Forum Moderators: not2easy
I've been reading up about copyright but I still have some doubts about whether to take the plunge on using sound clips and whether my use will constitute 'fair use'. The time and hassle involved in getting permission for each review would just about kill the site.
I think I have a valid case for claiming fair use because the clips will be short, low quality, not be any substitute for the original, and only for the purpose of review. The problem is that 'fair use' is assessed in court and I can't afford to pay a lawyer to defend me for what is little more than a hobby website (it does make money but not much). The possibility of being taken to court rather than just asked to remove the sound clips is my worry and what introduces real risk into this plan.
Any advice welcomed.
For web pages where the visitor can not select the song being played, and the music will be performed less than 500,000 times and there is no direct income from the playing of the music (subscription fees for example) then license to play the music for 1 year would cost you around $250 US.
You can get the licensing forms from www.ascap.com and www.bmi.com depending on which organization represents the artists you are talking about. They both have fee calculators on their sites, PDF versions of their licensing request forms, and contact e-mails for questions.
I asked ASCAP if the fee was per song and was informed that the $250 is for a 1 year license to perform any of their 8 million songs, not a specific song.
You may be suprised how little it will cost you to license music for your site and how happy they are to answer any questions you have. They are very willing to work with you to make sure you have the licensing info that you need.
Generally speaking, one is not allowed to take the "value" of a song without permission, and sometimes that value is found even in a three-second clip.
But the site doesn't really help in saying what you "can" do.
Thanks for the advice and the pointers to ASCAP. But in my case it is clips of specific music tracks and not a webcast that I want to make available. I have a live365 radio station but I don't want to say to people 'to hear 3 tracks from this album please listen to a 3 hour looped webcast'.
If I was very rich then I would go ahead because I'm pretty sure I could win under 'fair use' in court. Since I'm not rich, I have to worry.
Another question might be, will any organisation notice that I have these clips? If they do will they just email me and ask me to take them off?
I ran webcasts for ages of dj's
Have a link for copyright violation reporting so people can reach you easily enough and you should be fine. But its still not legal.
the DMCA site has some really good info on how to prevent getting sued.
Since you are using the clips for first amendment protected commentary, and you are taking steps to limit yourself to fair use, you are almost certainly safe from losing a lawsuit. What you are not safe from is having a lawsuit filed against you.
Find an IP attorney that has some experience in defending Fair Use cases, and get an opinion from them. Then you will already have a connection with them when an infringement case is filed against you.
Or get an ASCAP license and use their clips under their license, and also work on the assumption that the non-ascap artists are a lot more lenient about fair use, otherwise they would have joined up in the shakedown racket that is ASCAP membership.
$250 for 500,000 plays = $0.0005/play
?
You can play any of 8 million songs in part or whole as long as the visitor does not have a "jukebox" type of selection control. (That's another license)
All ASCAP and BMI are doing is collecting the royalties for the song writers, producers and performers. Would you rather track down each one individually?
maybe cj should start one
All ASCAP and BMI are doing is collecting the royalties for the song writers, producers and performers. Would you rather track down each one individually?
No, in general they are NOT collecting the royalties for those whose songs you have been playing. They collect the money and pay out divided up by what certain select radio stations are playing. And there isn't an alternative or NPR radio station in the bunch.
If an NPR station plays a Leo Kottke track, he gets no money from those organisations for that play, because they do their selective sampling of "music" stations and some live venues. The royalty for his song is given to Britney Speers.
As for the shakedown racket, talk to any club owners that limit their playlists to songs that are non-ascap. One I know of that only does live music, restrict the performers to only playing songs that are in the public domain or that they themselves hold the copyright on.
ASCAP will still threaten legal action unless you purchase a license. And the license is cheaper than even an inexpensive lawsuit.
[dnalounge.com...]
Like I said, this guy is not a lawyer, he is a club owner that had to go through this. For those of you that do not recognize the name, he was one of the first progrogrammers at Mosaic which later became netscape.
Back to the topic... the point is that it is not a huge expense to pay the royalties to put the music on your site. I pay more for hosting than it would cost me to put music on one of my sites legally.
If you are looking for an Internet/Website license for music you get that through BMI or ASCAP. Mechanical (copying) and Engineering (editing, mixing) licences are separate and are from other agencies.
I think you will be forced to fold as soon as a cease and desist letter threatening $1 billion in damages hits your desk. Even if the law is on your side it doesn't matter; RIAA will make sure that the case lingers for years and only a few deep pockets and business models can afford that.
So even if ASCAP is trying to "shakedown" clubs and other businesses, that still doesn't explain why someone shouldn't pay royalties.
If they are using the music in a manner that does not require paying royalties, then they should not have to pay royalties. Get it?
Fair Use is royalty free. Playing only songs that are not ASCAP or BMI should also keep you clear from having to pay these organisations. But they will sue you anyway.
These organisations use the threat of legal action to get royalties they are not entitled to, then they distribute it, in most cases, to the copyright holder of music that isn't even what is being played.
See, the record companies, that are usually the ones holding the copyrights, join up. They don't care which artist gets credited becasue they own a lot of the big names that will get credited. The record companies get their money either way. The smaller artists that get more play outside the top 40 stations get zip.
(I wish there was an agency that would help me "shakedown" royalties from people using my work without permission.)
Yeah, but how would you feel if every time they did it, the royalties went to Steven King?
I pay more for hosting than it would cost me to put music on one of my sites legally.
But fair use for commentary does not "legally" require any license.
While buying the license is certainly the easy way out, and the one that I would probably take myself in the same situation, it does not make the actions by these organisations right.
All the same, I think the warnings are valid. I can limit my liability by using my limited company as owner of the website and the fact I have email or written permission to broadcast for most of the music. But maybe I should just accept that it will all end with a dreaded 'cease and desist' letter.
you should follow the logic, it's very simple. The artists barely get any money from these fees.
Read this from Courtney Love (when she was relatively sober I guess): [dir.salon.com...]
Courtney Love does the math
The controversial singer takes on record label profits, Napster and "sucka VCs."
