Radio mic licence - advice needed.

[gotty]

I am considering borrowing some UHF radio mics working on Chs 46-50 for a 2-day school production, to work alongside 4 existing mics that are on the free UHF band.

 

According to a number of sites (including Ofcom) these do not need to be licensed unless being used "directly associated with a performance or event".

 

I know what this sounds like, but I can't find a proper legal definition.

 

The reason I ask is because I'm only going to use them for a 2-day school production at Christmas. For the rest of the year they're simply going to be used for training purposes, and definitely not "directly associated with a performance or event".

 

I can get a 48-hour licence for 4 frequencies for £34 for the performances. £68 would include a dress rehearsal but, while that's definitely directly associated with the production, it's not really directly associated with the performance.

 

But I wonder if ad hoc rehearsals would count, as these wouldn't be "directly associated" with the performance - instead they'd be for technical training only (we're simply using the opportunity, and could equally well set other sessions)

 

We're in a very remote area with minimal digital terrestrial TV, and the kit available to us is 672-697MHz, and it would be nice not to have to pay the full year's £112.

 

I'd appreciate any thoughts.

 

 

 

 

 

[paulears]

"Sir, do we really need to buy a TV license, my dad only watches ITV". How would you answer that question?

 

Call me old fashioned, but schools should set a good example, and license things properly. Of course you could just go ahead and use the equipment with virtually a zero chance of being caught, or suffering interference - but is that really the point, and it does show a casual disregard for the law. My old boss at college would never even bend a rule, let alone break it - and the money could be found from all kinds of budgets, not necessarily your departments. Licenses for other things schools need are rarely charged to departments. They've probably not got a PRS license either for music they play on site.

 

Why not just do it properly, and legally and not try to wangle it. A hundred quid to be legal in a school seems good value to me.

 

Sorry to be grumpy, but my bill annually for 'extras' comes to quite a lot, and just grates on me when people try to avoid doing it properly. I understand - I know you are skint, I know its a good cause, I know the kids will be disappointed, but you should pay up if you want to use the frequencies.

[GR1]

Get the owners to licence them or don't use them.

[Ynot]

Depending on what license the owner of the kit has, you may very well be able to simply have them extend THEIR licence to include your premises on a short term basis, at no extra cost.

 

As I recall, there's a simple form at the end of our licence paperwork which they can use for this.

 

 

[pete10uk]

Another one suggesting you just bite the bullet!

 

As Paul suggests you should be setting an example not trying to get away with it.

 

It sounds like you'll have access to these in future as you mentioned using them for training, so it's likely you may well use them for other productions.

 

£112 is a small price to do it properly.

[gotty]

"Sir, do we really need to buy a TV license, my dad only watches ITV". How would you answer that question?

 

It doesn't in any way. There's nothing in TV licence laws that even hint at such a thing. However the regulator explicitly states that a licence is only required if "directly associated with a performance or event". What I'm actually trying to ask is how this is interpreted so that we don't (repeat DON'T!!) break the rules while not spending more than we need.

 

Call me old fashioned, but schools should set a good example, and license things properly.

 

And nowhere am I suggesting that they shouldn't.

 

They've probably not got a PRS license either for music they play on site.

 

Well, there you're wrong. They have a licence from CEFM, which covers PRS, MCPS etc.

 

We're talking a very small rural school, which has no budget at all for this production. Instead, all the money for scripts, separate performance licence, costumes, scenery and so on is coming from the PTA, which has raised about £100 for the show and hopes to raise a further £100 over the two performances. So £112 for an annual licence cuts into this in quite a big way. £68 would be better (and, depending on what the regulatpr actually means, £34 even better)

 

I'm not a member of staff, but a volunteer (and a pensioner), and we have an opportunity to use some extra radio mics which will be a great experience for the kids. I and the school do want to do it properly, and will clearly be paying the £34 for the 2-day production (there's no way we would get caught, but that's totally irrelevant!). If we can't include rehearsals in this then we simply have to either find the extra £34 or not use them except within the 48-hour period.

 

There are also several pupils who are showing an interest in learning about how to use microphones, and if these training sessions require the licence then we'll have to find the £112 or not bother.

 

just grates on me when people try to avoid doing it properly

 

What grates on me is when people ascribe motives to others and then get all aggressive about it.

 

Depending on what license the owner of the kit has, you may very well be able to simply have them extend THEIR licence to include your premises on a short term basis, at no extra cost.

 

The mics are currently unused and unlicensed (which is why we have them).

 

As Paul suggests you should be setting an example not trying to get away with it.

 

We're not in any way, shape or form "trying to get away with it".

 

It sounds like you'll have access to these in future as you mentioned using them for training, so it's likely you may well use them for other productions.

 

£112 is a small price to do it properly.

 

There's only ever one production a year (the school/PTA cannot afford to pay for a second one. If they did, a short-term licence would have to be included in that budget.

 

And, believe me, the £112 is NOT a small price to pay. If we need to pay it, we will (or rather, I will). I'm just trying to find out if we do.

 

Anyway, I've actually written to the regulator in the hope of getting a more informed reply.

 

 

[paulears]

You need to check your blanket license VERY carefully. As a PRS and PPL member, there has been much discussion on these licences (CEFM do a pretty good job - but they have trouble with music used in performance, because much of it is outside of PRS control, and quite a bit falls under PPL control.)

 

Schools and colleges rarely do it properly.

 

You might like to read this section on the CEFM site.

PRS for Music and PPL are separate agencies that administer separate rights. From 1st April 2008, information regarding the PPL licence can also be obtained from CEFM. Having a PRS for Music or a PPL licence alone is not sufficient for the public performance of musical works via the use of sound recordings

 

Do you need to pay? Of course you do! Your first post made it VERY clear you were hoping the advice received would be "yes - do it, fine" - when it simply is not. PTAs do a worthy job, but they often bend the rules - frankly, we do undrstand why, but it doesn't make it right.

 

I, and the others are not trying to be aggressive, but you asked for advice and we were somewhat shocked you were clearly looking for an excuse to justify not doing it correctly.

 

Why not pay for an annual license in channel 38, which is what most production savvy schools and colleges do? You are also providing OFCOM with the information that your school is using radio mics, and they'll no doubt wonder why you don't just take out the usual PMSE license? So are we.

 

You are in a tricky position - you are helping the school, but it really is setting a bad example to fudge it.

 

Do you know how much schools pay for their bought in services, especially the Academies who now often have to get contractors in rather than let the caretaker do things? Replacing a few light bulbs will cost them more than this license. A supply teacher walking through the door is a much bigger sum than you are talking about. One Academy told me that each broken window repaired by the local glass company cost over £250, so while they might tell you the sum you need is impossible, it just means the powers that be have decided that extra-curricular activities don't have a high priority.

 

I realise that you give your time free - which is great and worthwhile, but it is simply wrong to even consider breaking the law. I also think your interpretation of "directly associated with a performance or event" is already quite clear - and quite straightforward. As soon as you plug them in and use them, even in rehearsal, then that is absolutely in my humble view directly associated with the performance. As for not considering the dress rehearsal part of production but not performance - this is ridiculous - especially as in schools, a dress rehearsal constitutes a performance for examination purposes if the public event is not suitable.

 

Our forum is full of people from professional, amateur and educational backgrounds and many have responded, all saying the same thing.

 

Do it properly. Do it legally, and do it morally too!

 

In education, many things are worthwhile, but if you cannot do it properly because you do not have the money - don't do it. Indeed, we often get posts from keen students explaining they have been told to do things they know are wrong, asking how they can explain to their teachers they are wrong.

 

You can ignore all this advice and the warnings - that is your choice. However, there's no point machine gunning us because we didn;t give you the OK - because we do not think it is ok at all. In fact, it stinks!

 

I wonder if writing to the regulator was wise? As you clearly don't believe us - probably best. A letter to OFCOM would probably have been better. Actually, phoning them up would be better, as their new website went on-line today, and navigating is a bit tricky. As a multiple license holder, they emailed me (and others) letting us know. Sorry we're all uninformed, we try our best.

[Rob_P]

Looking again at the Ofcom site, the relevant wording seems to be:

"If you are using wireless microphones, talkback (walkie-talkies) and production services for radio and TV, you will need a 'Programme making and special events' (PMSE) licence - these are required by law if directly associated with a performance or event."

 

I only read this as saying that a PMSE licence allows you to use these frequencies for a performance or event. I VERY much doubt if the intent was to say that you can use the frequencies for free for other purposes. In fact, the FAQ section lists some things that you explicitly can't use them for.

 

If Ofcom come back to you giving permission to use them for training etc please let us know!

[richard_cooper]

I am considering borrowing some UHF radio mics working on Chs 46-50 for a 2-day school production, to work alongside 4 existing mics that are on the free UHF band.

 

According to a number of sites (including Ofcom) these do not need to be licensed unless being used "directly associated with a performance or event".

 

Whilst I'm no authority of the legalese of this, my understanding was that the equipment (unless license exempt) would need to licensed whatever. If the equipment is used "directly associated with a performance or event" then it's a PMSE license you need. Other uses would need to be some other type of license.

 

I also echo Paul's advice on being very careful about the CEFM license. It's been a few years since I dealt with them, but I know in the environment I was in the school side did more public performances per year than were covered under the CEFM agreement. I didn't directly deal with it, so the details are hazy, but be careful and don't assume anything.

[gotty]

You need to check your blanket license VERY carefully. As a PRS and PPL member, there has been much discussion on these licences (CEFM do a pretty good job - but they have trouble with music used in performance, because much of it is outside of PRS control, and quite a bit falls under PPL control.)

 

Believe me, I (and the school) know all that. The school pays extra for public performances of works not covered by the CEFM licence.

 

 

Your first post made it VERY clear you were hoping the advice received would be "yes - do it, fine"

 

If that's how it read, it was not my intention at all.

 

I, and the others are not trying to be aggressive, but you asked for advice and we were somewhat shocked you were clearly looking for an excuse to justify not doing it correctly.

 

I'm not shocked - nor looking for an excuse not to do it correctly. On the contrary, I specifically want to do it correctly but without paying unnecessarily.

 

 

Why not pay for an annual license in channel 38, which is what most production savvy schools and colleges do?

We don't have access to mics on channel 38, otherwise we'd be paying the £75

 

Do you know how much schools pay for their bought in services

Yes - but it isn't a lot here (almost no bought-in services) - and it's not an academy.

 

so while they might tell you the sum you need is impossible, it just means the powers that be have decided that extra-curricular activities don't have a high priority.

I know the staff very well indeed - it's a tiny school. And once again you're reading into this things that aren't there. It isn't that they've decided that extra-curricular activities don't have a high priority.

 

but it is simply wrong to even consider breaking the law.

I'm not even considering it. You're putting words in my mouth.

 

I also think your interpretation of "directly associated with a performance or event" is already quite clear

Until I read the regulator's words, I believed exactly as you might expect (I've had a lifetime in the professional audio business) - but when I read it, it went against what I'd expect. Which is why I wanted some clarification.

 

I wonder if writing to the regulator was wise? As you clearly don't believe us - probably best. A letter to OFCOM would probably have been better.

Well, of course OFCOM IS the regulator. I don't disbelieve any of you, but most of you seemed to be attacking something that simply isn't there.

 

their new website went on-line today, and navigating is a bit tricky.

Impossible in places - missing and crashing pages. I'm sure it'll get sorted.

 

 

 

 

Whilst I'm no authority of the legalese of this, my understanding was that the equipment (unless license exempt) would need to licensed whatever. If the equipment is used "directly associated with a performance or event" then it's a PMSE license you need. Other uses would need to be some other type of license.

 

In a sense, that's really my point, but I'm not aware of any other licence that would fit the bill. It's a specific point in my letter to OFCOM.

 

I also echo Paul's advice on being very careful about the CEFM license. It's been a few years since I dealt with them, but I know in the environment I was in the school side did more public performances per year than were covered under the CEFM agreement. I didn't directly deal with it, so the details are hazy, but be careful and don't assume anything.

 

Although the performance licensing is nothing to do with me, this production is not covered by any existing licence agreement, and they're paying for a 2-performance licence. They have today decided that there'll be a third performance in front of another school and have paid for that additional performance. They also pay for the right to copy the script and to copy the music, because these are also not covered by existing licences.

 

One of the best things that happened last year was that the Department for Education took out a blanket licence for all state-funded English schools with several licensing agencies. This included PPL for the non-curricular use of music in public performance - so schools (at least those in England) don't need to worry about the licence any more (at least until April 2018) - although they still need an extra lump on the blanket PRS licence.

[Simon Lewis]

I thought that Ofcom's statement, "In the UK the use of any radio transmitting device is required to be either licensed or specifically exempted from licensing under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006 (WT Act 2006)" was fairly clear and comprehensive? linky...

 

I'll expand that a little... I believe that the statement, "According to a number of sites (including Ofcom) these do not need to be licensed unless being used "directly associated with a performance or event", is better understood by considering Ofcom's comment:

If you are using wireless microphones, talkback (walkie-talkies) and production services for radio and TV, you will need a 'Programme making and special events' (PMSE) licence - these are required by law if directly associated with a performance or event.

 

The licence is needed to use PMSE spectrum and equipment, so that you can carry out PMSE work (listed under their included uses section). If you intend using the radio for other purposes, then a) Ofcom cannot issue a licence in the PMSE spectrum and b) it's unlikely you can use that specific equipment as any licence they may be able to sell you is unlikely to be for a frequency range your gear can tune to...

[paulears]

These blanket licenses are better than nothing, from the point of view of collecting at least something from uninformed educational users, although you do need to be aware that certain popular music tracks are not covered. Disney and Abba are common 'trap' songs, and there are other random ones. Trouble is, because you are not dealing with PRS/PPL direct, you won't know, leaving yourself open to action after the event. Of course this very rarely happens, but it's how it is.

 

 

It does strike me that you could probably hire some channel 38 kit with a license for the same kind of money?

 

Of course, in rural areas, using white space nearly always works, and with the slow roll out of 4G, plenty of people have carried on using channel 69 kit too.

 

All things considered, you must do what you think best. I just believe that schools and colleges should do things absolutely correctly, even when fudges and rule bends might well work. In a way it is like the PRS problem in prisons, where the officers cannot listen to inmates radios, but the inmates can. It really doesn't matter, but sometimes people and organisations need to follow the rules and in many cases, the law. Being able to make a fudge work, doesn't mean you should.

 

I really feel that you should just do what YOU consider best. Our advice is different from your expectation or desire. You can choose to ignore it. By contacting OFCOM you've forced them to give an opinion, and that opinion will need to be followed. There's little any of us can do now. OFCOM will tell you how much to pay.

 

The new site is very tricky to use. Many of the old features are still there, but have new titles and descriptors, so to the casual user, it appears they are not there at all. They even have a real glitch in the database because Some of my licenses are missing when I log in, but on the phone, they can see them their end. The Wireless Telegraphy Register (the database of UK licensees) appears to have many licenses missing, or in the wrong places. I'm sure it will get sorted. for the moment though, the access to information is a little tricky.

[OddSocks]

Gotty, what part of the country are you in?

[Bobbsy]

I'd like to see a link to the OFCOM site that says you only need a licence if your use is directly associated with a performance or event".

 

The reason I ask is that this is the exact opposite to the wording I was used to (admittedly a few years ago--I've retired and moved to warmer climates).

 

The wording I was used to was the you could only get a licence if your use was directly associated with a performance or event and that any use other than that would not be licensable and therefore illegal.

 

Like others, I'm curious about what license arrangements the person you're borrowing from has. It's all too common for people to buy mics from eBay or whatever and not even consider the legalities and licensing.

 

Anyhow, by any interpretation of the law, you have to have a license any time you turn on the mic--and if you're in an area where you could potentially cause interference with local TV transmitters they won't even give you a licence.

[sleah]

I'm sure there's some confusion here. I know I'm confused. I don't pretend to fully understand the licensing laws, but I thought they were frequency dependent?

 

I thought the normal PMSE license covered ch38 (old Ch68/69) and anything outside of those frequencies required a different type of license which was usually rather expensive, specific to the location and often for a limited amount of time. Isn't it what's referred to as "white space", hence you can't just buy a blanket license, as (whoever sells licenses these days) has to check the frequencies are in fact available in your area?

 

The OP did say Ch46-50, so I assumed that he wouldn't be covered by the 'normal' PMSE license...... :blink: :blink: