Client providing digital playback

[uniman1]

I have had a search around and am confused. We have PRS, MCPS and PPL licences in our venue. Our T&C state that all commercial content playback should have the relevant public performance licences. I have contacted all the agencies and only received feedback from PRS:

 

I've double checked with the licensing team here and the answer is that if you are not sourcing the music or content yourself, just hosting it at the venue where the public performance or playing of music is taking place, then all you need is our standard PRS for Music licence that you have already.

 

However – and as you probably would expect – our licence would not cover music that is obtained illegally or is otherwise unauthorised or infringing copyright legislation. This will include not just illegal downloads of music, but also copies of music made for the purposes of non-private use and/or for playing in public.

 

Here's the legal bit….!

 

It is therefore important for any venue to have appropriate safeguards in place to ensure that the customers, i.e. the theatre and conference companies in this case, only use music which they have sourced legitimately. We would recommend that this could be dealt with in the terms and conditions that form the contract entered into between by the venue and its customers. As our public performance licence will not cover music played where obtained or copied illegally, the playing of such music would potentially expose the venue to a claim for infringement of copyright.

 

If we are providing material for background / walk-on etc it is generally from a physical source, although I think this will change in the future.

 

If I am provided with a laptop. USB stick, CDR, DVDR or asked to use my own device, should I be checking that it is sourced from a legitimate source?

 

This suggests:

 

 

but also copies of music made for the purposes of non-private use and/or for playing in public

 

that material from spotify etc, which explicitly states not for public performance, is not covered. So playing it directly from spotify (unlikely) is not allowed, but is there some sort of digital signature on files to reveal their source. My digital knowledge used to be top notch, but lately I have sort of just let it happen and leave it to the young guys.

 

I have looked at the various websites and it is quite unclear, and to be frank I don't know which agency it would be relevant to. My guess would be MCPS because of the media change, but if it is filmed or webcast? I became uncomfortable as we do some events with some of the above mentioned agencies and related rights holders. but also some much smaller, younger organisations who appear to be much more free and easy with their content and web presence.

 

Also I saw a reference in the following links for the need to identify individual artists and tracks, I know we used to do it in broadcasting, either through sampling or even every track at the BBC.

 

mcps on blueroom Quite Old Link

 

 

 

 

Many thanks

 

 

 

 

Just found this on another email response, from prs corporate music license

 

In response to your query, any sound and music broadcast publicly from iplayer in your venue would already be covered by your existing PRS for Music licence; it would just be a case of amending the licence specifics at the annual review (which could result in additional charges depending on your existing licence cover). As soon as Spotify and iplayer are used outside the domestic environment in a public area/venue, it becomes a public performance of music.

 

 

If the client has purchased the song digitally and burned the track to a CD; the onus would be on the client to make sure they have the necessary licence for the reproduction of the material. Again, once this CD/track becomes audible at your venue, the responsibility of this performance is that of the venue owner/lease holder.

 

 

Regarding the length of any music clip, whether it’s a 1 second clip or 20 second clip, a PRS for Music licence would still be required for the performance of the piece. To summarise:

 

 

• Burning a track to CD – in this instance, is the responsibility of the client to make sure they have the correct licence and permission to do so
• The public performance of the track at your venue – this is your/the venue’s responsibility

 

I hope this helps, but if you need any further clarification in the matter, please feel free to use me as a point of contact (info below); I’ll be more than happy to help.

 

I think this is quite clear, although I notice the Spotify TOCs explicitly say no public performance, not sure about Itunes, but the transfer to CD or USB is under the clients responsibility. I still don't know how the public performance is verified as regards legality of source, but I'm gettting there. We have new owners who are wanting to hammer this down, it all seems like very conflicting opinions. I am really reluctant to go to the agencies involved directly unless I feel we have the beginnings of a credible system in place in case we get hammered for past years poor auditing.

 

[dbuckley]

I look after the musicl icencing in our little venue, which is in New Zealand, but the same general rules apply worldwide.

 

Being a venue that allows the public in and has music playing (say for walk-in) means you need music licensing, and this is generally referred to as a background licence, the same sort of licence a hairdressers has for background music.

 

There are two sorts of fees to be paid. One fee is for the songwriters for the words and melody. The other fee is to the artist who created the recording. This is common for all the types of music licences.

 

Many sorts of "events" require additional licensing. The background licence doesn't cover karaoke. Almost all theatre type shows require additional licences for music used "once the house lights go down". When you get to theatre there are two sorts of rights, "Grand Rights" shows, and the rest. And with non-Grand Right shows, you may need one or both types of licences, depending on if you use recorded music or have a band playing live.

 

Edited to add: it would typically be up to the production rather than the venue to negotiate these licences, assuming the production is just hiring the venue. If the venue is producing the production, the you get to handle all the pieces. An incoming production should only assume that the receiving venue has background licences.

 

It rapidly gets hard.

 

So just paying the background licences for the venue does not make the venue in the clear.

[kerry davies]

They have given you the solution in;

We would recommend that this could be dealt with in the terms and conditions that form the contract entered into between by the venue and its customers.

All you can do is look stern and make sure they read the T's and C's which make them liable for ensuring the provenance is valid.

 

As Mr Buckley suggests it should be up to the visiting company/artists to sort out, just make sure they are told this.

 

I have always found the "authorities" really helpful and keen to help people "get it right" so your reluctance to engage with them seems counter-productive.

[Jivemaster]

Firstly I don't believe it's possible to be totally legal using music in a public place, the rules as implimented seem to change.

Playing an original disc may be the easiest, it says not for public performance on all discs, but you then buy that bit of the rights with the PPL PRS and mcps licenses, so you buy a "private use" disc and then buy the public performance permissions. Does this apply to Spotify? -who read ALL their T&Cs.

DJ's using downloaded tracks can now buy a pro-dub licence which covers the use of downloaded tracks via digital media.

 

I suspect that this is where the hirer indemnity clauses of the venue hire T&Cs comes into play, -"The hirer agrees to indemnify the venue against all costs...." But liability cannot be assigned and the hirer may not have the funds or insurance to cover a multi music rights litigation.

 

For a DJ, the rights and licenses issue is clouded because "private performance" is taken to mean where people are invited (eg a wedding or birthday party) but payable public performance is everything else. By this would corporate work be private? (-invited guests)!

However this is for original disc play out, If a DJ downloads or rips from disc the digital DJ licence covers the conversion of a download or CD onto a digital medium. The digital DJ licence requires annual renewal for a specified list of tracks,and because it is a licence to dub tracks from one media to another, it's needed for private as well as public gigs.

[dbuckley]

When you enter into a licence agreement, you are entitled to make use of the works you've licenced. That's the idea of the licence. So the writers get their dues, and the performers get their dues. The middlemen (eg the record company that presses and distributes the cd) in the middle aren't party to this agreement, so their stated Ts and Cs then vanish. Those Ts and Cs apply to end user consumers, as that is the only contractual arrangement between the consumer, and the writer and artist.

 

So can you play a track you downloaded of spotify? If you have a licences from both the songwriters and the performers covering that track then yes you can, unless there is any restriction in the licence from the performer specifying where you can get their performance from. Can you use an illegal copy of a recording? Again, unless there are restrictions in your licence, yes you can. That recording is only illegal because there is no licence covering that use. If you have a licence, then suddenly it isn't illegal any more.

[paulears]

The big problem is the entire thing is so complex, even the advice from PRS/MCPS/PPL is often suspect because even they are a bit confused. I did a job where the client was not interested in how much they had to pay for clearance, but it simply had to be done 100% correctly because of an internal policy. So they wanted me to arrange clearance direct with the rights holder agencies so there would be a piece of paper saying all is ok. For what they wanted, the clearance would normally be the venue's problem - and in the end PRS agreed they would design a special 'event' license - so there really isn't a foolproof system. In a musical that uses popular tracks - WWRU and Mama Mia being good examples, PRS don't even have the rights to license some tracks, as they have been 7F'd - a clause allowing the holder to remove a particular track from PRS control. So nothing can be guaranteed. The type of permission that covers a bunch of actors singing a Queen song, is a different permission to incidental music used during the show, and different again to music used for walking in and out music.

 

No such beast as a 'license' really - just best attempts by the user, the venue and the agency!

 

The system doesn't even allow for the actual copyright holder to get paid for their material being used anyway. Get played on Radio 2, as a struggling writer/composer or musician and you will get a cheque, but have your music played on a small RSL station, or an internet site (even with a license) doesn't mean any money comes to you. I included some of my own music that was played in a theatre walking in music playlist a couple of years ago to see what would happen, at a venue who I knew always did their returns properly, and nothing!

 

They distribute money based on accurate data, plus sampling - so if you are not in the sample, it's tough. Just how it is.

[chelgrian]

They distribute money based on accurate data, plus sampling - so if you are not in the sample, it's tough. Just how it is.

 

It's a case of the rights agencies being very behind the times and the politicians not understanding what needs to change because they listen to the rights agencies rather than the users or the majority of the artists, rather than the big artists who like the status quo because they get more than their fair share of money out of it.

 

For use of pre-recorded music It would be perfectly possible to design an entirely automatic system based audio fingerprinting (the same kind of technology that powers shazam) cost a whole lot less than the 11%(?) PRS cut and made sure everyone got paid. It wouldn't be fool proof as it's still going to rely somewhat on the honour of the user however it would be better than what we have at the moment.

 

For effects these days I bypass the whole horrendous mess by using royalty free effects bought on line under licenses which are entirely outside the PRS/MCPS. For music you really can't avoid it because the the PRS contract is near enough exclusive so if you are a recording musician and are not a member and make your work available under your own copyright license then you miss out on a huge section of the market.

[paulears]

Not sure I totally agree. Most of my music income is derived from non PRS/PPL material I produce. I'm in control, I set the prices and monitor who uses it.

 

I'm not even sure it's a matter for the politicians. The music business use the agencies because there's no practical alternative. It's not a legislation thing. Copyright is pretty sorted, isn't it? The issues are simply licensing. The public want to have music free, and be able to do what they want with it. The producers disagree. The current system is annoying to the consumers who want it free, and it's even annoying to people who want to pay a modest and fair fee to use it - but the producers who sell lots quite like it. In a democracy, I don't like the idea of one person having a right to reduce the right of another, if you see what I mean?

 

Despite being a tort, rather than a criminal activity - breaching copyright is still wrong. Youtube seem to have realised there are degrees of infringement, so when their analysis software detects copyright issues, sometimes they remove all the soundtrack, or add an ad, or do nothing - very confusing. So they seem to be saying that sometimes copyright can be determined to have been broken minimally - which seems very odd, like being slightly pregnant?

[uniman1]

I'm still confused. A few years ago I did a charity night and we had to get a fax from a composers' widow to allow us to perform a piece, no body else could allow us permission and the theatre required it for the event to go ahead.

I agree that the T&C of a hire contract should indemnify us from unlawful use of copyright material, however my previous quote suggests it will not, we are responsible. But again I am confused, is it unlawful or is it a civil matter - I know from the software world this is a big bone of contention. What exactly is the difference? Do we all turn a blind eye to people playing stuff off a digital device when they are in our venues? I know we all use the same Jessie J, Killers and lady Gaga clips every day for walk ons so what is the deal.

 

As regards talking to the licensing agencies, I am beginning to see that we, as a venue, are ultimately responsible, but it is a cost to the client which has a load of implications. Coming from a performing background I a in favour of paying, but in my current job, it is a conflicting pull.

[paulears]

It's absolutely a civil matter - but as a non-legal person, I had it explained to me that it isn't possible to stick a clause into our contracts stating it's the clients responsibility to clear the copyright. Apparently, you can stick the clause in, but the person who does the deed, carries the can - and the consequences can be more complicated than they appear.

 

In my case, I use audio tracks that are copyright material in video projects. I can clear the copyright for some with a simple license, but so many things can go wrong. Dance shows cause me the most problems because very often the people doing the show mistakenly seem to think they are covered because they have a PRS & PPL license, yet the license is to play the music in a cafe, and not stick it on a video. Provenance of the audio files is impossible to demonstrate because very often we simply don't know where the actual file even came from. I'm even worse off because what I often do is produce music in the style of well know tracks. So a client could, after finding out how much Jean Michel Jarre's bit of music will cost, might want me to compose something similar, but different enough to count as new product. How far away does it need to be? None of these things are rules, they're subject to interpretation. Is George Michael's 'last christmas' really Barry Minnilow's Can't smile without you? Nobody knows as it was settled out of court?

 

No legal aid, and a requirement to have deep pockets is what disputes about music copyright require.

 

Interestingly, the idea that a composer's widow can release the copyright is 100% correct. I was concerned one of my registered works would be a problem when somebody wanted to use it, and I wanted to let them. Checking with PRS was interesting. They explained that if I wish to let people use it, then it's totally up to me. PRS will check with the rights holders before taking action.

[chelgrian]

Not sure I totally agree. Most of my music income is derived from non PRS/PPL material I produce. I'm in control, I set the prices and monitor who uses it.

 

Fine, that's not the case for the majority of musicians who are members of the PRS.

 

I'm not even sure it's a matter for the politicians. The music business use the agencies because there's no practical alternative.

 

It's a matter for politicians as the current system is unfair however and the current agency system amounts to a cartel which disadvantages small artists. The market cannot sort it out for itself so needs politicians to get involved.

 

Copyright is pretty sorted, isn't it?

 

There are huge issues with the way copyright works, for example the ever increasing terms, the mechanisms to deal with orphan works and so on and so forth however this is not the discussion at hand.

 

The issues are simply licensing. The public want to have music free, and be able to do what they want with it. The producers disagree.

The current system is annoying to the consumers who want it free, and it's even annoying to people who want to pay a modest and fair fee to use it - but the producers who sell lots quite like it. In a democracy, I don't like the idea of one person having a right to reduce the right of another, if you see what I mean?

 

No that's not the problem. I want to be able to use a work easily in using whatever playback system system takes my fancy and be sure that the royalty payment that I'm making goes to the actual rights holder. The current system does not achieve this. It conflates the reproduction system with the work itself and artificially inflates the amount of money given to widely played artists at the expense of less used ones.

 

Despite being a tort, rather than a criminal activity - breaching copyright is still wrong.

 

In the UK this is still the case however despite it being a tort the rights agencies and the industry groups treat it as a criminal mater, for the example the use of the word 'theft' relating to copyright. In the US industry groups have successfully lobbied to turn copyright license violation into a criminal mater, it's only a matter of time before the US manages to export this change to Europe.

 

Interesting the US have already managed to export making 'circumvention of an effective technological measure' part of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act as a criminal offence via the EU Copyright Directive which was incorporated into UK law in 2003.

 

The Digital Economy Bill, which went through in the wash up at the end of the last parliament, also made far reaching changes to the UK copyright landscape with virtual no debate and no proper vote.

 

To be brutally honest few people understand the issues and there is far too much passion over unlicensed use resulting in ever more draconian changes to the law with little or no debate.

[dbuckley]

I'm still confused. A few years ago I did a charity night and we had to get a fax from a composers' widow to allow us to perform a piece, no body else could allow us permission and the theatre required it for the event to go ahead.

 

This goes back to the first principles of copyright.

 

You say "perform" a piece, so I assume that you are doing a live performance (ie with musicians) of a composed piece of music.

 

The composition itself (as are pretty much all original works) is copyrighted by the composer, and only that composer can give someone permission to perform that work. Copyright is like a property right, and upon death it passes to the heirs etc.

 

However, many composers contract that copyright granting right out to others, so they don't have to do it. And thats why orgainsations like PRS exist. They are part of a worldwide collection of companies who manage the granting of licences to perform copyrighted materials in exchange for money. But they do not represent every composer ever known to exist. An example in a related field most readers will be aware of is Samuel French, who sell scripts of plays, and can licence the performance of the plays to amateurs, but not to professionals. And if a professional production is in the offing, then French's lose the rights to grant amateur productions.

 

The rights that the composer allows someone like PRS to grant can be limited in many ways. If I say to PRS I'd like to do tunes X, Y and Z in a show, they may say X is OK, Y requires us to ask the composer if its OK, and Z is a blanket no. Example: we recently wanted to use Dancing Queen in a production, and got a straight "no".

 

When one is dealing with specific named tracks that are named in the licence then the royalties go to the actual composers.

 

As others have noted above, with Background licences where you don't list the specific works to be used, then it all gets a bit hit and miss, and small composers do rather badly out of that deal.

 

For most use of music, the rules are actually quite clear. PRS's website is easy to navigate. The only common scenario that they don't cover well is walk-on music for corporates and awards. Which I think (this is my opinion!) is covered by the background licence, as such music is "incidental or curtain music to stage plays [which] means music heard by the theatre audience as an accompaniment to the play but which is not performed by or intended to be audible to any of the characters in the play."

 

is it unlawful or is it a civil matter

 

Violations of copyright in most jurisdictions can be either criminal or civil. However, there is quite a large gap in the activities that are subject to which procedure. If you misuse music its likely to be civil. If you mass conterfeit DVDs it will be criminal.

[paulears]

It's a matter for politicians as the current system is unfair however and the current agency system amounts to a cartel which disadvantages small artists. The market cannot sort it out for itself so needs politicians to get involved.

I just don't get this at all. Nobody HAS to join PRS and PPL. It's not a cartel, or even a restrictive practice. You are quite free legally to start your own copyright collection agency. There is no legislation requiring anyone to market their own music via these organisations. You join as a member, and join the queue. I for one would consider any form of legislation as interference in what is an open market. There are plenty of people who are quite happy marketing their own music.

 

If PRS and PPL ceased collecting, who would do it? I actually agree with theft as a term being used. Maybe not correct here (yet) but I can't really see the general public caring much. The usual understanding of 'theft' works for me - people take what they don't own, and have no intention of paying for it. It's not, however, a car, or even a wristwatch - it's music, so although I strongly disagree, I do at least understand why people view it this way. I'm a PRS and PPL member through choice, because even though it's unlikely I'll make much, without them I'd make nothing at all. Sure - they're getting heavy, but saying 'please' won't generate much money, will it?

 

The system is wrong, with major artistes and record companies getting the lion's share - but what is the choice?

 

If somebody set up a copyright agency, with teeth, that worked for unsigned bands and other small time composers, I'd leave PRS and PPL and join. Until then, it's a bit of a pointless discussion - the only option for many people being little or nothing.

 

As for turning it into a criminal activity, I doubt any politician would hang his hat on it, and the public would be pretty anti. On a scale of importance, it's at the bottom of the pile.

 

Sure - it's a mess. Involving the Government, who seem to understand it as badly as everyone else, doesn't fill me with hope.

[themadhippy]

As for turning it into a criminal activity, I doubt any politician would hang his hat on it, and the public would be pretty anti. On a scale of importance, it's at the bottom of the pile.

no chance of the current goverbent making copyright illegal,well not whilst there current co chairman is earning a good income from selling software that breaches copyright

[sleah]

Don't get bogged down on music track format, i.e. digital download, digital copy, CD etc etc

Licensing wise they are all the same, the format is irrelevent (on the whole).

 

A copy is a copy, whether is is a digital copy of a download, a digital copy ripped from a CD, a CD copy of a digital download, A CD copy of a CD, a CD copy of an LP or cassette, a digital copy of an LP or cassette, a cassette copy of LP or CD or digital download.

 

All the same, copies. It's the act of making the copy that needs the license, MCPS are the people that deal with it.

 

Again, public playback of the track is irrelevant in terms of format, doesn't matter what it comes from, the license just covers the act of reproducing that track rather than what it's come from. PPL/PRS deal with that.

 

So, a corporate suit hands you a USB stick with a commercial music track on it for his grand entrance at the conference. Unless that track is an original download file (i.e. moved not copied) then it will need to have been copied under a license from the MCPS and will need to be played out under a license from PPL/PRS.

Exactly the same as a dance instructor handing you a scratched CD-R. :o

 

The DJ license(s) have been touched upon, they are very specific for very specific circumstances, as this is not a DJ forum then those licenses can be safely ignored, as they will not apply in any circumstances that our members are likely to be involved in, unless of course it is a good old disco! In which case it is down (legally, not just 'cos it's his job) to the DJ to sort DJ licenses, techs or venues cannot do it on his behalf.

As an overview, the DJ licenses allow said DJ to make digital copies of his own bought and paid for music collection, be it vinyl, cassette, CD or digital download, it also allows him to use those copies commercially, providing the venue has the usual PPL/PRS licenses in place (I think it is called "special entertainment", as opposed to "background music"??)

 

Hope that's clear as mud! :** laughs out loud **: :** laughs out loud **: