log in · your profile · private messages · members · search · help · register
   
· Home
· Band Pages
· Show Schedule
· The Forums
· The Final Cut
Should royalties be paid to musicians...?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
ROCKPAGE Forum Index » The Law
previous topic :: next topic  
Author Message
Hawk
Diamond Member
Diamond Member


Joined: 12 Mar 2004
Posts: 5332
Location: Central PA

 Post Posted: Saturday Jun 13, 2009 
Reply with quote

There was a story in the Mirror the other day about royalties being paid to the musicians who played / recorded the songs played on the radio.

The writers already get their cut for their material being played, but what about the musicians ? Should they get a cut when someone else is making money (radio, DJs) on their talent and their work.

This brings me to DJs. I think if they are making money playing, say, Freebird, then Skynard should get a cut of the DJ take. DJs could pay a fee to an organization similar to ASCAP.

Bars, as far as I know, pay these fees in order for musicians to play covers, which goes back to the composers.

Any thoughts ?
_________________
www.showtimesoundllc.com
Flashpoint!
SKYE 2.0
Triple Threat
 Back to top »
View user's profile Send private message
Dragan Kalasa
Gold Member
Gold Member


Joined: 22 Jan 2006
Posts: 455
Location: Between Hopewell and Everett...a rock and a hard place, PA

 Post Posted: Saturday Jun 13, 2009 
Reply with quote

Hawk wrote:
There was a story in the Mirror the other day about royalties being paid to the musicians who played / recorded the songs played on the radio.

The writers already get their cut for their material being played, but what about the musicians ? Should they get a cut when someone else is making money (radio, DJs) on their talent and their work.


I'm not understanding that question, aren't the writers also the musicians? Or are you saying writers are the original artists and musicians are the cover artists?

Quote:
This brings me to DJs. I think if they are making money playing, say, Freebird, then Skynard should get a cut of the DJ take. DJs could pay a fee to an organization similar to ASCAP.


They do get a cut, it's called album sales. Being they bought the CD, they can pretty much do anything they want short of illegally copying and distributing to make a profit (that's a obvious no-no). DJ's are helping out the artists by playing their music, just like radio.
 Back to top »
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
lonewolf
Diamond Member
Diamond Member


Joined: 25 Sep 2003
Posts: 6249
Location: Anywhere, Earth

 Post Posted: Saturday Jun 13, 2009 
Reply with quote

Whomever has the rights to music gets paid "airplay" royalties for it from BMI/ASCAP. They determine who gets how much by the estimated "airplay" of the music. A performer who did not compose the music may not get any residuals from airplay.

Of course, like most "unions," the members get a pittance and the organization keeps the lion's share.

This should not be confused with profits from record sales, which is decided by contract.

IMO, BMI/ASCAP has their licensing upside down. Presently, the live entertainment license is the most expensive on the fee schedule.

It would be in their best interest to support musicians (future members) by making the live entertainment license an entry level fee and the DJ license as the highest fee on the schedule. After all, its the DJs who are doing the most pirating.
_________________
...Oh, the freedom of the day that yielded to no rule or time...
 Back to top »
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
Hawk
Diamond Member
Diamond Member


Joined: 12 Mar 2004
Posts: 5332
Location: Central PA

 Post Posted: Saturday Jun 13, 2009 
Reply with quote

Dragan Kalasa wrote:
Hawk wrote:
There was a story in the Mirror the other day about royalties being paid to the musicians who played / recorded the songs played on the radio.

The writers already get their cut for their material being played, but what about the musicians ? Should they get a cut when someone else is making money (radio, DJs) on their talent and their work.


I'm not understanding that question, aren't the writers also the musicians? Or are you saying writers are the original artists and musicians are the cover artists?

Quote:
This brings me to DJs. I think if they are making money playing, say, Freebird, then Skynard should get a cut of the DJ take. DJs could pay a fee to an organization similar to ASCAP.


They do get a cut, it's called album sales. Being they bought the CD, they can pretty much do anything they want short of illegally copying and distributing to make a profit (that's a obvious no-no). DJ's are helping out the artists by playing their music, just like radio.


Whoever owns the rights to the song, not necessarily the performers on the song, get a cut from air time.

My question is: Should the performers get a cut ? Bono is a huge propenent of this.

So I took it to the DJ level. The performer's performance is being used publicly (not on a home system or a personal ipod) for the purpose of making money for the DJ. IMO those performers should get a cut from the DJ in the form of a license fee.

The fact that the DJ purchased the song (unlikely) it doesn't seem fare to the performers that he can play it thousands of times for his own profit.
_________________
www.showtimesoundllc.com
Flashpoint!
SKYE 2.0
Triple Threat
 Back to top »
View user's profile Send private message
lonewolf
Diamond Member
Diamond Member


Joined: 25 Sep 2003
Posts: 6249
Location: Anywhere, Earth

 Post Posted: Saturday Jun 13, 2009 
Reply with quote

Hawk wrote:
So I took it to the DJ level. The performer's performance is being used publicly (not on a home system or a personal ipod) for the purpose of making money for the DJ. IMO those performers should get a cut from the DJ in the form of a license fee.

The fact that the DJ purchased the song (unlikely) it doesn't seem fare to the performers that he can play it thousands of times for his own profit.


Instead of the DJ they collect it from the venue based on a fee schedule that varies according to the type of entertainment. Its much easier to collect and enforce. Also, there is a licensed address where the material is being played.

Right or wrong, collecting fees from thousands of djs who already willfully pirate the material is a fantasy and is not going to happen. Djs as licensees also can't produce a legal, fixed address where the material is played like a venue can.

Finally, because it is under civil law, its up to BMI/ASCAP to enforce their fee collection. This means they have to sue anybody who uses their material without paying fees. I doubt there are enough lawyers to chase down every deadbeat dj.

The best thing BMI/ASCAP could do is to move live entertainment from the highest-cost fee on their schedule to the lowest cost and replace it with an exhorbitant fee for venues who hire djs. Include live entertainment privileges on all licenses, including jukebox licenses which are generally paid by the jukebox owner.

Wouldn't it be great if every place who had a jukebox could have live entertainment (but no djs) without paying a BMI/ASCAP fee?
_________________
...Oh, the freedom of the day that yielded to no rule or time...
 Back to top »
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
KeithReynolds
Diamond Member
Diamond Member


Joined: 06 Apr 2009
Posts: 1358
Location: Altoona, PA

 Post Posted: Saturday Jun 13, 2009 
Reply with quote

If you make $$$ playing someone elses material you should have to pay them. From DJs to coverbands to even wedding bands. Its only fair to the people who created the music.
 Back to top »
View user's profile Send private message
CrossfireRadio
Gold Member
Gold Member


Joined: 18 May 2005
Posts: 142
Location: PA

 Post Posted: Monday Jun 15, 2009 
Reply with quote

Most places do pay fee's... Example - Internet radio stations have to pay royalties, just as a terrestrial station does, just as a bar does, etc etc...

But dealing with internet radio, its a bit different in how its setup and how you pay. A bar pays ascap (etc) directly... Where as Internet radio stations have a choice to pay directly or pay through a 3rd party company, who has the actual licensing in order for internet radio stations to exist...

There are ALOT of internet radio stations that do not pay royalties, and IMO should be shut down..

But as for DJ's, where they play at, is the ones that pay those licensing fee's just as if a cover band played there. Its pretty much the same thing..

Cover Band plays at a bar - the cover band doesnt pay the royalties, the Bar does.... Same with a DJ - DJ plays at a bar, the DJ doesnt pay the royalties, the bar does.

Why should a DJ have to pay extra fee's if a "cover band" doesnt?
_________________
Internet radio station
http://www.crossfire-radio.com
~Station Owner~
 Back to top »
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Hawk
Diamond Member
Diamond Member


Joined: 12 Mar 2004
Posts: 5332
Location: Central PA

 Post Posted: Monday Jun 15, 2009 
Reply with quote

CrossfireRadio wrote:
Most places do pay fee's... Example - Internet radio stations have to pay royalties, just as a terrestrial station does, just as a bar does, etc etc...

But dealing with internet radio, its a bit different in how its setup and how you pay. A bar pays ascap (etc) directly... Where as Internet radio stations have a choice to pay directly or pay through a 3rd party company, who has the actual licensing in order for internet radio stations to exist...

There are ALOT of internet radio stations that do not pay royalties, and IMO should be shut down..

But as for DJ's, where they play at, is the ones that pay those licensing fee's just as if a cover band played there. Its pretty much the same thing..

Cover Band plays at a bar - the cover band doesnt pay the royalties, the Bar does.... Same with a DJ - DJ plays at a bar, the DJ doesnt pay the royalties, the bar does.

Why should a DJ have to pay extra fee's if a "cover band" doesnt?



You didn't understand my thread. I think some others didn't either. Probably my fault.

I know about BMI / ASCAP. those fees go to the song owners.

The licensing fees go to the song owners. NOT to the actual musicians who played on the recordings. Often, the performers are not the owners.

For instance, Michael Jackson makes money on Beatle songs, not any of the Beatles. Jackson OWNS the songs. Not necessarily the best example because the Beatles are rich. However, many musicians are not, yet their performances are used regularly and they get nothing for it.

Even in a single band, often the song writer owns the song, not the whole band.

Should the musicians who actually played on the recording get royalties ? Which is separate from the owners.

Like television, the performers receive residuals every time their performance is played, even though they don't own the TV show.

And then I took it to the DJ level. They are making ALL of their money based on the performance of said musicians. I think the musicians should get a cut. There should be a separate licensing fee for DJs.

I hope that clears up my thread questions. And I'm interested in your opinion now that I cleared things up. Thanks.
_________________
www.showtimesoundllc.com
Flashpoint!
SKYE 2.0
Triple Threat
 Back to top »
View user's profile Send private message
hicksjd9
Platinum Member
Platinum Member


Joined: 26 Jun 2005
Posts: 740

 Post Posted: Monday Jun 15, 2009 
Reply with quote

At some point, artists have to understand that they have cashed in on that bit of creativity to its fullest extent. If I wrote a song that sold millions, I wouldn't be sweating the people who were playing it in bars. I would only worry about advertisers who would use it to make money on a product or television/movies that used it as background music down the road. There has to be some point where you stop trying to squeeze blood from a turnip 20 or 30 years down the line. This seems very greedy to me.

Before I get flamed, I KNOW they wrote the song and it is their right to charge whatever they want. I'm just saying there is something that is just miserly about it.
_________________
Computer problems? Need a silent recording PC? Call 814.506.2891, PM, or visit me at www.pceasy4me.com or on Facebook at www.tinyurl.com/pceasy
 Back to top »
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
MeYatch
Diamond Member
Diamond Member


Joined: 23 Sep 2005
Posts: 1586

 Post Posted: Monday Jun 15, 2009 
Reply with quote

almost everyone missed hawks point.

I don't think studio musicians should get furthur licensing fees from playing the music. Unless they wrote a great hook to the song. Like most of the motown stuff was all written instrumentally by the studio group. And Flea's bassline to Bust A Move.

But if the guys just show up and play sheet music. I don't think there is any reason they should get paid more than they did for the initial performance. Reason being that they are imparting very little, if any of their own spin on the song, and if they wanted rights to the song, there's no reason a studio couldn't hire someone else to do it for less.

Now if an existing band records a song, and one of the guys gets full writing credit for it, and the other guys are out delivering pizza's in ten years. Well, that's a band dynamics thing. If you are contributing to the songs, you should get writing credit. If you aren't contributing to the songwriting, well at least you had a fun ride.
_________________
Stand back, I like to rock out.
 Back to top »
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
hicksjd9
Platinum Member
Platinum Member


Joined: 26 Jun 2005
Posts: 740

 Post Posted: Monday Jun 15, 2009 
Reply with quote

Quote:
Now if an existing band records a song, and one of the guys gets full writing credit for it, and the other guys are out delivering pizza's in ten years. Well, that's a band dynamics thing.


This is why the band fuel broke up not too long ago.
_________________
Computer problems? Need a silent recording PC? Call 814.506.2891, PM, or visit me at www.pceasy4me.com or on Facebook at www.tinyurl.com/pceasy
 Back to top »
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
MeYatch
Diamond Member
Diamond Member


Joined: 23 Sep 2005
Posts: 1586

 Post Posted: Monday Jun 15, 2009 
Reply with quote

I can see the arguments for both sides for band writing credits.

If I write lyrics and a melody to a song, some guys might put their own really awesome spin on what I wrote, and demand writing credit, and I might have a better song. Or I could choose to go out and find a guy that will just play what I wrote for a set fee and not ever get paid for it again.

if the songwriting credit was a dollar a play, and my song with mediocre musicians might get paid 50 times, and I get all the credit, then I make $50.

If with really good musicians it would get paid 100 times, and I have to split it three ways, I only make $33.

I doubt bands are really thinking about that when they are deciding the writing credit, but its still something to think about.
_________________
Stand back, I like to rock out.
 Back to top »
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
CrossfireRadio
Gold Member
Gold Member


Joined: 18 May 2005
Posts: 142
Location: PA

 Post Posted: Monday Jun 15, 2009 
Reply with quote

So are you referring to Songwriters getting the fees as opposed to the people actually playing the songs that were written?

Or just musicians in general signed/unsigned ?

I just want to make sure I understand what your saying, before I have to put my other foot in my mouth, cause its not big enough to fit both feet lol..

It just seems your referring to only the ones playing the music...

Song example: You spin me around (like a record)

This song has been played by so many artists, I dont even think the royalty companies knows who owns the song...

(the original band that played it is DOA, and the newest one to cover it is Flo Rida) Aint that something lol

Hawk wrote:

You didn't understand my thread. I think some others didn't either. Probably my fault.

I know about BMI / ASCAP. those fees go to the song owners.

The licensing fees go to the song owners. NOT to the actual musicians who played on the recordings. Often, the performers are not the owners.

For instance, Michael Jackson makes money on Beatle songs, not any of the Beatles. Jackson OWNS the songs. Not necessarily the best example because the Beatles are rich. However, many musicians are not, yet their performances are used regularly and they get nothing for it.

Even in a single band, often the song writer owns the song, not the whole band.

Should the musicians who actually played on the recording get royalties ? Which is separate from the owners.

Like television, the performers receive residuals every time their performance is played, even though they don't own the TV show.

And then I took it to the DJ level. They are making ALL of their money based on the performance of said musicians. I think the musicians should get a cut. There should be a separate licensing fee for DJs.

I hope that clears up my thread questions. And I'm interested in your opinion now that I cleared things up. Thanks.

_________________
Internet radio station
http://www.crossfire-radio.com
~Station Owner~
 Back to top »
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
MeYatch
Diamond Member
Diamond Member


Joined: 23 Sep 2005
Posts: 1586

 Post Posted: Monday Jun 15, 2009 
Reply with quote

using your example, under the current system, who ever has the original song writing credit, possibly DOA, probably not, is the only person/persons who receive money from the song, when played in a bar by a cover band, or on a juke box. Any version of the song.

What hawk is asking is should the people who recorded the DOA song get a cut of profits when a DJ plays their version, and the Flo Rida artists get a cut when someone plays their version.
_________________
Stand back, I like to rock out.
 Back to top »
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
Hawk
Diamond Member
Diamond Member


Joined: 12 Mar 2004
Posts: 5332
Location: Central PA

 Post Posted: Monday Jun 15, 2009 
Reply with quote

I'm talking about the actual musicians playing on a record / CD / etc..

The people who are playing what you are hearing when you listen to a recording.

The actual musicians on a recording being played by a DJ.

NOT the writers or the owners of the song.

There is currently a movement among some very prominent musicians to get this passed and allow the musicians to receive residuals.

What's every one's opinion ?
_________________
www.showtimesoundllc.com
Flashpoint!
SKYE 2.0
Triple Threat
 Back to top »
View user's profile Send private message
FrigoRecording
Active Member
Active Member


Joined: 22 Dec 2007
Posts: 74
Location: Boalsburg, PA

 Post Posted: Tuesday Jun 16, 2009 
Reply with quote

This is a tough question, Hawk. The example you give with TV actors is what makes you really have to think about this. It almost seems it should work the same way in the music biz, but it doesn't.

In Nashville, a good chunk of the country records are made using session players, who are not royalty artists, but are simply musicians for hire on the projects. These guys are some pretty amazing musicians, and granted, they are paid quite well for their services. I do recall that at some point some of the labels down there started giving the session players some type of percentage at the end of the year, which is of course based on album sales, and is not paid through ASCAP or BMI. I remember one session player I know got a check for around $75,000 from one of the labels down there at the end of the year. This is on top of the hundreds of thousands a year he made being a double scale session player in the AFM. So good session players who work on major projects do pretty well without getting a cut of the songwriter royalties.

Often times the country artists are not even the writers of the music, so they don't own any portion of the songs they perform, and are therefore receiving nothing from ASCAP and/or BMI for performance, mechanical, print, or synchronization royalties. Those all go to the publishing companies, who then pay the songwriters their contractual cut, which could be 50/50 between the publishing co and the songwriter, depending on the songwriter's level of success and ability to negotiate with the publishing company. Of course some songwriters own all the publishing to their songs if they set up their own publishing co.

Hawk - you probably know a lot of what I'm saying here anyway, and I've digressed off topic of answering the actual question, but some of this might be useful info for some others reading this thread.

So back to the original question - I guess it really depends on how much of a contribution the band members and/or studio session players have as to whether they should receive royalties, and how much they get paid on the front end if they are session players. As a band with many or all members who write some of the songs, it might be nice to split songwriting royalties among the members in way that will help them all out, especially if they all write good songs, but don't always collaborate on the writing of every song. In this case, maybe the main writer (or perhaps the sole writer of a given song), could claim say 50% of the writing and then the other 50% could be split among the other members of the band. This way the songs that are chosen as singles and get the most airplay, downloads, etc, will still pay some royalties to all members to help ensure their success and livelihood in the industry. Just because a song is chosen as a single doesn't mean it's the best song, so this scenario seems fair to me. I believe some bands have arrangements such as this.

Anyway - just my 2 cents, and I've rambled on long enough here!
_________________
Marc Frigo
Frigo Recording studio
marc@frigorecording.com
www.FrigoRecording.com
www.facebook.com/frigorecording
www.myspace.com/marcfrigo
 Back to top »
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
lonewolf
Diamond Member
Diamond Member


Joined: 25 Sep 2003
Posts: 6249
Location: Anywhere, Earth

 Post Posted: Tuesday Jun 16, 2009 
Reply with quote

No. Session artists don't deserve royalties that come from the copyright of the song, with one exception:

If their recording contract agreed to pay a % of royalties from airplay.

They only deserve what their recording contract states they will receive for their services. Nothing more, nothing less. The copyright union (i.e. BMI) is simply the wrong business model for session artists to make money from airplay.

This is not comparable to TV programs and movies. Music airplay isn't the same as TV syndication. Because of the limited nature of TV "performances", they don't have a huge union that supposedly watches out for the "owners" of a program. The owners collect residuals and enforce their rights on their own. Each rerun of their programs is accounted for and the networks pay them on a regular basis.

In almost all cases, the producer or network retains syndication rights to the program to collect royalties (residuals) when they are replayed on TV. In most cases the primary actors will negotiate a contract where they will receive a % of the residuals from syndication. Secondary actors? Good luck!

Also: When was the last time you saw a bunch of actors on stage covering a Seinfeld episode?
_________________
...Oh, the freedom of the day that yielded to no rule or time...
 Back to top »
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
Hawk
Diamond Member
Diamond Member


Joined: 12 Mar 2004
Posts: 5332
Location: Central PA

 Post Posted: Tuesday Jun 16, 2009 
Reply with quote

lonewolf wrote:
No. Session artists don't deserve royalties that come from the copyright of the song, with one exception:

If their recording contract agreed to pay a % of royalties from airplay.

They only deserve what their recording contract states they will receive for their services. Nothing more, nothing less. The copyright union (i.e. BMI) is simply the wrong business model for session artists to make money from airplay.

This is not comparable to TV programs and movies. Music airplay isn't the same as TV syndication. Because of the limited nature of TV "performances", they don't have a huge union that supposedly watches out for the "owners" of a program. The owners collect residuals and enforce their rights on their own. Each rerun of their programs is accounted for and the networks pay them on a regular basis.

In almost all cases, the producer or network retains syndication rights to the program to collect royalties (residuals) when they are replayed on TV. In most cases the primary actors will negotiate a contract where they will receive a % of the residuals from syndication. Secondary actors? Good luck!

Also: When was the last time you saw a bunch of actors on stage covering a Seinfeld episode?


Everything you say makes sence, except I was never talking about a band doing covers, only actual recordings when some one else is profiting from said recording, as in a DJ.
_________________
www.showtimesoundllc.com
Flashpoint!
SKYE 2.0
Triple Threat
 Back to top »
View user's profile Send private message
Raven
Active Member
Active Member


Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Posts: 33
Location: pennsylvania

 Post Posted: Thursday Sep 03, 2009 
Reply with quote

yes. songs are inventions.
 Back to top »
View user's profile Send private message
VENTGtr
Diamond Member
Diamond Member


Joined: 25 Oct 2005
Posts: 1543

 Post Posted: Thursday Sep 03, 2009 
Reply with quote

Hawk wrote:

Even in a single band, often the song writer owns the song, not the whole band.

Should the musicians who actually played on the recording get royalties ? Which
is separate from the owners.


This is generally worked out within the band itself (Or should be). The other
instance would be studio guys who come in and play on anyone/everyone's
albums. They are generally paid pretty well. Plus, they are NORMALLY just
accommodating the songwriter/performer/producer's ideas.

It'd be pretty unlikely (And pretty un-lucrative to have everyone involved in
an album get a cut. If a studio guy who comes in an plays a solo in a song
gets a percentage, shouldn't the engineer/tape op, assistants, etc. who are
in the studio working the whole time?

In a band, ya, I'd agree that all the members should get a percentage, even if
the song's "writer" gets a larger one. But, like I said, that's normally worked out
when they'd signed.
_________________
DaveP.

"You must be this beautiful to ride the Quagmire."
 Back to top »
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
ROCKPAGE Forum Index » The Law
Post new topic   Reply to topic All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

©Twisted Technology, All Rights Reserved