect license fees (royalties) on their behalf.”
You use the term “musicians” without qualification. Isn’t what you’re really talking about is the entity (person or corporation) who owns the copyright of the composition (music and lyrics)? This may or may not be a musician and may or may not be the person who performed the music?
“A sync license is usually required whenever you synchronize images to music.”
To be more precise, you need a sync license to include the recorded performance of a musical composition with your images.
YOU CAN’T TELL THE PLAYERS WITHOUT A PROGRAM
Composer: the person who wrote the musical composition.
Copyright owner: who owns the musical composition and collects the performance royalties.
Performer: the person who plays the music live and/or recorded.
Venue: Where the performer plays live or the recorded music is played. The venue pays performance royalties to the copyright owner. (Who pays the live performer? Whoever hired him/her.)
MUSIC WITH MOVING IMAGES
When you include a recording of a musical composition with your images you have to pay:
The musical composition copyright owner
The Performer or owner of the recording
Here’s where I get a bit hazy. Involved is “sync license”, “mechanical license” and the Harry Fox agency.
CONFUSION
“However, stock music - even “buy out” where you pay once up front - usually does not include the performance license.”
So what good is “buy out” music if you still don’t have a license to play it? I find this hard to believe. You never mention the most likely place the video/music will play ... the Internet.
STUDIOCUTZ FAQ
Royality Free Music: Music which is sold without any ongoing royalty obligations. The copyright is owned in its entirety, by the seller.
Buyout Music: The term “Buyout Music” is essentially an interchangeable term for Royalty Free Music.
So where is it “where they spell out the need for a separate performance license”?
SMARTSOUND PROFESSIONAL MUSIC LIMITED LICENSE AGREEMENT
“You may not, without obtaining an additional license from SmartSound Software, Inc./SSI, (a) adapt, synchronize, reproduce and distribute the Content as part of (i) a major theatrical feature film release exhibited nationally in public commercial theaters, not part of a film festival, (ii) a national televised broadcast through a major television network or cable company (ex: ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, HBO, Showtime, Cinemax, AMC, ESPN, CNN, etc.) (iii) a Production performed in theaters or broadcast on television in more than one country, (iv) a Production wherein a distributor replicates more than 10,000 copies, (b) distribute or use Content for any other purpose, or (c) perform, transmit or distribute any Content separately from, or not contained in, your Production.”
So is this the kind of thing you’re talking about?
CONCLUSION
I guess your article was intended to tell people about the music offered by iStockPhoto. I’m happy to hear about that and will check them out. Thanks. However the rest of this article and the older one left me wanting more precise descriptions and advice in the morass that is music rights.
Peace,
Rob:-]
Posted by Rob on 07/03 at 12:22 PM
It’s easy to become bewildered at all of the permutations of who did what and who gets paid for what reason. Let’s try to simplify it for video uses:
- If you use music in conjunction with video or animation, that usually involves a synchronization license.
- If you duplicate the result, that usually involves a mechanical royalty.
- If you play (perform) the result in public, that usually involves a performance royalty.
When you buy “royalty-free” stock music, the fee covers the first two, but often not the third. This usually is NOT of any concern to video creators, because the venue where the result is being played (TV stations, conference halls, sports stadiums, stores that know what they’re doing, etc.) already have made arrangements to pay the performance royalty, usually through a blanket license agreement.
If you’re in a situation where you will be playing back the result in an environment that does not already pay a performance license, then you (or your client, or the venue) technically either should arrange to pay the performance royalty, OR acquire music that does not require a performance royalty. The latter is true if the creator does not already belong to a performance rights organization (look for the initials ASCAP, BMI, or SESAC in the credits - those are the performance rights organizations that collect the royalties and distribute them to their members). This is the tact iStock has taken: They only will use content creators who do not have such a relationship. As a BMI member myself, I initially had a negative reaction to their approach, but I’m coming around to it given their positioning of being a stock music house for “the little guy.”
If you’re not using stock music, then you (or your client) are on the hook for these royalties or licenses. There are some music licensing clearinghouses that try to simplify the process of acquiring and paying these fees.
Posted by Chris Meyer on 07/03 at 11:00 PM
Thanks for the quick followup.
So as a one-man shop, I love the idea of iStock. It’s not so much the cost of the license but it’s the bookkeeping. The cost/hassle of tracking accurately a bunch of licenses, hundreds perhaps, boggles my mind. So my intention is to have all the rights to all the media I use ... period.
I did have occasion some years ago to create a short piece for a conference. The customer wanted to use a famous pop song. ASCAP wanted $2K a year’s subscription to their catalog but they had nothing cheaper for a single playing for about 800 people. We use a royalty-free piece instead. (Now I wonder if we needed the performance license too.)
Posted by Rob on 07/04 at 11:07 AM
Note: i owned a nightclub, and the ASCAP mafia goons would come around and say “you have to pay us $4000 a year for that jukebox music you are playing” ( or i breaka yo legs).
it goes by the size of the hall, how often it is played, whether its for live bands or recorded music , etc
a big live music hall would pay $20,000 a year
a radio station… a ton of cash
bascially , as a video creator, its NOT YOUR PROBLEM—
the nightclub or TV station or whoever is already paying tony-soprano a blanket fee, so the clubs usually dont’ care ....
but the istockphoto is a good idea , i must say
or you have the CREATIVE COMMONS LICENSE too—which is useful for small time guys…
the money (that tony-soprano doesn’t keep) goes to people like elton-john and dead-beatles-estates…. NOT to any musician friends you may have, including the guys music you are using…..
soooo
if you really like musicians, pay them something direct for the rights, and go around ASCAP
Posted by billS on 07/05 at 04:48 PM
“if you really like musicians, pay them something direct for the rights”
Or, at the very least, fill out the cue sheets as mentioned in the original article. If no one reports a song as being used, the creator can’t get a royalty for it being “performed.” Oddly enough, satellite and web radio tends to be good about this; I get a steady trickle of royalties from these sources from the indie album I put out several years ago. (But nada for the time I know someone used one of those piece as part of a TV program.)
Posted by Chris Meyer on 07/07 at 05:58 PM
Here’s more info on this subject.
Embedding a YouTube Video May Cost You a Bundle in ASCAP Bills http://gawker.com/5310339/embedding-a-youtube-video-may-cost-you-a-bundle-in-ascap-bills
I assume this will not be limited to YouTube but will apply to any music on the web by a musician that is a member of a royalty collection society.
I record a musician every week at church playing music they wrote and have full copyright ownership. She has given me permission to use the music in the podcast with the talk. However, she is an ASCAP member. Can ASCAP still bill me for posting this music on the Internet as a public performance?
Posted by Rob on 07/09 at 12:57 PM
on radio, I have mixed feelings about this, although in general I applaud simplified business relationships.)
