[Harp-L] Clarification

["Glenn Weiser" <celticguitar1@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Message: 11
Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2007 13:53:16 -0400
From: "Walter Joyce" <wtjoyce45@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Harp-L] Clarification
To: harp-l@xxxxxxxxxx
Message-ID: <BAY101-F381BCCAB1490DE6A4BF585B70C0@xxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed

Here is a brief clarification.

A copyright means that you have the right to control any copies made of your
work.

So for the songwriter who files the copyright, anyone who makes a copy or
performs the work or uses a recording of the work owes the songwriter
royalties, or needs to get a license from the artist or the entity that
holds the copyright. This is NOT a performance copyright at issue here, it
is the songwriters copyright usually submitted as a sound recording (SR)
copyright.

A performance copyright is a right to be compensated for copying the
PERFORMANCE itself, so film of a dance, or the recording of a musical
performance in a video or audio format is what is generally at issue. As I
said before, for recorded music this is usually resolved by a work for hire
agreement.

As for playing a copyrighted work live, that depends on the setting. IIRC
the venue owner is supposed to have arrangements with ASCAP et al, that
covers jukebox songs and cover bands. How often this happens in reality is a
good question to explore. I am not certain as to who owes whom if  the
performer is the one who is putting on the show as I have never dealt with
the issue nor read about it in the literature.

You wouldn't pay anyone directly, ASCAP, or the songwriter's union in
question, is responsible for collecting the royalties and distributing it to
their members. The publishing company who holds the copyright then
distributes it to the proper parties.

One last aside, there is no copyright protection in general that extends
more than 75 years beyond the life of the copyright holder or a maximum of
125 years, again, IIRC.

My apologies to list members who find the information I posted on this topic
offensive. I won't be posting on the topic any further and will most likely
not post any legal information in the future given the negative responses I
have read relating to the post, the law in general and what is too often the
ugly stereotype associated with lawyers.

This post is not legal advice and is written without research and may
contain errors. It is not to be relied upon for making decisions in your
artistic endeavors and the legal consequences thereof. If you have a
copyright issue or are contemplating filing for copyright protection, you
need to contact an attorney licensed in your state. The material in this
post is offered for entertainment purposes only.

----------------------------------------------


Walter-

I undertand your desicion not post on legal topics, and it's unfortunate 
that you had to take it. The climate on these Internate lists is often 
harsh, as you have seen. Every Interent list like this one is peopled with a 
few trolls who don't have anything intelligent to contribute to the 
discourse and therefore will attack or ridicule the attempts of others to 
undertake serious discusions. All you did was post facts about what the law 
says on these topics, which was a service. As for lawyers, we live in a 
nation of laws, not men, as the saying goes, and hence we all need the 
assistance of lawyers from time to time. Folks can hate that all they want, 
but that's life.

-Glenn