CopyrightCommunity

Songs vs Sound Recordings: Know the difference

2010-09-08T18:43:18Z

Two types of copyrights routinely cause frustration and confusion for many church leaders striving to honor copyright compliance. U.S. Copyright Law allows for eight specific types of works of authorship that can be copyrighted , and two of these are frequently misunderstood. They are music (or songs) – including any accompanying words, and sound recordings – aural reproduction of some material (music, speech or sound), which may or may not itself be copyrighted.

It’s understandable that folks struggle to separate the two. For example, when your worship team needs to make copies of “God of Wonders” as recorded by Paul Baloche for rehearsal purposes, it’s a common misconception that you just need one license to do so. In fact, the song (written by Marc Byrd and Steve Hindalong) is a music copyright and owned by a the songwriter or publisher, in this case New Spring, Meaux Mercy and Storm Boy Music. Paul Baloche’s specific arrangement, rendition and recording of the song is a sound recording copyright and it is owned by the record label, in this case, Integrity Music. The music copyright is usually owned by the songwriter or one or more publishers, and the sound recording is owned by a separate party–the artist or more often a record company. The owner of the sound recording can usually be determined by locating the P symbol on the back of the CD. Note: the owner of the sound recording is often NOT the owner of the song.

It’s very important to grasp this basic distinction between songs and sound recordings to plan for obtaining licenses and paying royalties, as it impacts a variety of types of uses, exclusive rights, licensing types and fees.

Here are some examples of products and uses that may involve clearances for the rights for the music and the sound recording:

Making of audio recordings: This involves the “reproduction rights” to mechanically reproduce the music and the sound recording. The license for the music or song is called a “mechanical license,” and it must be obtained from the owner or administrator of the song. The compulsory rate for mechanical licenses is set by the U.S. Copyright Board and is currently $.091 per song per unit manufactured and distributed for up to 5:00 minutes or $.0175 per minute for over 5:00 minutes. This rate and license applies to both physical product (CDs) or audio digital files for download, which is called a DPD mechanical license. If you are making your own original recording of the song, you only need to obtain a mechanical and/or DPD license. However, if you’re reproducing the song directly from a third party recording (lifting it or burning it), then you also need to obtain a “master use license” from the record company, and the average royalty fee for the master is $.25 per track per unit. Record labels may choose to deny the master use license, so it is important to obtain the license prior to reproducing the audio track.

Synchronizing music to audiovisual products (DVDs or download files): This involves the “reproduction rights” to synchronize the music and the sound recording to your own original audiovisual product. A synchronization license must be obtained from the song owner(s), and the rates vary from publisher to publisher with an average of $.25 per song per unit (DVD or download), with minimum fees of $40-60/song ($150-500 for secular publishers); the master sync fees are $60-100/song ($350-$500 secular labels).

Streaming music online: This involves the “performance rights” to publicly perform via the internet or by digital transmission the song and the sound recording. Like the audio recording and audiovisual product, you must obtain separate licenses for each: synchronization license from the song owner, and a synchronization master license from the record company.

Performance rights organizations (PROs) represent the song internet performance rights on behalf of songwriters and publishers; ASCAP, BMI and SESAC in the U.S. You can obtain a blanket license directly from each PRO, or the one-stop WORSHIPcast license for churches and ministries, which covers 17 million songs represented by all three PRO songs and costs about $750-900 per year. These licenses do not, however, cover the digital sound recording performance rights, which must be obtained directly from the owner of each recording, or through SoundExchange, which licenses and collects royalties for digital sound recordings for internet satellite radio (such as SIRIUS XM), internet radio, cable TV music channels and similar platforms for streaming sound recordings.

Twitter Digest for 2010-09-05

2010-09-05T06:48:00Z

Good question about the copyright issues surrounding a church showing a copyrighted film in a drive-in movie… http://fb.me/FCwmS8SM #
Copyright Basics for Christian self-publishers http://ow.ly/2wOAo #copyright #
Last week’s copyright news « CopyrightCommunity http://ow.ly/2wKAN #copyright #
"We want to show the move "To Save A Life" on a somewhat big screen…so what are the copyright issues on this….what needs to be done?"… #
Name Wars: George Lucas Forces Jedi Mind To Rename Itself http://ow.ly/2wTvV #copyright #
Mobile Phones Increase Evangelism Potential http://ow.ly/2wTyi #
Public Interactive imploring syndicated radio shows to register with SoundExchange http://ow.ly/2xijZ #copyright #
If audio-only radio gets hit with a royalty, will audio/visual venues be next? http://ow.ly/2xiey #copyright #
$89,000,000 judgment in World of Warcraft copyright infringement case http://ow.ly/2xjAg #copyright #
'Cruel Summer' campaign video removed from Vimeo http://ow.ly/2xiuT #copyright #
NYTimes.com Connects With Facebook; Users Must Opt In http://ow.ly/2xiAA – Is your church using a third party login? #
Commerce Secretary rails against 'scourge of music piracy' http://ow.ly/2xixw #copyright #
Copyrighting Fashion: Who Gains? http://ow.ly/2xjEZ #copyright #
Jimmy Fallon, Bananarama and church video productions « CopyrightCommunity http://ow.ly/2xzLp #copyright #
A Guide to the Basics of Internet Streaming and Digital Media Legal Issues http://ow.ly/2xZTf #copyright #
RT Jimmy Fallon, Bananarama and church video productions « CopyrightCommunity http://ow.ly/2xZC8 #copyright #

Jimmy Fallon, Bananarama and church video productions

2010-09-01T03:33:38Z

What do Jimmy Fallon and Bananrama have to do with your church’s video productions? They were both involved in recent examples of how failing to plan for copyright issues can minimize the value of the videos on which you spend so much time and effort. In Jimmy Fallon’s case, he and NBC creates some sensational productions for the Emmys, that they could not put on the web because of poor planning. In Bananrama’s case, videos containing their song “Cruel Summer” were pulled from campaign websites for the same reason. Let’s take a look at what happened in each case.

As PaidContent reported:

Host Jimmy Fallon knocked it out of the park with an energetic Glee-esque opener to Bruce Springsteen’s Born to Run, a mixed pre-taped and live-action number featuring Jane Lynch, Glee kids, Jon Hamm, Tina Fey, and a cameo by Tim Gunn that quickly got social media buzz. The clip should have been online before the next commercial break for NBC to take advantage of that buzz—and to take ownership before others started passing it around.

Another number paying tribute to the end of 24, Law & Orderand Lost, part of it with Fallon channeling Elton John, seemed destined to catch on, at least with fans of those shows. But @NBCLA tweeted back when I mentioned that the videos has yet to post: “Wish we could, but we have restrictions on what we can post online.” A spokeswoman later suggested by e-mail that music rights are the issue.

Let’s read between the lines and see what happened here. Television and radio stations buy licenses from ASCAP, BMI and SESAC that give them permission to broadcast their performances of copyrighted songs. So Jimmy’s skits are covered right? Well, yes they are covered for transmission on television because NBC affiliates have their performance licenses that cover their television and cable broadcasts. On the other (more important) hand, those licenses do not cover their distribution on the web. Because they did not secure the web rights up front, NBC has been unable to put some of those performances online because they were unable (or unwilling to pay the asking price) to secure licensing for internet distribution. As a result, they wasted on opportunity to redistribute some important parts of their show.

In the Bananarama case, the campaign of New Hampshire Congressional candidate Sean Mahoney had to quickly take down a campaign video that used their song, “Cruel Summer”. Fortunately, the error was caught by the campaign team prior to a action from the copyright owner, but the video had to be re-edited, the launch was delayed and somebody looked bad for exposing the operation to risk to its reputation and finances. An interesting point was noted by Copyrights & Campaigns:

It’s notable that of the three recent copyright lawsuits involving campaigns of which I’m aware – Jackson Browne v. John McCain,Don Henley v. Chuck DeVore, and David Byrne v. Charlie Crist – all involved individual songwriters as plaintiffs, not publishers or record labels. Corporations simply want campaigns to knock off their unlicensed uses. Individual artists — who often have strong political views of their own, and strong feelings about unwanted uses of their material — tend to demand a pound of flesh.

How can you avoid these problems? Plan in advance and be certain that you can obtain the proper license for the copyrighted content that you wish to use:

Catalog the songs that you wish to use in your videoand identify its owner(s).
Consider where the video will be played and determine what performance licenses are required:
- In person? (Churches and ministries can get a blanket performance license for public performances from ASCAP, BMI and SESAC here.)
- On TV? (TV stations have their own licenses with ASCAP, BMI and SESAC)
- On the web? (Churches and ministries can get a blanket performance license for internet performances from ASCAP, BMI and SESAC here.)
If you are making a video using a copyrighted song, you will need a sync license as well. (Read about sync licenses in “Legal Creation of CDs and DVDs”.)

Last week’s copyright news

2010-08-30T14:49:03Z

Copyright deadlines for your Christmas projects – http://eepurl.com/TDrI #
RIAA: U.S. copyright law ‘isn’t working’ – http://ow.ly/2tTvu #copyright #
Bankrupt Playlist.com Owes Labels $28 Million http://ow.ly/2uG0I #copyright #
Author of poem says embroidered pillows violate copyright http://ow.ly/2uOeM #copyright #
Tony Woodlief: Curse of the Copyright Holders and Their Fee-Seeking Lawyers http://ow.ly/2uSrV #copyright #
Could ‘Cruel Summer’ campaign video lead to a cruel copyright lawsuit? http://ow.ly/2vvse #copyright #

Twitter question: YouTube vids on my church’s site?

2010-08-19T02:19:11Z

Just got this question on a common subject:

@CopyrightSolver what’s the protocol on using YouTube videos on our church’s website?

YouTube is just a massive Pandora’s box of copyright issues. First of all, almost all of the videos including copyrighted materials that are uploaded to YouTube are done so without getting proper permission. While you can find a clip from just about any movie or TV show on YouTube, almost none of those clips are legal. As a result, when you are putting those videos on your site, you are just doubling down on the original poster’s copyright infringement.

In addition to the problem with the unlicensed video, there is also a problem with any copyrighted music that may be playing in those videos. We know of one non-profit Christian radio station that was contacted by one of the performing rights organizations (PROs) about music videos that they had on their site through a YouTube widget. The PRO didn’t care about the videos being played, but they sure cared about the music that was being played in them.

Stay away from putting YouTube videos on your website unless you created the video and know that you have gotten all the required permissions.

Best Buy shuts down “God Squad” on trademark violation

2010-08-17T13:11:35Z

The altering of corporate logos to convey Christian messages has become fairly commonplace, with altered logos showing up on t-shirts, in sermons and now on cars. A Wisconsin priest recently ran afoul of Best Buy for unauthorized use of the trademarked logo for their Geek Squad service. As the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinal reported:

“Best Buy, the Minnesota-based electronics retailing giant, recently sent Strand a cease-and-desist letter concerning his car. The black Volkswagen Beetle has oval door stickers that read “God Squad” in a logo very similar to the black, white and orange logos on black-and-white Geek Squad Beetles driven by the computer and electronics trouble-shooters.”

Just as permission is required to use a copyrighted song, permission is also required to use a trademarked logo. The odds of getting this permission go down when you start talking about altering the logo. Owners of trademarks care very much where their trademark is displayed and they don’t want it to be altered in any way. BestBuy couched their disapproval this way:

“This was a really difficult thing for us to do because we appreciate what Father Strand is trying to accomplish with his mission. But at the end of the day, it’s bad precedent to let some groups violate our trademark while pursuing others,” she said in an e-mail.

Stay on the safe side and create your own iconography. If you want to use a trademarked logo, be certain to get permission, but keep in mind that requests to alter that logo will likely be denied.

Twitter Digest for 2010-08-15

2010-08-15T07:48:00Z

KC blogr shares a 'cease and desist' from Paramount for Torrent sharing. http://ow.ly/2mTKf #copyright #DMCA #
Remember where those royalty payments are going… http://fb.me/tDYMcnyl #
Royalty payments and "the little guy" http://ow.ly/2n3G0 #copyright #
RT @CopyrightSolver: KC blogr shares a 'cease and desist' from Paramount for Torrent sharing. http://ow.ly/2mTKf #copyright #DMCA #
The Music-Copyright Enforcers – NYTimes.com http://ow.ly/2nDvZ #copyright #
When Religion Meets New Media: On Islamic Apps in a Mobile world http://ow.ly/2nK8s #
Universal pulls vids from MTV after licensing talks break down http://ow.ly/2nM5j #copyright #
MGM Resorts suing Italian mattress maker for copyright violation http://ow.ly/2nM9y #copyright #
Artists And Labels May Finally Earn Performance Royalties http://ow.ly/2o4JB #copyright #
Churches: Literary works are protected by copyright too http://ow.ly/2oe6X #copyright #
Should Christian Music Artists Have a Rider? blog http://ow.ly/2o4F9 #worship #
"Hey, Ayatollah, leave those kids alone!" « CopyrightCommunity http://ow.ly/2okZ5 #copyright #
http://fb.me/CAvcn55O #
The Librarian of Congress's "news" http://ow.ly/2oSlF #copyright #
A Short Explanation of SoundExchange and Why It is Important « Music Business Heretic http://ow.ly/2p06B #copyright #
Fashion design as a copyright protected work? http://ow.ly/2p7Y4 #copyright #

The Librarian of Congress’s “news”

2010-08-12T20:20:49Z

There has been a lot of confusion about a recent report released by the Librarian of Congress in which it was stated:

(1) Motion pictures on DVDs that are lawfully made and acquired and that are protected by the Content Scrambling System when circumvention is accomplished solely in order to accomplish the incorporation of short portions of motion pictures into new works for the purpose of criticism or comment, and where the person engaging in circumvention believes and has reasonable grounds for believing that circumvention is necessary to fulfill the purpose of the use in the following instances:

(i) Educational uses by college and university professors and by college and university film and media studies students;
(ii) Documentary filmmaking;
(iii) Noncommercial videos.

This report has been misinterpreted by some as potentially granting new copying, performance and distribution rights to churches. This is incorrect.

Only Congress makes copyright law. This report that was filed by the Librarian of Congress is mandated by Section 1201(a)(1) of copyright law and is limited in scope to copyright protection and it does provide any new exemptions. Instead, it allows circumvention of copy protection software under some fair uses. There are no new performance or distribution rights granted by this report at all.

‎”Hey, Ayatollah, leave those kids alone!”

2010-08-11T21:10:57Z

One of the most popular concepts considered by worship teams is to rework popular songs with Christian lyrics. Rewriting the lyrics of a song is creating a new “derivative work” based on the original song. Creating a derivative work is one of the exclusive rights of a copyright owner, and creating a derivative work requires permission from the owner of the original work. All of that is a long way of saying that you need permission from a song’s owner to rewrite its lyrics.

Owners of songs usually don’t like to grant permission to change the lyrics of those songs. There are a variety of reasons for this, from artistic integrity to protection of the original copyright. Churches and ministries who want to rewrite song lyrics should consider either singing the song as written or writing their own songs.

The permission to rewrite songs is so infrequently granted that the media takes notice of the rare occasions that this permission is granted. Today was one of those rare occasions when Pink Floyd front man, Roger Waters granted permission to a Canadian band to tweak the lyrics of “Another Brick in the Wall” in protest of the Iranian government.

Pink Floyd founder Roger Waters has no qualms about giving a Canadian band permission to tinker with his band’s classic “Another Brick in the Wall” for use as an anthem for young Iranians.

Toronto-based band Blurred Vision, fronted by two exiled Iranian brothers, has reworked the lyrics to express the resentment felt by young people toward the government of Iran, where it’s illegal to play rock music. One well-known verse was changed to “Hey, Ayatollah, leave those kids alone!”

Churches: Literary works are protected by copyright too

2010-08-11T17:11:50Z

Nearly 50% of U.S. Protestant churches (about 135,000) optimize websites as a powerful tool for outreach and communicating with their members. The Internet provides an effective platform, making churches more visible to their community, as well as vulnerable to possible copyright and privacy violations.

Most churches are aware of the need to secure permissions to use music, images and video. Fewer are aware of the need to get permission to use literary works. If these works are copyrighted, then the owner must be contacted in most cases for authorization to use of their work on the Internet. It’s extremely easy to copy and paste text found online from a multitude of sources. Just remember that accessibility and ease of use do not constitute “fair use,” or legal use of copyrighted material.

A compelling example of website risks was recently reported this summer when Las Vegas media company, Righthaven, began suing sites for reposting articles (a literary work) belonging to their clients. Righthaven CEO, Steve Gibson’s vision is to monetize news content on the backend, by scouring the internet for infringing copies of his client’s articles, then suing and relying on the harsh penalties in the Copyright Act — up to $150,000 for a single infringement — to elicit quick settlements. Righthaven has filed at least 80 federal lawsuits against website operators and individual bloggers since their formation in March. Righthaven’s strategy to zero in on infringement of literary works (articles, essays, short stories, poems, novels, etc.) is an indicator that some companies view copyright lawsuits as “big business.”

Online posting of literary works is recently under fire, but other copyright types like music and video have been the target of lawsuits for several years. The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) sued about 20,000 thousand file sharers over five years, and the U.S. Copyright Group, a coalition of independent film producers, has already launched up to 20,000 federal lawsuits against Bit Torrent users accused of unlawfully sharing movies.

Navigating Internet copyright issues can present an obstacle course of complex and frustrating problems for churches today. Following some simple guidelines will help equip church leaders with foundational steps to establish procedures and policies that will minimize their liabilities. (Be sure to visit our education center to for more information).

It is vital that church leaders recognize the widespread and aggressive legal efforts of copyright owners groups to contain illegal use of their intellectual properties. Establishing basic guidelines, policies and procedures will protect churches from potential risks. Benjamin Franklin– himself a printer by trade–offered sage advice, “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”