PRS\PPL Music Licensing - Know Your Rights
- Thread starter Azimuth
- Start date
T
The Byre
The only problem with that is that in the extremely unlikely event of you being successful, it would kill talk-radio stone-dead and claiming rights for a phone-in stumbles on the simple fact that the caller is told that they are going on the air.
If a court created a case of precedent in which a caller had to be paid, the station would just have to get the caller to agree that the call is not to be paid for, before putting them on the air.
That is a totally different issue to a work of art or a performance.
If a journalist is put on the air on TV or radio as a part of their work, they can and do expect payment.
If a court created a case of precedent in which a caller had to be paid, the station would just have to get the caller to agree that the call is not to be paid for, before putting them on the air.
That is a totally different issue to a work of art or a performance.
If a journalist is put on the air on TV or radio as a part of their work, they can and do expect payment.
Upvote
0
This is a very poor analogy, and defending music fees by using it is "shooting yourself in the foot"©. The clear and obvious distinction is that a car is a unique physical object that cannot be simultaneosuly used by multiple people, whereas a musical performance can be.
Having said that, I do accept the fundamental argument that music performance should be paid for.
Having said that, PRS / PPL are bullying exploitative bastards who need to be kicked in the teeth. My mate the professional drummer who runs a bar sees both sides of the deal, and agrees with me.
Upvote
0
It's like those programmes where they send the bailiffs in and the people who are in debt use the same terms over and over again. If you were owed money, would you not use bailiffs or the sheriffs officers to get what you were owed? If anyone who uses music rather than produces it can provide one better way for the owner to get paid, please share it? What alternative do we have to generate money? Your mate clearly earns more from the bar than he does from music, or he'd have the alternative viewpoint. This is fine and quite normal. It does not help those of us who like to be paid for what we produce.
Upvote
0
Music copyright is particularly complex as there is a copyright for the written music (melody line and chord structure) a copyright for the words (which normally comes with the written music) a copyright for the recording of the tune and potentially a video copyright.
The various bodies (some of which I am a member of) organise a distribution of revenue to the various groups of people and other legal entities who own the copyrights.
The various bodies (some of which I am a member of) organise a distribution of revenue to the various groups of people and other legal entities who own the copyrights.
Upvote
0
Plus of course the copyright in the sheet music form of it too. I do find it somewhat awkward when people sign up with PRS, pay the fees and then have the other interested parties come after them for their share. I've been negotiating on behalf of musicians working for me at the moment because a BBC documentary was being shot of a venue they were working in - so we have the weird circumstance where the music is cleared for performance to an audience, but NOT for the TV audience, and the composer will get their TV performance component, plus the band, who get paid at Musicians Union rates for playing the music to the audience get extra for having their performances recorded and then broadcast. It's very complex to work out, but that's what we do. No wonder the average music user finds it unfair they just can't use music however they feel like.
Upvote
0
Yes - I know, but from my perspective I see an organisation doing what I paul them for - and being frank, the number of people who attempt to not pay for using music makes me think they should shout louder. The number of stickers I see is increasing, but it's certainly not a high proportion.
Anyway - Happy Christmas, which today is more important!
Anyway - Happy Christmas, which today is more important!
Upvote
0
Best of luck. Part of my job is music clearance and some popular works are NOT controlled by PRS, and just getting the information on who controls it can be a real pain - EMI, for example. If you can find the right department they'll give you a price, which can be a real shock. Then they will specify a certain number of plays, and want the location and audience. There will be a charge for the legal department to draw up a contract too. Remember 'Sugar Baby Love'. The first 25 seconds cost me £75 a play in 1995! If you can call the artiste because you have their contact details and speak to them direct it can work. Lionel Richie charged me just $10 for a good cause use of Hello, but getting to him was tricky and was eventually mostly good luck. Local bands will probably welcome you using their music for free. Trouble is if the local band is what you actually want? Part of PRS rules are that you cannot just waive your rights, you need to do it probably - clause 7F in their agreement, and this will remove that song from everyone - so they won't do it for a one off. Unsigned bands are worth asking, but forget it for signed acts and names of even modest status.
Upvote
0
Not just younger people.
Been a while since purchased any music - usually several dozen albums downloaded on the phone from Spotify and dozens more to stream at home.
The requirement to purchase music in order to listen to it went decades ago. The ease of it now makes the purchase model less relevant.
Upvote
0
In fairness - I bought some on iTunes the other day, and as you have to download the purchase, is that a sale, or a download, but not a stream? I've been trying all sorts of delivery media over Christmas seeing the return from my own composition compared to cover versions. The income from covers seems to be 25-50% of the sum paid for own works - BUT - my most popular (and income generating) title is a slow instrumental version of Roxanne! No idea why - it was just a track I'd recently done for a show, and I thought I'd test the water with it. The ones I thought would be searched for, are much lower in the list. I really don't understand how the new model works!
Upvote
0
N
Nord20
The simplest way to determine if you bought it or leased it is:
If the company you got it from (in this case, Apple) goes bust tomorrow, would you lose access to your purchase?
If yes, it's leased. If no, it's yours.
iTunes is especially complex though, as you physically have the download, but it's DRM'd, so will only play on Apple devices logged into your account. So, if Apple went bust tomorrow, you'd lose the device functionality as well as the music, which makes it hard to tell if you actually own anything at all.
Paul - do you put your tracks on SoundCloud? I've heard they pay better than most streaming services.
Upvote
0
No - I do have a Soundcloud account, but I use Distrokid for the music uploads. They get it on a large number of streaming sites, including amazon, Spotify, Apple Music, iTunes, Youtube, google music, Napster and loads of others. I use Soundcloud for stuff I want other to be able to download with no hassle. So many of the streaming sites are members only now.
Upvote
0
N
Nord20
You sound like you may have been in the industry a fair while - can I ask:
How do you find the move from purchasing music to streaming/downloading/renting - whatever you want to call it, from a producer's point of view?
If it was entirely up to you, would you stay with the "Music as a service" we currently have, or return to a "you pays your money, you owns the music" model?
Which saw better returns for you?
The reason I ask is that, from the perspective of a casual observer, the streaming services have just added another layer of middle-men between you, the music creator, and the person who likes your music. And that either means the price goes up, or the revenue to the artists goes down. Unless I'm missing something.....
How do you find the move from purchasing music to streaming/downloading/renting - whatever you want to call it, from a producer's point of view?
If it was entirely up to you, would you stay with the "Music as a service" we currently have, or return to a "you pays your money, you owns the music" model?
Which saw better returns for you?
The reason I ask is that, from the perspective of a casual observer, the streaming services have just added another layer of middle-men between you, the music creator, and the person who likes your music. And that either means the price goes up, or the revenue to the artists goes down. Unless I'm missing something.....
Upvote
0
The majority of our income from music comes from specialist music, originally CD based, for two quite tight groups. Dancers and musicians taking exams above grade 8. The dancers MUST use a real pianist for the exams, but they're too expensive to use for rehearsal other than the ones just prior to the exam. We record music that meets the criteria of the exam board. This will set so many bars of this, then a tempo change, then something else etc etc. Ballet is the most popular. The two of us compose, record and edit the music and there are collections on the CDs to inspire the dancers. They get tested on things too - so one of the CDs is called Waltz, Polka or March - and contains 60 shorter tracks. They get advertised in the specialist dance press, and on facebook. We then introduced the facility on the web site to not just order a CD, but download the CD direct from our server, or buy individual tracks.
We then started recording what could be described as kind of karaoke for people playing the flute or clarinet at the very high standard levels ready for their exams. These are set works from the exam boards and to my ears - written by composers in bad moods, late on a Friday evening when they really wanted to be in the pub. My colleague thinks they are wonderful, I hate practically all of them. These are not available on CD - purely downloads. They get two tracks for each movement, one at rehearsal tempo and one at performance tempo. They already have the sheet music, so they practice to these tracks.
For the dance music, 70% now is the CD in the post proportion for the full package. Downloads are behind but remaining steady, NOT increasing. I have a feeling that this is simply that dance teachers tend to be old fashioned, and technology is not their thing. I get emails each day when people purchase downloads, but have not downloaded them by the time the obscured link expires (24hrs) Some download them, then email to ask what they have to do to play them. Most I think do it fine - but the older teachers, the ones called "Miss Wendy" or similar still prefer CDs. Our stock of them was a bit excessive and we've still been sending out CDs from the last batch, 6 months ago, and there are still 80-100 wish in the boxes. The flute/clarinet, being download only is much slower selling - but there are of course less customers for this rather specialist product. None of these are on Spotify or iTunes.
The music I've been experimenting with is to see if we should move the popular things to these platforms. I don't think it's viable. A CD at 10-13 quid costs less than a pound to produce, including printing, so this makes streaming useless for our specialist stuff - just not enough people words wide, even, to generate any money. One stream producing $0.02 is just impossible.Ok if you sell 100's of thousands. Streaming services certainly get your music out there, but without hordes of followers doing repeated streams it's no good. iTunes paid downloads are a bit better. Downloading a 9.99 album generate just under $5, eventually. If we put the dance CDs on iTunes we'd need to sell double the quantity to generate the same income. That could be possible, but we've not tried it yet. We plan to, but just haven't got around to it. The good thing I want to test, to make sure it works, is for somebody in broadcast, to use one of our tracks to see if the system triggers the PRS and PPL payments? It should do as the relevant codes are there. To test it, I've updated the PRS and PPL databases with the streamable products, half with the code, and the other half without so I can see if the reporting works. Probably give it a year.
We then started recording what could be described as kind of karaoke for people playing the flute or clarinet at the very high standard levels ready for their exams. These are set works from the exam boards and to my ears - written by composers in bad moods, late on a Friday evening when they really wanted to be in the pub. My colleague thinks they are wonderful, I hate practically all of them. These are not available on CD - purely downloads. They get two tracks for each movement, one at rehearsal tempo and one at performance tempo. They already have the sheet music, so they practice to these tracks.
For the dance music, 70% now is the CD in the post proportion for the full package. Downloads are behind but remaining steady, NOT increasing. I have a feeling that this is simply that dance teachers tend to be old fashioned, and technology is not their thing. I get emails each day when people purchase downloads, but have not downloaded them by the time the obscured link expires (24hrs) Some download them, then email to ask what they have to do to play them. Most I think do it fine - but the older teachers, the ones called "Miss Wendy" or similar still prefer CDs. Our stock of them was a bit excessive and we've still been sending out CDs from the last batch, 6 months ago, and there are still 80-100 wish in the boxes. The flute/clarinet, being download only is much slower selling - but there are of course less customers for this rather specialist product. None of these are on Spotify or iTunes.
The music I've been experimenting with is to see if we should move the popular things to these platforms. I don't think it's viable. A CD at 10-13 quid costs less than a pound to produce, including printing, so this makes streaming useless for our specialist stuff - just not enough people words wide, even, to generate any money. One stream producing $0.02 is just impossible.Ok if you sell 100's of thousands. Streaming services certainly get your music out there, but without hordes of followers doing repeated streams it's no good. iTunes paid downloads are a bit better. Downloading a 9.99 album generate just under $5, eventually. If we put the dance CDs on iTunes we'd need to sell double the quantity to generate the same income. That could be possible, but we've not tried it yet. We plan to, but just haven't got around to it. The good thing I want to test, to make sure it works, is for somebody in broadcast, to use one of our tracks to see if the system triggers the PRS and PPL payments? It should do as the relevant codes are there. To test it, I've updated the PRS and PPL databases with the streamable products, half with the code, and the other half without so I can see if the reporting works. Probably give it a year.
Upvote
0
It will be interesting to see if you get any more calls.
They rung me a few years ago and a member of staff answered the phone and misunderstood their question 'Do you listen to the radio?', she replied yes (meaning yes, she listens to the radio) thinking it was just some marketing call and the next thing I know I receive a letter with a bill attached, plus another bill for a period that they determined themselves that I had already been listening to the radio for.
I tried ringing them and explaining that no, we don't have a radio or a tv or play any music but they weren't interested. A few threatening letters (from them) and numerous phone calls from me later they finally seemed to accept my side.
I still get a phone call every 6 months though running through the exact same questions which I give the exact same answers to. I've asked them to remove me from their contact list (GDPR?) but it never gets actioned.
How they are allowed to operate with such dubious tactics and bully boy approach I have no idea.
I've read through the pages on this thread and whilst I understand the need for artists to get paid I can't help but feel the sledgehammer to crack a walnut approach from the likes of the PRS is counter-intuitive.
I did once enquire as to the costs but after a myriad of (to me) stupid questions, I gave up on the idea. The idea that if a member of the public overhears a radio in your workshop it becomes a public performance and charged accordingly is ludicrous to me. If they'd said 'you're a small business with less than 5 employees there's a flat rate of £50' I would have paid up and thought it worthwhile to be covered if I wanted to play a few Christmas songs in December. The quote of close to £800 they gave me just wasn't feasible or realistic.
Upvote
0
I got an email from PPL - telling me my music was reported as being used in 7 countries - I was asked to confirm if I knew this to be true, so I checked, ticked the boxes and will sit back waiting for the pittance to come in. For every loser, there is a winner. I'm very satisfied with my membership of PRS and PPL, who, incidentally are two totally different entities and enquiries by PRS are not linked to PPL. PRS and MCPS are the two rights agencies that are linked. If anyone pays PRS, then they should also be paying PPL.
Upvote
0
Paulears - I have read through the thread and your posts and I think you've put the other side of the argument over very well, I wholeheartedly agree that artists should be recompensed but I can't help thinking the reputation of the PRS and PPL are doing more damage than good.
I had heard the two were working more closely together now and only one all encompassing licence was needed - is that correct?
I had heard the two were working more closely together now and only one all encompassing licence was needed - is that correct?
Upvote
0
No - I have a feeling they share on a big case basis, but I don't think they do day to day routine sharing, because they are a members organisation, and serve two different groups. Today I was actually registering some tracks with PPL - non-members cannot access this area of the site, and even I as a member cannot find out information about who participates on other recordings. PPL are ONLY interested in the people who made the music - so the people who played and sung, the engineers, the editors, the arrangers - you can list the composer of the music, as they often play on it, but you can't list the person who wrote the words, unless they sung them - because PPL distribute the money to the people who were involved in the recording. PRS, on the other hand, couldn't care less about the studio people at all, they only want the music and lyrics people.
If you look at the smooth radio playlist, pick something like the Carpenters - Close to You. PPL will distribute to the Carpenters - so that's Richard and Karen's estate, for 70 years from the recording. Burt Bacharach and Hal David wrote it, but PPL don't pay them. They'll happily pay the people listed as performers and engineers. PRS, however, get the same data from the radio stations and they pay Bacharach and David's estate - but don't pay the Carpenters. Most folk think the Carpenters obviously get the PRS money, but they don't. PPL, I think, are the ones who to us musicians, are more important, but others disagree. Both organisations have a claims section - so there is always an option for people who hear their music being played, to report it. I was in she chiropractors the other day and heard one of my tracks - lift music really. There is no point reporting it because at the rate they're paid, radio is hardly lucrative, one off in a Chiropractors generates zero really.
If you look at the smooth radio playlist, pick something like the Carpenters - Close to You. PPL will distribute to the Carpenters - so that's Richard and Karen's estate, for 70 years from the recording. Burt Bacharach and Hal David wrote it, but PPL don't pay them. They'll happily pay the people listed as performers and engineers. PRS, however, get the same data from the radio stations and they pay Bacharach and David's estate - but don't pay the Carpenters. Most folk think the Carpenters obviously get the PRS money, but they don't. PPL, I think, are the ones who to us musicians, are more important, but others disagree. Both organisations have a claims section - so there is always an option for people who hear their music being played, to report it. I was in she chiropractors the other day and heard one of my tracks - lift music really. There is no point reporting it because at the rate they're paid, radio is hardly lucrative, one off in a Chiropractors generates zero really.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Not daft at all. If you play on the recording, you are entitled to 'a consideration' - you can elect to receive a flat buyout fee, or take points - as in a percentage. Sessions musicians typically take the fee. Herbie Flower, the great session bass player took a fee on walk on the wild side, and created a quite famous bass line. He actually played it on electric bass and the double bass, and got two fees. Points, would have been brilliant, with hindsight. When you have rent to pay, points are a bit like a pension - a benefit at some point maybe, possibly, later on. This is why when you look up famous tracks on Wiki, or via Google, you can see the names of many people. Everyone gets carefully listed so their payment system can be enacted. As every artiste was convinced their recording would be on top of the pops next week, taking a percentage of nothing could be a risky process. Writing your own songs and recording them gives you the best of both worlds. If you do cover versions, then the PPL pays the most, with the composer getting the PRS contribution. Nowadays, we have a similar quandary. For an unknown artiste, a cover version actually costs them to arrange the licence and keep it active. It could easily be £60-100 a year. Keeping in mind an audio stream on Spotify generates around $0.002 per stream, you have to stream a lot to cover the licence!
EDIT - you mentioned arrangers. A few years back there was one arranger who tried to claim rights fees on music he'd been paid a buy out fee for - he had a rather shady reputation.
EDIT - you mentioned arrangers. A few years back there was one arranger who tried to claim rights fees on music he'd been paid a buy out fee for - he had a rather shady reputation.
Upvote
0
Hi all I'm new to this group and signed up mainly to get help with this, I have a friend who has just lost their father to covid and not managed to fully open their small garage, converted gym and have been private letting it for customers to use for their own workout alone, although it looks like a small private gym in adverts its not been used as one as they havnt opened up as one due to covid and father passing, and merely loan it out per hour for people to use. They are being complete hounded by ppr prs and after trying to tell them that no using music being used on the ppr prs chat and don't know what the customers are using and most probs headsets as they don't have time to switch all tvs on as they only have 1 hour , they started to make me wonder if I had done something wrong , acussing me of all sorts, hounding my page which I have now taken down ( it consisted of a few adverts of the gym with no one in it, TV on in background for vibe and noise for private use purposes ) however its not actually been used like I said, just a few people using alone.
Can someone please let me know where they stand on this so they know for the future when they are ready to go full pelt again, ideally using thr tvs for people to follow exercises on you tube for example, or to do presentations/ trainings using slides as apparently they cant even switch the tv on or have any audio what so ever on the premises without a licence, kids can't watch movies on Netflix or you tube while they wait for their parents?? , they also questioned their spin room which is new and probably been used twice at the most only has pre recorded videos saved on you tube for people to follow , with none or non commercial background music on and said as long as there is noise coming out , you need a licence.
Any help will be grateful appreciated.
Can someone please let me know where they stand on this so they know for the future when they are ready to go full pelt again, ideally using thr tvs for people to follow exercises on you tube for example, or to do presentations/ trainings using slides as apparently they cant even switch the tv on or have any audio what so ever on the premises without a licence, kids can't watch movies on Netflix or you tube while they wait for their parents?? , they also questioned their spin room which is new and probably been used twice at the most only has pre recorded videos saved on you tube for people to follow , with none or non commercial background music on and said as long as there is noise coming out , you need a licence.
Any help will be grateful appreciated.
Upvote
0
T
The Byre
Unfortunately, the people doing the hounding are agents on commission. If you are not using music in the workplace, you can tell them to F-off.
On the flip-side of course, if you are using commercial music in the workplace, it is only right and proper that you pay for using other people's property.
On the flip-side of course, if you are using commercial music in the workplace, it is only right and proper that you pay for using other people's property.
Upvote
0
Oh yes, I totally agree with that, however its exactly as explained above, so not sure if they will automatically send an invoice on what they have seen, without knowing correct facts, even thought it was explained to them, they said to call them to get a music license as its definitely needed,
But they don't want one and if they can play exercise videos on you tube without one if thats ok (in 2022 when open as pagy gym) if this is allowed or not, because everything they were asking they kept just saying any audio or sound at all you need a licence.
Also they contacted prr prs via chat to tell them to stop calling , they went back on chat as they were still calling and the agent said in the notes it says they went on chat last time to ask for a quote which was not true at all, they merely contacted them to tell them to stop Harassing them.
The last chat they starts quizzing them about the adverts on their page, which again I have mentioned in last thread.
But they don't want one and if they can play exercise videos on you tube without one if thats ok (in 2022 when open as pagy gym) if this is allowed or not, because everything they were asking they kept just saying any audio or sound at all you need a licence.
Also they contacted prr prs via chat to tell them to stop calling , they went back on chat as they were still calling and the agent said in the notes it says they went on chat last time to ask for a quote which was not true at all, they merely contacted them to tell them to stop Harassing them.
The last chat they starts quizzing them about the adverts on their page, which again I have mentioned in last thread.
Upvote
0
Latest Articles
-
Andy Burnham's Manifesto for Small Business, and How It Stacks Up Against Count BinfaceIf all goes to plan (or rather, to Labour's timetable), Andy Burnham...- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
SEO in the Age of AI: What UK Small Businesses Actually Need to KnowTL;DR Search has shifted from "ten blue links" to answer engines, and...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
What Carphone Warehouse, Microsoft and Uber Have in Common: They Started in a DownturnThere's a comforting myth that you need a booming economy to start...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
What Makes a Small Business Actually Sellable?There's a question that a lot of small business owners never think to...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
Why Your Team Keeps Asking the Same Questions (And What to Actually Do About It)Every small business owner knows the moment. You're halfway through...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
