soens

Guitarhacker
With a copyrighted song, it doesn't matter whether you plan to use the song to make money....as in including it on a CD for commercial release, or if you post it to a forum site like our Songs Forum and let a few people hear it for no financial gain..... you still owe the royalties to the folks who own the rights to the song.

Based on what? How many times is it played/listened to? Who keeps track of that if it's a download from my site? Maybe it just sits there and no one ever listens to it. What then?

from HFA, you estimate how many streams and/or downloads and pay based on that per year.  if you end up streaming or downloading much more than you estimated, you have to pay the difference.
 
if it sits there and no one ever listens it doesn't matter, you don't get a refund.  

craigb
I'm still trying to figure out how this works with cover bands (there's a few of those around, eh?).  Besides the live performances, there's demos to get the gigs.  If most of the above were followed, the wouldn't be any cover bands (or tribute bands!). None could afford it.

performance rights organizations (PROs) are different from royalties for streaming/downloading and different from radio play.
 
PROs are paid by the VENUE - or they are supposed to be.  that's why you are supposed to be giving the venue a song list, so they can turn that in to the PRO's.  the PRO's then get their money from the venue for being a live platform for those songs.  this is, I believe, a yearly cost to the venue based on size, attendance, frequency of performances and the songs performed at each performance.
 
most venues under 100 in regular attendance usually "get away with" not paying and without the PROs going after them.  too costly.

Beagle

soens

Guitarhacker
With a copyrighted song, it doesn't matter whether you plan to use the song to make money....as in including it on a CD for commercial release, or if you post it to a forum site like our Songs Forum and let a few people hear it for no financial gain..... you still owe the royalties to the folks who own the rights to the song.

Based on what? How many times is it played/listened to? Who keeps track of that if it's a download from my site? Maybe it just sits there and no one ever listens to it. What then?

from HFA, you estimate how many streams and/or downloads and pay based on that per year.  if you end up streaming or downloading much more than you estimated, you have to pay the difference.
 
if it sits there and no one ever listens it doesn't matter, you don't get a refund.  

Yeah I realized that and changed my post... a little.
 
So it seems the "law" is one-sided then. Hire a GOOD lawyer before anything else.
 
Is there a minimum estimate, or can it be as low as 1?

as just a passing note to an earlier post on made... "Cover Charges" according to my Daughter (degree's in marketing and advertising.) said that yes! The cover charges are the bars way of collect royalties fees. 

soens

Beagle

soens

Guitarhacker
With a copyrighted song, it doesn't matter whether you plan to use the song to make money....as in including it on a CD for commercial release, or if you post it to a forum site like our Songs Forum and let a few people hear it for no financial gain..... you still owe the royalties to the folks who own the rights to the song.

Based on what? How many times is it played/listened to? Who keeps track of that if it's a download from my site? Maybe it just sits there and no one ever listens to it. What then?

from HFA, you estimate how many streams and/or downloads and pay based on that per year.  if you end up streaming or downloading much more than you estimated, you have to pay the difference.
 
if it sits there and no one ever listens it doesn't matter, you don't get a refund.  

Yeah I realized that and changed my post... a little.
 
So it seems the "law" is one-sided then. Hire a GOOD lawyer before anything else.
 
Is there a minimum estimate, or can it be as low as 1?

there is a minimum, or at least there used to be, I don't remember and don't see it with in a quick search of HFA.  it's been a long time since I paid for a cover. (4 or 5 years?)
 
here's some info on the cost of putting a cover on a CD or a digital download, but it doesn't seem to have the streaming info in this section.
 
http://www.harryfox.com/license_music/what_mechanical_royalty_rates.html
 

Streaming is .01 a play. Go to songfile.com
The license is $16 per song plus however many "plays" you wish to buy.
License is good for one year.
 
T

craigb
I'm still trying to figure out how this works with cover bands (there's a few of those around, eh?).  Besides the live performances, there's demos to get the gigs.  If most of the above were followed, the wouldn't be any cover bands (or tribute bands!). None could afford it.

The UK situation is that there is a difference between playing a cover or your own arrangement of someone else's work and releasing or distributing it as a recording.

Live royalties are not paid by the cover performer but come from the fees collected by the Performing Rights Society in exchange for granting licenses to venues to put on live music. So the artist should put in a list of material performed to PRS who then process the royalties. So the venue is paying, not the performer.

Unfortunately many small venues don't bother getting a licence, even though they are supposed to and it can be surprisingly inexpensive. And many musicians don't join PRS, especially at the lower earning end of the market. Which is a pain because some venues are run by the kind of people who don't see why they should pay anything for anything if they can get away with not paying. Including not paying towards the composers of the music that brings income to the venue.

If you write/arrange and perform in public for anything other than private functions PRS membership can be a very good idea. Because if your list of songs or works performed includes ones you have registered as your original work or arrangement, PRS will pay you the live royalty rate when you perform them.

Recordings are dealt with completely differently by the Mechanical Copyright Protection Society. Many pressing plants, especially the big ones, will want to know you've MCPS clearance for all the material on the master before they commence work. Including licences that cover your own original work, this being because while you may have written the song you may have assigned the publishing rights elsewhere.

And digital distribution is different again.

This is why good music industry lawyers are scarce and tend to be expensive, but money spent with them to get a recording or publishing deal checked over before signing is often a good investment, or at least get your Musician's Union or Association to give the contract a once-over to check you don't need an expensive lawyer.

No-one likes the lawyers, but the horror stories of bands from the 60s and 70s who sold shedloads of LPs and did hundreds of gigs only to end up with nothing or years of litigation to get what they are owed have at bottom the same moral. The industry is full of sharks at every level and good legal advice at the start can save a lot of anguish later.

Guitarhacker
 
For most people like us... the so called "Fair Use" clause does NOT apply. It's primarily for folks like my wife, who's a teacher and might need to use a copyrighted song in a classroom context in a lesson.

 
Technically much use of copyrighted material as a presentation in the classroom is not covered under "fair use" in the US at least. Such use is a statutory right under 17 U.S. Code § 110, where it is characterized as an "exemption" to other protections of the copyright, and is pretty strictly defined there. Mostly these determinations are based on the context in which copyrighted work is presented, the most salient of which is that it is pretty much limited to face to face teaching in recognized learning institutions limited to a presentation to a defined group of students. 
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/110
 
Fair use is a concept that is largely a result of court decisions, but has been codified under 17 U.S. Code § 107 where it is characterized as a "limitation" on the exclusive rights of the author. The criteria for fair use in the statute pretty much echo the body of legal decisions when it was added. The biggest difference between fair use and the classroom exemption is that the fair use focuses on how the material is used rather than where, and it is usually much less certain and much more limited in the amount and scope of what can be used. Prior to the Lenz v Universal Music Corp. decision courts have treated fair use solely as an "affirmative defense" to a charge of infringement, meaning that if the defendant could demonstrate to a court that his limited use of copyrighted material satisfied the criteria for fair use he was off the hook. Lenz recognized in part that fair use is a statutory right, not just an affirmative defense, but that is probably more of a distinction than a real difference in practice. 
 
The statute says only that in deciding what constitutes fair use the user and ultimately the courts must decide based on:
"(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."
 
And no, there is no simple explanation of what those mean, although there are a lot of examples to be found at http://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html; click "search cases" if you really want to kill some time adding to your confusion. If you want to find out for sure, use copyrighted work and claim fair use in court when you get sued. 
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107
 
 
 

Beagle

soens
Is there a minimum estimate, or can it be as low as 1?

there is a minimum, or at least there used to be, I don't remember and don't see it with in a quick search of HFA.  it's been a long time since I paid for a cover. (4 or 5 years?)

Here 'tis: "HFA licenses a minimum of 100 interactive streams.... A license for fewer than 100 interactive streams must be obtained directly from the publisher."
 
Google "cover song royalties" for loads of info.

On the other hand, if you create a parody of someone else's song, like Weird Al, you normally don't need a mechanical license as they are usually covered under the fair use act. Al apparently goes out of his way to clear it with the original artist anyway.
 
Parody
1 : a literary or musical work in which the style of an author or work is closely imitated for comic effect or in ridicule
 
According to borgus.com:
"When producing parodies it is acceptable under US law to use bits of the original show to enhance the comedic nature of your new creation.  This includes music and other identifying elements.  It does not violate copyright law, as long as it doesn't damage or harm the reputation of the original or try to pose as the original."
 
"under common law, the fair use doctrine, and the decisions of the Supreme Court, use of copyrighted material in parody is necessary, acceptable, and legal."