Music Licence

[Mango Chutney]

Hi everyone … first time I’ve posted on here and apologies if this is in the wrong place

I rent a small shop amongst a group of other shops and just before Christmas all of us received letters from PPL PRS

I don’t play music but have been thinking that in the New Year I might try to do so ….. I’ve been chatting with other shopkeepers and everyone seems to not fully understand what can and cannot be played without having to purchase the music licence or answers to questions such as …..

If you’re working alone in an arts and crafts workshop with the shop door locked can you listen to music without purchasing a licence?

If you’re working alone with the shop door closed can you listen to a talk radio show that doesn’t play any music?

Also, does anyone know if you can play royalty free music that’s on YouTube without a licence and whether there are any light classical works that are licence free?

Any help would be greatly appreciated

Have looked online and there seems to be a substantial amount of companies that are offering Royalty Free music which I might try if I can’t afford a PPL/PRS licence

 

[paulears]

It is complicated till you get it. The important thing is the difference between what you can do as a consumer vs a business.
PRS and PPL and different companies - to be 100% accurate, you should, if playing music to your staff or customers, have a licence from both. PRS are very proactive on behalf of their members rights, and the rights of artists in other countries - where they all have reciprocal agreements in place - in virtually every country in the world.

If one of your staff has a radio, or streams spotify on their phone in your premises, then as long as they don't share it to other staff who can listen at the same time, and it is nothing at all you have instigated, then you'd probably get away with it. You'd just have to show it was your staff member in their own time, not encouraged or provided by you. Still slightly risky as they could claim you were allowing it to happen on your business premises? Letting customers hear it though, is a 100% no no. You need the licence. It's a legitimate business expense of course.

Playing classical music does actually get around the PRS thing, IF the composer has been dead for 70 years, BUT if the original has been arranged then it could have copyright in place by the person who did it - and you'd have to find out. PPL on the other hand is a right looking at the recording - so a twenty year old recording of a piece of Bach might have rights still current despite the composer's right passing into the public domain. Some people work very hard to get around paying, and some manage it - but if your staff/customers hate the music and somebody adds in something NOT free from licencing, they could go after you. I've got 21 million streams of one of my pieces of music, and this paid £68 - so don't think the musicians are getting rich.

The so called copyright free music is not payment free of course, you just pay an annual fee for that too, but satisfies PRS and PPL.

The snag will be the staff - if the PRS people pay a visit, they might drop you in it. " does your boss mind you playing that music?" they might say you are ok with it as long as not too loud, or he tells you to not play that damn elton john song - they might determine you are in charge of it, and slap in the bill! It does get to court sometimes - but the copyright courts know the law very well, and in most cases are very aware why people do not pay - a bit like the TV licence. You cannot plead ignorance or that it's nothing to do with you when you allow it to happen in your business premises. How lucky do you feel?

 

[Scalloway]

PRS and PPL and different companies - to be 100% accurate, you should, if playing music to your staff or customers, have a licence from both.

PRS for Music and PPL joined forces to set up PPL PRS Ltd, a joint venture combining the two societies licensing activities. PPL PRS Ltd launched the joint licence on 26 February 2018 and offers a single licence, called TheMusicLicence, on behalf of both PRS for Music and PPL, to play or perform music in public.

 

[paulears]

Indeed - the former Music Alliance - but probably best not to even complicate things by mentioning the 3rd society - MCPS.
whichever way you use music, it costs!!

 

[Mango Chutney]

It is complicated till you get it. The important thing is the difference between what you can do as a consumer vs a business.
PRS and PPL and different companies - to be 100% accurate, you should, if playing music to your staff or customers, have a licence from both. PRS are very proactive on behalf of their members rights, and the rights of artists in other countries - where they all have reciprocal agreements in place - in virtually every country in the world.

If one of your staff has a radio, or streams spotify on their phone in your premises, then as long as they don't share it to other staff who can listen at the same time, and it is nothing at all you have instigated, then you'd probably get away with it. You'd just have to show it was your staff member in their own time, not encouraged or provided by you. Still slightly risky as they could claim you were allowing it to happen on your business premises? Letting customers hear it though, is a 100% no no. You need the licence. It's a legitimate business expense of course.

Playing classical music does actually get around the PRS thing, IF the composer has been dead for 70 years, BUT if the original has been arranged then it could have copyright in place by the person who did it - and you'd have to find out. PPL on the other hand is a right looking at the recording - so a twenty year old recording of a piece of Bach might have rights still current despite the composer's right passing into the public domain. Some people work very hard to get around paying, and some manage it - but if your staff/customers hate the music and somebody adds in something NOT free from licencing, they could go after you. I've got 21 million streams of one of my pieces of music, and this paid £68 - so don't think the musicians are getting rich.

The so called copyright free music is not payment free of course, you just pay an annual fee for that too, but satisfies PRS and PPL.

The snag will be the staff - if the PRS people pay a visit, they might drop you in it. " does your boss mind you playing that music?" they might say you are ok with it as long as not too loud, or he tells you to not play that damn elton john song - they might determine you are in charge of it, and slap in the bill! It does get to court sometimes - but the copyright courts know the law very well, and in most cases are very aware why people do not pay - a bit like the TV licence. You cannot plead ignorance or that it's nothing to do with you when you allow it to happen in your business premises. How lucky do you feel?

Thanks for the info I appreciate the time you’ve taken to answer … shall show what you’ve said to the other shopkeepers.

I’m a sole trader so having staff doesn’t apply to me …. can only dream of the day that I could afford to get help

Apparently years ago it was two separate licences you had to get but now they’re combined in one. Trying to find out, when working alone in an arts and crafts studio with the shop door closed if you’d need the licence to listen to a cd or whether Royalty Free music on YouTube is legit to play.

The last thing I want is to break the law

21 million streams of your work and you only got £68 …. Wondering who’s getting the money they get paid then

 

[paulears]

I have an office and a studio - but very rarely customers in the usual sense. I do retail a few handy things for a very small local customers. If I was on my own, playing music as a sole trader (as I am) I would need a licence, because it would be looked at as being at work - not a domestic listening environment. Also keep in mind that royalty free music from youtube doesn't exist. Somebody owns the rights. It's quite OK to not register music with PRS, but the only way for it to be copyright free would be to put it into the public domain (which actually is an option). You can't really control anything once it is on youtube and there's no real way to make certain that youtube serve you up free music. Your agreement with them is also domestic. Business use is not covered.

Realistically - if you work on your own and have no customers and control who enters, then nobody would know what you are doing. That doesn't make it right of course. PRS have no right of access. They can wander into a shop, but even if you ask them to leave - if they have heard music ................. If they cannot enter your property without knocking/ringing you are more in control. I suppose they could ask for your youtube history but that's a bit silly. My chiro plays copyright free music and pays an annual fee for music nobody has heard of. Contacting PRS to ask how much can of course be risky.

 

[Mango Chutney]

I have an office and a studio - but very rarely customers in the usual sense. I do retail a few handy things for a very small local customers. If I was on my own, playing music as a sole trader (as I am) I would need a licence, because it would be looked at as being at work - not a domestic listening environment. Also keep in mind that royalty free music from youtube doesn't exist. Somebody owns the rights. It's quite OK to not register music with PRS, but the only way for it to be copyright free would be to put it into the public domain (which actually is an option). You can't really control anything once it is on youtube and there's no real way to make certain that youtube serve you up free music. Your agreement with them is also domestic. Business use is not covered.

Realistically - if you work on your own and have no customers and control who enters, then nobody would know what you are doing. That doesn't make it right of course. PRS have no right of access. They can wander into a shop, but even if you ask them to leave - if they have heard music ................. If they cannot enter your property without knocking/ringing you are more in control. I suppose they could ask for your youtube history but that's a bit silly. My chiro plays copyright free music and pays an annual fee for music nobody has heard of. Contacting PRS to ask how much can of course be risky.

Ahhh I misunderstood… I thought it was based on if you were playing music that could be heard by someone else and not whether it was a work or residential environment

Came across a UK organisation called Open Music Archive and they say that music recorded before 1962 is in the public domain. Depending on how much a licence with PPL/PRS will work out I may take the public domain route.

 

[fisicx]

Came across a UK organisation called Open Music Archive and they say that music recorded before 1962 is in the public domain. Depending on how much a licence with PPL/PRS will work out I may take the public domain route.

You will still need a license. And the OMA are wrong.

 

[Mango Chutney]

You will still need a license. And the OMA are wrong.

Thanks for that ….. I’m so confused with this now. There is so much conflicting stuff online regarding it

I thought you didn’t need a licence to play music that’s in the Public Domain …. Shall ring PPL/PRS and see what they say.

It seems that 10 years ago they tried to fine the owner of a small hardware shop because he played music after hours whilst doing jobs in his locked store but they lost that case.

 

[fisicx]

The public domain thing is wrong. It’s 70 years after the composers death.

 

[paulears]

This is where people get confused. When they say " music recorded" - they are talking about the copyright in the recording. The composer's rights carry on after their death. A good example is to look at the music of Gershwin. If I play "I got rhythm" as an instrumental and record it, I am safe. George Gershwin died in 1937 - so his music is in the public domain. BUT if I get a singer to sing the words I am in trouble - because Ira, who wrote the words died in 1986, so still in copyright. The recordings made when it was released are no longer covered, because that time limit is again, different. Even the time limits change from country to country - it's easy to see why people get mixed up. Open Music Archive are actually correct on their site - it's the understanding that is the tricky bit. They say:

n the UK, the term of copyright in a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work is limited to the life of the author plus 70 years, while the term of copyright in a sound recording is limited to 50 years from the date of recording.

Also watch out for dates - 1962 is indeed public domain (and was in 2013, when that website was put up, and not edited!) Recordings from the early 70s are now public domain. Youtube still blocks them of course, because the song writers rights are still controlled.
So easy to get wrong.

I do lots of music for low/no budget video productions, where using copyrighted material is too expensive. What I do is write some music, record it and then give them a licence to use it for a nominal sum. Maybe a couple of hundred quid, but it is never 'theirs'. After the period runs out, few relicence, and I stick the music out there on amazon, itunes, apple music, deezer, spotify and youtube - and as most on it's own is go to sleep music, I get the royalties. I have been doing this since the 90's - and only now is the actual income gradually creeping up.

For info - when you release music you can be the composer, the arranger, or nowadays even 'featured artist' - and percentages are detailed. If it is a cover of a track, the original composers get the money, but if you re-arrange it, which means for example, putting a proper ending on a track that originally faded out - you get the arranging credit as you added something. I use existing covers as a guide - see how much Elton John got when George Michael covers one of his songs, and adds a verse or cuts a chorus. It seems to work fine.

Nowadays copyright gets stolen all the time - usually by Youtube. I got demonitised recently. Somebody in Germany claimed a recording of mine. A piece of ancient classical music I recorded with a choir. They do it automatically and warn you if you counter claim it can be expensive. As I recorded it, and the music was played by me, sung by a choir I was doing the project for, I pushed it. two months later, the people in Germany released their 'claim' on my music.


Here we are just talking about PRS and maybe PPL - but using 'so called' copyright free music can be even more tricky. Your source will have a tight contract too. Usually, it's just easier to pay the bill and get the sticker and just add it to the costs of doing business. Even in the workshop, you do have a listener - you! PRS term you a consumer of music. In your home, simple, at work, not so!

 

[Mango Chutney]

The public domain thing is wrong. It’s 70 years after the composers

This is where people get confused. When they say " music recorded" - they are talking about the copyright in the recording. The composer's rights carry on after their death. A good example is to look at the music of Gershwin. If I play "I got rhythm" as an instrumental and record it, I am safe. George Gershwin died in 1937 - so his music is in the public domain. BUT if I get a singer to sing the words I am in trouble - because Ira, who wrote the words died in 1986, so still in copyright. The recordings made when it was released are no longer covered, because that time limit is again, different. Even the time limits change from country to country - it's easy to see why people get mixed up. Open Music Archive are actually correct on their site - it's the understanding that is the tricky bit. They say:

Also watch out for dates - 1962 is indeed public domain (and was in 2013, when that website was put up, and not edited!) Recordings from the early 70s are now public domain. Youtube still blocks them of course, because the song writers rights are still controlled.
So easy to get wrong.

I do lots of music for low/no budget video productions, where using copyrighted material is too expensive. What I do is write some music, record it and then give them a licence to use it for a nominal sum. Maybe a couple of hundred quid, but it is never 'theirs'. After the period runs out, few relicence, and I stick the music out there on amazon, itunes, apple music, deezer, spotify and youtube - and as most on it's own is go to sleep music, I get the royalties. I have been doing this since the 90's - and only now is the actual income gradually creeping up.

For info - when you release music you can be the composer, the arranger, or nowadays even 'featured artist' - and percentages are detailed. If it is a cover of a track, the original composers get the money, but if you re-arrange it, which means for example, putting a proper ending on a track that originally faded out - you get the arranging credit as you added something. I use existing covers as a guide - see how much Elton John got when George Michael covers one of his songs, and adds a verse or cuts a chorus. It seems to work fine.

Nowadays copyright gets stolen all the time - usually by Youtube. I got demonitised recently. Somebody in Germany claimed a recording of mine. A piece of ancient classical music I recorded with a choir. They do it automatically and warn you if you counter claim it can be expensive. As I recorded it, and the music was played by me, sung by a choir I was doing the project for, I pushed it. two months later, the people in Germany released their 'claim' on my music.


Here we are just talking about PRS and maybe PPL - but using 'so called' copyright free music can be even more tricky. Your source will have a tight contract too. Usually, it's just easier to pay the bill and get the sticker and just add it to the costs of doing business. Even in the workshop, you do have a listener - you! PRS term you a consumer of music. In your home, simple, at work, not so!

Ahhh …. I think I’m beginning to understand it a bit more, thank you for your patient explanation

What I probably need is to pay someone like yourself to produce a cd for me

I get what you mean about just pay them and get the sticker but I’m not sure at this point whether playing music will improve my overall takings and they’re dishing out bills of over £600 to small shopkeepers such as myself that you have to pay up front. I’m only open to the public part time and spend the rest in the workshop alone …. I offer a bespoke service. I can’t afford staff or even someone to help me to clean not to mention the heating …..let alone £600 for music. If they offer me a good deal then I’ll consider it but I’m not paying that much for some thing that I don’t even know will help me.

Have read that not every artist has signed up with them but they don’t tell you who isn’t on their books.

I could pay them, play music then find out that my turnover doesn’t increase, or worse still …… that it drops

Came across loads of interesting stuff whilst trying to research this, as you mention there are different laws depending on the country …. Apparently The Beatles’ Love me Do went into the public domain in Europe but it seems like Paul McCartney has been fighting to extend the copyright but not sure if he’s succeeded or not.

Also about 10 or so years ago, the owner of a small hardware store was billed for a licence when he only played the radio after the shop was closed. He refused to pay it, they sent debt collectors but he contacted The Mail on Sunday after which PPL/PRS backed off. This case doesn’t seem much different than someone working alone in a studio or workshop after the shop was closed.

 

[paulears]

They are able to collect all the royalties, and they hold them for UK rightsholders. So they collect everything, unless told not to. Artists can use clause 7(f) to remove any title from PRS control. This is done when something becomes very popular because of say, inclusion in a popular show - and the artist wants ALL of the money for individual distribution. Yourself, plus a few sporadic customers clearly means you should pay - unless you can produce evidence that you don't have to. Most people cannot do this. Only a court can decide. Lots of people can go to court and win. Can you afford to lose? Remember, since that case, we now have a small claims court for copyright theft. Getty images use it as standard practice, and usually win. If just one of your other local stores pays, it would be hard for the judge to see any difference.
"do you play music in your business premises - yes or no?" If you say yes, but only ....... it is still yes.

 

[Soulstudio]

They are able to collect all the royalties, and they hold them for UK rightsholders. So they collect everything, unless told not to. Artists can use clause 7(f) to remove any title from PRS control. This is done when something becomes very popular because of say, inclusion in a popular show - and the artist wants ALL of the money for individual distribution. Yourself, plus a few sporadic customers clearly means you should pay - unless you can produce evidence that you don't have to. Most people cannot do this. Only a court can decide. Lots of people can go to court and win. Can you afford to lose? Remember, since that case, we now have a small claims court for copyright theft. Getty images use it as standard practice, and usually win. If just one of your other local stores pays, it would be hard for the judge to see any difference.
"do you play music in your business premises - yes or no?" If you say yes, but only ....... it is still yes.

That makes sense – it really does seem like a grey area that can get costly fast. I guess at the end of the day, it’s not worth the risk if they decide to pursue it. Might just keep things quiet for now and avoid the headache altogether. Appreciate the advice, definitely helped put things into perspective!

 

[Mango Chutney]

They are able to collect all the royalties, and they hold them for UK rightsholders. So they collect everything, unless told not to. Artists can use clause 7(f) to remove any title from PRS control. This is done when something becomes very popular because of say, inclusion in a popular show - and the artist wants ALL of the money for individual distribution. Yourself, plus a few sporadic customers clearly means you should pay - unless you can produce evidence that you don't have to. Most people cannot do this. Only a court can decide. Lots of people can go to court and win. Can you afford to lose? Remember, since that case, we now have a small claims court for copyright theft. Getty images use it as standard practice, and usually win. If just one of your other local stores pays, it would be hard for the judge to see any difference.
"do you play music in your business premises - yes or no?" If you say yes, but only ....... it is still yes.

I don’t play music and not even convinced that it would increase my turnover but if PPL/PRS offer me a good deal I may get a licence from them and try playing some light classical pieces. They’re welcome to call into my place anytime.

That said, I do have sympathy for many small business owners who have been affected by this over the years …. I’m sure you’ve heard the stories.

Whilst I think it’s only right that large venues, tv and radio stations, clubs, pubs, shops and even doctors waiting rooms etc should pay for a licence I do think however that the cost is excessive for small businesses.

Have been looking at Royalty Free companies who supply cd’s and some of their stuff sounds okay. On one website it says …‘One off payment and play forever’ Must admit I do like the sound of that

The last thing I want to do is to break the law hence why I came on here to ask if anyone had clarification regarding certain questions and you seem to have answered my queries …. thanks for that.

 

[paulears]

I don’t play music and not even convinced that it would increase my turnover but if PPL/PRS offer me a good deal I may get a licence from them and try playing some light classical pieces. They’re welcome to call into my place anytime.

That said, I do have sympathy for many small business owners who have been affected by this over the years …. I’m sure you’ve heard the stories.

Whilst I think it’s only right that large venues, tv and radio stations, clubs, pubs, shops and even doctors waiting rooms etc should pay for a licence I do think however that the cost is excessive for small businesses.

Have been looking at Royalty Free companies who supply cd’s and some of their stuff sounds okay. On one website it says …‘One off payment and play forever’ Must admit I do like the sound of that

The last thing I want to do is to break the law hence why I came on here to ask if anyone had clarification regarding certain questions and you seem to have answered my queries …. thanks for that.

One of the theatres I work at was bought by a private family business. The system for theatres is interesting. If the show is say, 120 minutes end to end, but the total running time of the music being played in the show is 60 minutes, a common system is for PRS to take 50% of 1% of the ticket money at the box office. So let's say the ticket price is £20 - in the 1000 seat venue that is £20,000 at the box office. The PRS settlement would be £100.

I got an equiry from a venue hirer - representing about 15 local schools, hiring the place for a concert. She wanted to make sure she got it right. I called PRS, they said it was up to the venue, but I explained she wanted to do it 100% properly, so they granted her a one-off licence. She was happy. A few weeks later PRS called to query that I had said it was a theatre? It turned out when the owners bought it, they were paying PRS licences for the three bars and cafe assuming this was it. They'd been doing it for fifteen years. What they did was agree to take 1% of the box office for every show, not the music percentage - so even a comedy show with no music at all! I think they're still paying it off.

Once you have the licence, play what you like - doesn't matter if it is old or new, dead people or alive ones. The trouble with the 'copyright free' stuff is it's boring because it is music to be instantly forgotten about!

I doubt music will ever increase your turnover, but will be just nice to listen to!

 

[HFE Signs]

Best to get a license if you intend to play music at all, the music creates a more pleasurable environment and the cost isn't too much, it is of course tax deductible anyway.

I was once told: As a Director if I play music in my car as I approach work with the windows down and anybody could hear it then I need a license, quite funny I know!

 

[Mango Chutney]

One of the theatres I work at was bought by a private family business. The system for theatres is interesting. If the show is say, 120 minutes end to end, but the total running time of the music being played in the show is 60 minutes, a common system is for PRS to take 50% of 1% of the ticket money at the box office. So let's say the ticket price is £20 - in the 1000 seat venue that is £20,000 at the box office. The PRS settlement would be £100.

I got an equiry from a venue hirer - representing about 15 local schools, hiring the place for a concert. She wanted to make sure she got it right. I called PRS, they said it was up to the venue, but I explained she wanted to do it 100% properly, so they granted her a one-off licence. She was happy. A few weeks later PRS called to query that I had said it was a theatre? It turned out when the owners bought it, they were paying PRS licences for the three bars and cafe assuming this was it. They'd been doing it for fifteen years. What they did was agree to take 1% of the box office for every show, not the music percentage - so even a comedy show with no music at all! I think they're still paying it off.

Once you have the licence, play what you like - doesn't matter if it is old or new, dead people or alive ones. The trouble with the 'copyright free' stuff is it's boring because it is music to be instantly forgotten about!

I doubt music will ever increase your turnover, but will be just nice to listen to!

Interesting what you said about how they charge theatres …. That seems a fairer system than what they’re doing with small shops.

I’ve met many shopkeepers who have less than a £50,000 turnover …if the 50% of 1% of their turnover was applied in their case then they would only pay £250 per year for a licence instead of the £600 bill that seems to get thrown at them. Many high street shops these days are being propped up by government benefits ….if people knew just how much some shopkeepers were struggling they’d be shocked.

I spent the night looking through Royalty Free stuff and quite surprised how good some of it is …. If you’ve got the time to go through their catalogues it’s worth it. If PRS doesn’t offer me a good deal will certainly order some licence free cds.

The kind of music I would play doesn’t need to be a catchy known tune …. I buy and sell art, I’m thinking that some of this stuff that’s been created for spas and meditation or just the gentle sound a classical/acoustic guitar might work for me.

A much fairer system would be for the price of a licence to be calculated against someone’s actual profit and not the size of the premises nor their turnover.

 

[paulears]

There's a lovely story about somebody from one of the agencies who licence shows seeing a local theatre when on holiday abroad advertising one of their controlled shows. They went to see it and yes, it was the UK show. When queried, they said a nice English lady had said it was fine, her son wouldn't mind. Turned out the son was Andrew Lloyd Webber! I've no idea if that's true, but I have heard the story so many times.

 

[Mango Chutney]

Best to get a license if you intend to play music at all, the music creates a more pleasurable environment and the cost isn't too much, it is of course tax deductible anyway.

I was once told: As a Director if I play music in my car as I approach work with the windows down and anybody could hear it then I need a license, quite funny I know!

If you can afford the £600+ cost for a small shop then I agree with you ….. but many can’t.

Have found that some of the Royalty Free stuff is quite good ….. depends on what you need … wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of larger companies and venues are using it these days to reduce their overheads.

Would like to know whether licensing music coming from cars with windows down is actually enforceable ….. That’d certainly curb the boy racers coming past my place that like to share their tunes

 

[Mango Chutney]

There's a lovely story about somebody from one of the agencies who licence shows seeing a local theatre when on holiday abroad advertising one of their controlled shows. They went to see it and yes, it was the UK show. When queried, they said a nice English lady had said it was fine, her son wouldn't mind. Turned out the son was Andrew Lloyd Webber! I've no idea if that's true, but I have heard the story so many times.

That is funny and would love to know whether it’s true.

I thought of a new question as I was falling asleep

Do you know how the law stands with AI…. Wondering whether you could you produce your own music using that or do you still have to get the performing licence to play it?

 

[paulears]

That is funny and would love to know whether it’s true.

I thought of a new question as I was falling asleep

Do you know how the law stands with AI…. Wondering whether you could you produce your own music using that or do you still have to get the performing licence to play it?

I don't think it is tested yet, but much would depend on what the users of AI agree by signing up. Adobe appear to be allowing photoshop users to claim images as their own, when things have been added using their AI. With music AI, I guess it's all in the detail. For the classical stuff I do, I'll download a score, or somebody else's recording and create my own. You can get caught out - I did a Rachmaninov piece in the early 2000's and realised I needed to sit on it for just a couple of years. If you produce your own and register it with PRS, then you cannot easily remove it for one use then put it back? The clause 7(f) needs you to deliberately remove it and I don't think they like doing it much - but you do NOT have to register, you could like I do, only register works when you have sort of done with them. If I wrote something for you, and gave you permission to use it - PRS could not claim anything and Youtube and the others would not have any claim.

 

[Mango Chutney]

I don't think it is tested yet, but much would depend on what the users of AI agree by signing up. Adobe appear to be allowing photoshop users to claim images as their own, when things have been added using their AI. With music AI, I guess it's all in the detail. For the classical stuff I do, I'll download a score, or somebody else's recording and create my own. You can get caught out - I did a Rachmaninov piece in the early 2000's and realised I needed to sit on it for just a couple of years. If you produce your own and register it with PRS, then you cannot easily remove it for one use then put it back? The clause 7(f) needs you to deliberately remove it and I don't think they like doing it much - but you do NOT have to register, you could like I do, only register works when you have sort of done with them. If I wrote something for you, and gave you permission to use it - PRS could not claim anything and Youtube and the others would not have any claim.

That’s very informative … thank you

AI is quite interesting and can’t make my mind up whether it’s a force for good or bad. I’ve dabbled with creating artwork using it but also question the ethics. Thinking that in twenty years we might not even recognise the art and music industries of today.

 

[Mango Chutney]

Jesus and Mary Chain, Robert Fripp and more sue PRS for Music over concert royalties.​

The Guardian June 2024​

Seems like it’s not just small businesses and shopkeepers they’ve been upsetting. A group of their own members are suing them.

“I am yet to be persuaded that the PRS operates on behalf of the membership’s best interests.” Robert Fripp

 

[paulears]

Years back, every concert venue had to fill in a list for PRS - detailing every bit of music performed, along with it's length. The complaint then was that the system cost too much, which was paid out of the collected royalties. They moved to sampling. Putting it crudely - you look at a typical day on radio 2 and build up a profile. People like me don't feature at all (well, until last year to be honest) - so many small people like me would get nothing. BUT - some big names who got regular income on the old system, suddenly fell off the new one. Robert Fripp had historic royalties, but now of course, it's less! Not fair on him, or countless thousands of other musicians - but nobody has a better system for live music.

 

[Mango Chutney]

Years back, every concert venue had to fill in a list for PRS - detailing every bit of music performed, along with its length. The complaint then was that the system cost too much, which was paid out of the collected royalties. They moved to sampling. Putting it crudely - you look at a typical day on radio 2 and build up a profile. People like me don't feature at all (well, until last year to be honest) - so many small people like me would get nothing. BUT - some big names who got regular income on the old system, suddenly fell off the new one. Robert Fripp had historic royalties, but now of course, it's less! Not fair on him, or countless thousands of other musicians - but nobody has a better system for live music.

Yes it’s very unfair …. Pace Rights Management are suing them …. just had a quick look on their site

OUR STORY​

Born out of the opacity, inequities and obstructiveness of the current live collective management market, PACE Rights Management was created as a disruptive vehicle to deliver desperately needed transparency and efficiencies for Rightsholders, both Writers and Publishers..




As you mentioned you’ve received little from them and the ones who are suing them are claiming that they’ve been treated unfairly compared to major artists.

Upon researching this I’ve found that the internet is full of the howls and screams from struggling small business owners who’ve been treated badly by PPL/PRS

 

[paulears]

Totally agree, but the fact is that after doing music releases for a very long time, PRS has generated far more money for me than any other source - about 50% of my music on-line is via a company called songtradr. I just got their statement December total $6.89, November $3.48. PRS for their 3 month period was around £600.
For all their faults, I'll keep the PRS please.

 

[Mango Chutney]

Totally agree, but the fact is that after doing music releases for a very long time, PRS has generated far more money for me than any other source - about 50% of my music on-line is via a company called songtradr. I just got their statement December total $6.89, November $3.48. PRS for their 3 month period was around £600.
For all their faults, I'll keep the PRS please.

If I was one of their members I’d be wondering whether they’ve been paying me enough

They might be a very legal company but their ethics are questionable

Just saw this on Music Week .com

According to a statement, the issues at the heart of the legal action are:

– The right of music writers and publishers to efficiently direct license their live public performance rghts, without having to go through PRS. Direct licensing would allow writers and publishers to benefit from fewer deductions from their royalty income, faster royalty payments and greater transparency throughout the process, according to the group of songwriters.

– They further claim that PRS is deliberately withholding information from its members about the deductions tfrom their royalty income when their rights are licensed internationally via PRS.

– The writers behind the action also say that the implementation of the (MLCS), which awards preferential conditions to certain rights-holders, is in direct conflict with PRS’ obligations as a collective management organisation.

In a collective statement, the claimants in the legal action said: “From a theoretical or academic perspective, the efficiencies of collective rights management make perfect sense for songwriters and composers. However, PRS has strayed significantly from the principles on which it was founded 110 years ago, to the point that the organisation’s policies no longer appear to be operating in the best interests of its members. PRS Members are treated as second-class citizens in their own organisation.

“Regretfully, after years of PRS refusing to discuss or constructively engage with these issues – including the withdrawal of live performance rights, the lack of transparency around international deductions, and the operation of the Major Live Concert Service – we have been left with no option but to seek redress through the courts. The ball is now firmly in PRS’ court. Either they constructively engage with much-needed reforms to empower and benefit writers and publishers, or they continue to resist these necessary changes, and attempt to defend the indefensible by spending yet more of the Members’ money on legal costs supporting policies that make the Members less money."

 

[paulears]

That is the established artist talking - and if your are David Gilmour, with fans eager to consume anything you produce, I totally get it - but let's say you use one of my recordings. How would I ever know? The payouts are tiny - the £600 for everything includes as I said, 21 million $0.000002 payments or whatever tiny amount there is. However, that 21 million are totally unable for me to collect. PRS is flawed - of course it is, but there is no way hundreds of thousands of music creators can link with millions of consumers. People I mentioned, like songtradr - and the others like distrokid (who routinely close accounts and keep the money), Ditto, record union and others, don't capture as much usage from the music streamers and downloaders.
The big people are clearly upset their usage generates so little, but for me, a tiny part of it, PRS generates the most.

 

[Mango Chutney]

I get that you earn money …. but I think the tide could be turning for them now. From what I’ve read, heard and personally experienced the company needs a complete overhaul and a much more transparent, caring approach both to it’s members like yourself and licence subscribers

For many years they were two different companies and businesses would receive a demand from one without knowing that the other one was right behind with another invoice, at least now it comes in just one excessive bill. From the start if they’d of been more caring and understanding with small businesses and offered an affordable licence I doubt that they’d of encountered the resistance they’ve had.

Whereas here we are 2024 ….. songwriters, composers and musicians are not getting the exposure they might of done on radios and elsewhere because businesses are now playing either silence or Royalty Free music.

For years they’ve wrought such distress upon small businesses and now it seems like some of their own members are unhappy.

Imagine how many people in the past would listen to the radio at work during the day and the sales of singles or albums that would of generated …. nowadays even in one’s dentist or doctor’s you’ve likely got spa music.

To withdraw those rights is very naughty

For best effect you need to read that last line as Toyah would say it

 

[paulears]

From what I’ve read, heard and personally experienced the company needs a complete overhaul and a much more transparent, caring approach both to it’s members like yourself and licence subscribers

I'm assuming that you are not a member?
Only this week I have had a lot of information from them including a template for a letter to my own MP - about AI, reducing members ability to generate money?
I can only repeat what I have said - I think PRS are doing a good job, and my income from them is way above what I get direct from streaming services. I would hate it if they changed to any kind of model that reduced payments to members - and of course, it is a members society, designed to collect as much potential revenue as it can. In addition, it collects for foreign societies too - so benefits go to other countries too - where the same type of system exists. If PRS changed how they did things, would the money from abroad dry up? I cannot take the chance.

 

[Mango Chutney]

I'm assuming that you are not a member?
Only this week I have had a lot of information from them including a template for a letter to my own MP - about AI, reducing members ability to generate money?
I can only repeat what I have said - I think PRS are doing a good job, and my income from them is way above what I get direct from streaming services. I would hate it if they changed to any kind of model that reduced payments to members - and of course, it is a members society, designed to collect as much potential revenue as it can. In addition, it collects for foreign societies too - so benefits go to other countries too - where the same type of system exists. If PRS changed how they did things, would the money from abroad dry up? I cannot take the chance.

If I was one of their members I would seriously be watching the two huge legal claims brought against them by various artists whom they represent.

This was from Russell’s Entertainment Law Firm regarding Dave Rowntree and Black Box payments ….that’s apart from the claims from Robert Fripp and a number of other members.

April 9th 2024

Calling all songwriters: Dave Rowntree Challenges PRS Over “Black Box Royalties”​

As you may have already heard, Dave Rowntree (Blur’s drummer) is bringing a claim against PRS over the way PRS distributes “black box” royalties (i.e. royalties which can’t be allocated because the writer/publisher can’t be located – for example because they weren’t registered, were registered incorrectly or there is missing or incorrect data).
In case this is of interest, the below summary provides some more information on what this is all about.

• Dave Rowntree is bringing a claim against PRS in the competition tribunal on behalf of songwriter members. He claims that the way PRS distributes black box royalties is unfair and that songwriters are losing out as a result and should be awarded damages.
• Currently, black box royalties are distributed to songwriters and publishers in the same proportions as with matched royalties (i.e. on a pro-rata basis). Allegedly this means that most black box royalties go to publishers, which Rowntree says is unfair. As the vast majority of PRS members are songwriters, he says that there will be more reporting and data issues applicable to them and so more black box royalties should go to these songwriters.

Do I have to do anything?

• If Rowntree’s claim gets approved by the tribunal, then songwriters who were registered as PRS members between 9 March 2017 and (around) 28 February 2024 will be automatically included in the proceedings unless they chose to opt-out.

What’s in it for me?

• If the claim is successful and PRS’ black box policy is considered unfair, then eligible songwriteres may be entitled to a proportion of the damages awarded to songwriters. How any damages are distributed would be decided by the tribunal.

 

[paulears]

I suspect those of us who are not famous not give a damn - after all, if you don't bother to register (which is free) complaining you didn't get the payments seems rather your own fault. Lots of established artists got the bulk of their royalty income from vinyl and the CD sales. Now they don't, because younger people consume music differently. Robert Fripp is miffed because his royalties drop year on year, but he still gets more than many. He's complaining because younger people have never heard of him, so don't know his music and don't listen to it.

 

[Mango Chutney]

I suspect those of us who are not famous not give a damn - after all, if you don't bother to register (which is free) complaining you didn't get the payments seems rather your own fault. Lots of established artists got the bulk of their royalty income from vinyl and the CD sales. Now they don't, because younger people consume music differently. Robert Fripp is miffed because his royalties drop year on year, but he still gets more than many. He's complaining because younger people have never heard of him, so don't know his music and don't listen to it.

We’ve obviously understood this very differently, if you’re a writer you could possibly benefit …… I think you can opt out though if you don’t want any money that could be due.

There’s a website called:
Collective Proceedings Against PRS For Music / Writers Against PRS

….. has all the information regarding Dave Rowntree’s claim and contact info.

 

[campbeji]

Hi everyone … first time I’ve posted on here and apologies if this is in the wrong place

I rent a small shop amongst a group of other shops and just before Christmas all of us received letters from PPL PRS

I don’t play music but have been thinking that in the New Year I might try to do so ….. I’ve been chatting with other shopkeepers and everyone seems to not fully understand what can and cannot be played without having to purchase the music licence or answers to questions such as …..

If you’re working alone in an arts and crafts workshop with the shop door locked can you listen to music without purchasing a licence?

If you’re working alone with the shop door closed can you listen to a talk radio show that doesn’t play any music?

Also, does anyone know if you can play royalty free music that’s on YouTube without a licence and whether there are any light classical works that are licence free?

Any help would be greatly appreciated

Have looked online and there seems to be a substantial amount of companies that are offering Royalty Free music which I might try if I can’t afford a PPL/PRS licence

I get a call from these people every year. Sometimes they are quite aggressive and other times not. I am home based and it is just my wife and myself. The vast majority of my work is sent out via post and maybe 5% or less is picked up from us.

Depending on how their attitude is when they phone, if they are nice a polite I will get to the point and explain that we are home based and don't need a licence, but if they are coming on strong they will get the 'scammer' treatment, I will waste as much of their time as I can.

In my situation I don't need a licence, but if it was different I'd not mind paying it as it is a legitimate expense, if the creatives don't make any money then they won't create and then where will we be. It is the same with any graphics etc that I use in my business. I also make a donation to Wikipedia every year, I know it is free but I use it a lot and it only seems fair.

Anyway, Good luck

Jim

 

[paulears]

We mentioned the 'problem', up a bit. When PRS moved to using stats rather than collecting real data it did indeed benefit some artists disproportionately. If we have a list that has Beatles at the top, or Elvis or whoever, there is a kind of pecking order -like a radio playlist and using me as an example - as nobody has ever heard of me I would not be in the top ten thousand, so, for many years I got zero. There was a reporting system where people could notify them of use - but that was no use to me? I'm unable to collect the data. Now, thanks mainly to things like the BBC who are computerised nationally and regionally - my material started to gradually appear, and bit by bit, is increasing. Of course, not being on the primary distribution top whatever, means I lose out, there is no alternative system - and the website linked to is 100% pointed at how the PRS is bad at collecting fairly, but without any proposed system for a replacement. The old PRS system involved music users - clubs, pubs, theatres, broadcasters, shops etc filling in lists of what music was paid, and they objected strongly to this unpaid work. The current system was for big name artists and the people who play music, better in every way. Worse for people like me.

I simply cannot conceive of a system that would be low effort for the people using the music and detailed enough for the people who produce the music. If a system appears, I'll happily sign up. I just wonder if it is possible. It's quite likely that this court action would cut my income!

 

[Mango Chutney]

I get a call from these people every year. Sometimes they are quite aggressive and other times not. I am home based and it is just my wife and myself. The vast majority of my work is sent out via post and maybe 5% or less is picked up from us.

Depending on how their attitude is when they phone, if they are nice a polite I will get to the point and explain that we are home based and don't need a licence, but if they are coming on strong they will get the 'scammer' treatment, I will waste as much of their time as I can.

In my situation I don't need a licence, but if it was different I'd not mind paying it as it is a legitimate expense, if the creatives don't make any money then they won't create and then where will we be. It is the same with any graphics etc that I use in my business. I also make a donation to Wikipedia every year, I know it is free but I use it a lot and it only seems fair.

Anyway, Good luck

Jim

Thanks Jim

Yeh I’m the same, I donate to Wikipedia …. I also have a free app. that I’m always using and have never been asked for any money but feel compelled to give some and must get in touch with the company to do so

One of my arguments against PPL PRS is their aggressive approach ..the internet is full of people saying the same

As a shopkeeper I’ve experienced it myself and heard/read the same from many other small businesses.

If they had a much more caring approach, more transparency and education and a fairer priced music licence especially for small struggling businesses I’d support what they’re doing as I agree with yourself regarding creatives etc

 

[Mango Chutney]

We mentioned the 'problem', up a bit. When PRS moved to using stats rather than collecting real data it did indeed benefit some artists disproportionately. If we have a list that has Beatles at the top, or Elvis or whoever, there is a kind of pecking order -like a radio playlist and using me as an example - as nobody has ever heard of me I would not be in the top ten thousand, so, for many years I got zero. There was a reporting system where people could notify them of use - but that was no use to me? I'm unable to collect the data. Now, thanks mainly to things like the BBC who are computerised nationally and regionally - my material started to gradually appear, and bit by bit, is increasing. Of course, not being on the primary distribution top whatever, means I lose out, there is no alternative system - and the website linked to is 100% pointed at how the PRS is bad at collecting fairly, but without any proposed system for a replacement. The old PRS system involved music users - clubs, pubs, theatres, broadcasters, shops etc filling in lists of what music was paid, and they objected strongly to this unpaid work. The current system was for big name artists and the people who play music, better in every way. Worse for people like me.

I simply cannot conceive of a system that would be low effort for the people using the music and detailed enough for the people who produce the music. If a system appears, I'll happily sign up. I just wonder if it is possible. It's quite likely that this court action would cut my income!

What about if it increases? That wouldn't be a bad outcome ….. or income

That’s why I said that if I was a member I’d be seriously watching these claims.