Live royalites

[Daybreaker]

Ok I have a question here that's been burning a hole in my mind for a while now. I've heard several bands say that they don't play old songs live anymore because they "don't want to pay the old record label for playing our songs."

What exactly is the process on this?

Like say Helloween busts out I Want Out live, what does Noise get a check from Weiki when the tours over for thirty cents each time a Keeper song is played?

This must get pretty hectic for some bands that have a new label every release. Although I guess if the old ones went bankrupt then it's a field day! Debut album front to back and back to front!

 

[nailz]

Jesus, is that true? A band has to pay money to play songs they WROTE? That is the most rediculious thing I've ever heard in my LIFE.

 

[BlindPanzer]

I think that only applies to something being distributed such as a live albumn or a live dvd. For shows they can play anything without paying. At least I think thats how it works.

 

[Braxil]

I thought this only applied to recording live performances, I could be wrong though. It doesn't make sense for this to be the case, otherwise having a cover band would more or less illegal, which clearly isn't the case.

 

[Daybreaker]

I guess it might all depend on the record label and the type of contract the band signed. I really doubt say, The End Records is gonna hunt down Blood Promise if they ever bust out old Lilitu songs. But if a label decides to be a dick about things and have the clout, the money, the legal forces, and the contract with the artist's name on the dotted line signing away (what "rights" does this fall under, publishing, compositional, or something else?) then they could.

I mentioned Helloween because I remember back around the Better Than Raw era reading interviews about how come they don't play more Keeper songs and the words in quotes was the answer. The band really had no intentions on putting out a live release since High Live was issued recently so I don't think Weiki was talking about that aspect. Since then I've heard that statement pop up here and there and just got curious about it.

 

[Angrafan]

any band can play whatever they want live! Really, they can play any song from ANY artist.. with no need of an authorization...

Royalty would come into play only if they were to record and release the song.

 

[SyXified]

any band can play whatever they want live! Really, they can play any song from ANY artist.. with no need of an authorization...

Royalty would come into play only if they were to record and release the song.

Bingo.

As long as you are not recording and then selling the recording of a live performance, anyone can play anything that has been published.

the Performance Rights Organizations (ASCAP, BMI, SESAC) handle the distribution of royalties based on census data of performances in venues, on the radio, and in any other performance capacity available. Joining is free, an artist only joins one, and they cut you a check based on the frequency of your works being performed by you and anyone else (obviously taking some percentage for themselves for the services provided).

Now, the publisher of a song gets half of the artist royalty income, and often times that publisher is the record label. But, not playing your old songs won't put a dent in what they are making off of those songs, because the income in that vein is coming from all the bands covering your music and the radio play the songs get. Your own performances are comparatively a drop in the bucket. Plus any dent you put in on the labels end would equally be reflected on your end. So any band who says they don't play their old material for that reason are either confused or lying.

 

[Harvester]

It's different in Europe than in the States. You actually are suppose to fill out a form with your setlist in advance of a show and include any cover songs so that a fee is paid to the original artist. I don't know who pays the fee, the club or the band. Perhaps Claus can shed some further light on this.

Glenn

 

[kittybeast]

otherwise having a cover band would more or less illegal, which clearly isn't the case.

I read this the other day:

Written by Brandon Daviet
Published February 24, 2007

The details of this are just starting to come to light but it seems that the members of Led Zeppelin and Van Halen have reached a new low in both human behavior and base capitalistic greed.

Colorado’s Vail Daily is reporting that Van Halen and Led Zeppelin are suing the Vail nightclub 8150, and its owner Steven Kovacik, for allowing bands to perform cover versions of the bands' collective songs. The plaintiffs are suing for ten counts of copyright infringement and, according to court documents, are asking for as much as $30,000 per song in damages.

For the record, I’ve been to 8150 and, besides being in a popular ski-town, it is the same as any other live music club in the country. I’m not sure at this point why 8150 is being singled out but I’ve met the club's owner and he seems like a nice guy. I hope his life and business isn’t ruined because of this. If the great Hunter S. Thompson were still alive I’d be exploring every available avenue to get word of this to him. He would be appalled.

That said, any music fan knows that any serious gigging band cuts their teeth on cover songs and playing them in a live setting is par for the course. I can’t even begin to express my anger over this move. You know what, fuck it, I’m going to try.

First, I don’t condone stealing music. I completely understand that a band's songs are their livelihood and represent countless hours of hard work. I'm also aware that you are supposed to obtain a license to play covers in your live set.

In fact, rules requires you apply for permission from either BMI or ASCAP to perform covers. Now, this makes perfect sense if you are a tribute band like Helles Belles, the well respected, all female AC/DC tribute band, or a similar band making their living off performing music they didn't have a hand in writing. Yet, suing a young band that writes their own songs for covering one, or even two, of your songs is just pointless. Again the common theme here has to be greed and it tarnishes everything the rock and roll ethic ever stood for.

But consider the fact that if you hear a cover song at a club you might like it enough to go out and buy the album. I think playing a cover is a tribute, much like a toast, and suing a band for doing it is like shooting yourself in the foot.

This law suit is akin to charging your little brother before you give him advice on how to pick up girls. Rock and Roll is supposed to be a brotherhood of sorts and a look back at the history of these bands show they played plenty of covers in their early days.

Playing covers is a right of passage and there is no physical exchange of goods involved. This boils down to one thing, greed. Have these musicians’ vices gotten so out of hand that they have to stoop to this level. If you are a music fan, and especially a musician, I strongly urge you to consider what is going on here. Next, these guys will be trying to charge you for sharing oxygen with them at concerts.

Seriously, I wonder did Zeppelin pay royalties on all the blues tunes they “borrowed” from and did Van Halen pay for all the performances of “Pretty Woman” they churned out while they were playing shitholes on the Sunset Strip. I am willing to bet my left nut they didn’t.

Now, I already thought, despite the great music they have made, that Eddie Van Halen is a drunken cad and Jimmy Page is a lazy addict but that's forgivable. It goes with the musical territory. But this lawsuit is the equivalent of these guys pissing on their fans while raping their mothers in the ass. This is a great violation of the sanctity of rock and roll and proves that money is truly the root of all evil.

I hope this story turns out to be false or has more reasoning behind it than it appears to have right now, but it looks like the Vail Daily did their research. If it is true, I can tell you neither of these bands and any other bands that do the same, will ever see another dime from me.

I was saving my money for the rumored Van Halen tour but I think I’ll buy Police tickets instead. In light of this, that pompous ass Sting seems like Mother Teresa compared to Eddie Van Halen and his merry band of co-plaintiffs. http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/02/24/200714.php

 

[Claus / Intromental]

It's different in Europe than in the States. You actually are suppose to fill out a form with your setlist in advance of a show and include any cover songs so that a fee is paid to the original artist. I don't know who pays the fee, the club or the band. Perhaps Claus can shed some further light on this.

The fee will be paid by the club - each club pays a certain amount of money per year to the copyright association in their country (I think the amount is based on number of spectators per year?). Those monies will be distributed to the artists who have composed those songs played - example: Manticora performs 10 songs of which 9 is their own original material, and one is an Iron Maiden song. When Manticora plays that club they have the venue-owner or booking-agent sign the paper where it states which songs have been played, and Manticora sends the document to the copyright association in that country (in Denmark that would be Koda, in Germany GEMA, in Sweden Stim, in Italy Siae, and so on). Then the copyright association will pay for 9 songs to Manticora and for one song to Iron Maiden (via Sanctuary, who is the publisher for Iron Maiden).

Actually, most of what SyXified said applies to European standards as well.

c.

 

[Claus / Intromental]

I've heard several bands say that they don't play old songs live anymore because they "don't want to pay the old record label for playing our songs." Like say Helloween busts out I Want Out live, what does Noise get a check from Weiki when the tours over for thirty cents each time a Keeper song is played?

This applies to the rule that Helloween used to have a publisher (I don't think it was Noise - I think it was LIMB who were their manager AND publisher back then?) for those albums.... When performing songs from those albums, the copyright performance royalty is being paid to their publisher who cuts his share out before giving the band their part. Most publishing deals these days are 50/50 splits on performance royalty - so Limb or Noise would get 50% and Helloween 50% (after the national copyright association of the country in which the concert takes place have taken their share).

c.

 

[eaeolian]

The fee will be paid by the club - each club pays a certain amount of money per year to the copyright association in their country (I think the amount is based on number of spectators per year?).

That's *supposed* to happen in the U.S., too.

 

[Bodhi]

I think it even depends on where the Copyright is.

I mean, if a record label PRODUCES an album they sometimes ask you to SELL them the whole rights package (or a percentage of it) , you only own the paternity of the work (or a percentage of the rights).

If this is done, i think that if you don't own the rights of your music is like if you perform another band's music, someone (the organization says Claus from Intromental) will pay the rights to the owner, in the case they sold it all to the record label.... well to the record label itself.

But i'm not ABSOLUTELY sure of this on live performances.

 

[Daybreaker]

Thanks for helping me out on that one Claus. I'm glad to get some straight info rather than have me go around regurgitating crap that just sounds like I know what I'm talking about and then run into someone that would school me and make me their bitch

 

[Claus / Intromental]

Thanks for helping me out on that one Claus. I'm glad to get some straight info rather than have me go around regurgitating crap that just sounds like I know what I'm talking about and then run into someone that would school me and make me their bitch

Hehehe ... yes Ben, you're are truly my bitch (a big one, but nevertheless a bitch).



c.

 

[Daybreaker]

Hey man just cos you were on the outside of the spoonage fest last year at the apartment doesn't mean anything... it just... happened. You know, like one of those spontaneous, "hey I wonder what else I can fit in my ass cleavage" type of things. teehee


hahah horrible awkward innuendo aside I do have one last question about this whole publishing / live royalties deal.

Since Helloween were starting out when they signed to Noise and their publisher through Limb I'm assuming they didn't have that much ammo backing them in their corner for the contract. When bands get larger and have multiple labels banging down their door how often can the artist pull a label's strings and get a contract that prevents stuff like that from happening?

RUMOR ALERT: I heard that when Metallica renewed their contract with Elektra sometime in the mid to late nineties they secured a landmark deal that gave them not a buck or buck 0 five for every cd sold but upwards of THREE dollars per unit sold, including sales of their back catalog that Elektra picked up.

So, if this is true, what types of uber combos can an artist deliver so that the label will play ball with them to get something like that?

 

[Bryan316]

Ya know, the more I live on this planet, the less fun it gets.

I wanna quit playing music in my car just in case Eddie VH drives by and tries to tax me for playing air guitar to Eruption.

 

[Diamond45]

This brings up an interesting question...

I know here in the US, radio stations pay licenses to BMI, ASCAP and SESEC to play copyrighted music on the radio.

This is fine for American and Canadian acts who publish through a publishing agency connected to one of the above license companies.

But what if an American radio station (over the air, not Internet) wanted to play some European power or progressive metal? I know that Firewind published their songs through ASCAP, but most European metal CDs that I own don't say anything about publishing agencies, European or otherwise.

So for example, if I owned a radio station in the US and wanted to play some metal that wasn't published through BMI, ASCAP, etc. - what would I have to do to be allowed to play it?

Just curious...

 

[Stingray11214]

This brings up an interesting question...

I know here in the US, radio stations pay licenses to BMI, ASCAP and SESEC to play copyrighted music on the radio.

This is fine for American and Canadian acts who publish through a publishing agency connected to one of the above license companies.

But what if an American radio station (over the air, not Internet) wanted to play some European power or progressive metal? I know that Firewind published their songs through ASCAP, but most European metal CDs that I own don't say anything about publishing agencies, European or otherwise.

So for example, if I owned a radio station in the US and wanted to play some metal that wasn't published through BMI, ASCAP, etc. - what would I have to do to be allowed to play it?

Just curious...

I believe there is reciprocity between the international group and ASCAP/BMI etc. For example: You can find Marco Hietala on ASCAP with his Tarot material (Under "Marco Hietala"). Why? Because He is registered with Finland's version of ASCAP (TEOSTO). If the group have reciprocity, it works the same way. However, if an international group does NOT have an agreement with ASCAP, then that artist, I believe but could be wrong, is SOL.

Peace,
Ray C.

 

[SyXified]

This brings up an interesting question...

I know here in the US, radio stations pay licenses to BMI, ASCAP and SESEC to play copyrighted music on the radio.

This is fine for American and Canadian acts who publish through a publishing agency connected to one of the above license companies.

But what if an American radio station (over the air, not Internet) wanted to play some European power or progressive metal? I know that Firewind published their songs through ASCAP, but most European metal CDs that I own don't say anything about publishing agencies, European or otherwise.

So for example, if I owned a radio station in the US and wanted to play some metal that wasn't published through BMI, ASCAP, etc. - what would I have to do to be allowed to play it?

Just curious...

I'm a little hazy on this one but I believe it is the radio stations responsibility to pay any and all Performing Rights Organizations regardless of what they intend to play on air. There are really only a handful of PROs, even on a global scale. If an artist does not belong to one, they waive their right to make performance royalties because once a song is published it is always compulsory that anyone can play it. The only real difference is that Europe has anti-defamation laws, so you couldn't do a parody or something like that.

Clubs are obligated to belong to ALL the PROs because they do not have control specifically over what any given band may cover. So, you cannot make a club and declare 'we are an ASCAP only venue'. As a performance venue, you HAVE to pay all the PROs. I believe it is the same thing with radio, as they do not 100% control DJs and program directors.

Touching on the publisher 50/50 split thing - keep in mind, you're talking about probably $1.00 per performance. Not playing a song to keep the .50$ out of a publishers pocket is a pretty absurd idea. The amount is based on the size of the audience, size of the broadcast range, etc. So like, on a 20 venue tour Van Halen could refuse to play Panama and given that its just to a venue crowd, they probably kept $10.00 away from the publisher (and of course $10.00 away from themselves). Comparitavly, imagine how many times Panama gets played on the radio ever day, and over the internet, at sporting events, and how much larger the audience is for that. Again, refusing to play your own songs is a drop in the bucket - you really become just one entity among thousands that are performing your work after the initial publication.