Costume Designer Claims Riverdance Needs To Pay A Royalty For Every Performance

from the riverdance! dept

In the latest sign of bizarre and ridiculous lawsuits brought about by the belief that every concept and idea must be owned and licensed, Richard alerts us to the news that the folks behind the infamous Riverdance show are being sued by the costume designer who created outfits for the show in the mid-1990s. While the original agreement had the show paying royalties to the clothing designer to the tune of 60 euros per performance, that deal ran out in 2001. Now, the designer, Jen Kelly complains that Riverdance continues to "use and modify his designs without licence or payment." Frankly, it seems pretty silly to think that a stage show should need to pay the clothing designer for every performance and that it would be some sort of violation of that designer's rights to "modify" the designs. Next, will designers start demanding that people pay a royalty fee every time they wear the clothes outside the home? After all, isn't that a "public performance"?

Filed Under: costumes, riverdance, royalties

Gershwin Heirs Fight Over Copyright Royalties

from the oh-please,-make-it-stop dept

The heirs of George and Ira Gershwin (the famous songwriting brothers) were leaders (right alongside Disney) in the fight for copyright extension a decade ago. They insisted that it wasn't about the money, but about making sure that their work wasn't presented in a way of which they disapproved ("Someone could turn 'Porgy and Bess' into rap music" was the complaint from Mark Gershwin, conveniently ignoring that much of the Gershwin's work pulled concepts from African American music). Yet, if it's not about money, why are the Gershwin heirs suddenly involved in legal battles all about who gets the money?

Copycense points us to the news of a variety of legal battles from the heirs on different sides of the family squabbling over who gets what rights to foreign royalties. Of course, they're fighting over who still gets to make money on songs that were all written prior to 1937 (when George died). When those songs were written, the "promise" copyright gave them would have already put all those songs in the public domain by now. One would think these heirs (none of them actually direct descendants of either George or Ira -- since neither had children) would be thrilled that the government went back on the promise it made to the public and granted them even more monopoly rents for a few more decades and kept quiet. But, apparently, that's not the way these things go.

Filed Under: copyright, copyright extension, gershwin, royalties

F. Scott Fitzgerald Made $8,397 On Great Gatsby; His Daughter Gets $500,000 Per Year From It

from the just-as-Jefferson-intended? dept

There have been an increasing number of questions raised about both the length of copyright and the fact that it passes on to heirs after the original creator passes on. The original purpose of copyright had nothing to do with creating a welfare system for the children of content creators, no matter how much some content creators would like it to work that way. Economist Greg Mankiw points out a "factoid" that drives home the oddity that comes from such long copyrights:

Royalties from The Great Gatsby totaled only $8,397 during Fitzgerald's lifetime. Today Gatsby is read in nearly every high school and college and regularly produces $500,000 a year in [F. Scott Fitzgerald's daughter] Scottie's trust for her children.

The article this comes from goes into great detail into F. Scott Fitzgelald's earnings over his lifetime, and what's striking is that with a different sort of copyright system in place, he barely seems to rely on copyright royalties at all to make money. Instead -- like most jobs -- he recognizes he needs to keep producing new works to earn money, selling stories to various publications, along with working for Hollywood studios in addition to his novels. How much things have changed.

Filed Under: copyright, f. scott fitzgerald, royalties, the great gatsby

Australian Clubs Looking To Play Independent Music To Avoid Insane New Royalties

from the send-them-some-indie-music dept

We've been discussing how collections societies around the globe have been making a mad dash to get governments to tax more things or to simply massively expand existing collection taxes on music. One stunning example we gave was how the Phonographic Performance Company of Australia (PPCA) was pushing to increase fees by ridiculous amounts (in one example from $125/year to $19,344). Apparently, part of the setup is that clubs and restaurants have to pay a much higher per patron fee, and the number of patrons is based not on the actual number of patrons -- but on capacity. PPCA and others like them continue to insist that all of the value in a restaurant or club comes from the music, and thus those places should pay these extortionate rates, even if actual human beings don't come to fill up the place (so much for the music actually bringing in the crowds). But it looks like at least some clubs in Australia are pushing back. Sambo points us to the news that many are trying to build support for a protest effort where these clubs will only play independent music and avoid all music licensed to the PPCA. Of course, in the US, we've seen ASCAP and BMI tell clubs that do similar things that it doesn't matter -- since they might accidentally play their music. Still, it looks like these kinds of moves, that often would bankrupt these clubs and restaurants, are having an unintended consequence of helping to promote non-PPCA music. So, if you're a musician and you want to get heard in Australia, try licensing your songs under a Creative Commons license or something and highlight that anyone can play the music without having to pay a ridiculous PPCA tax.

Filed Under: australia, clubs, collections societies, music, royalties

As If Performance Royalty Threat Wasn't Enough, ASCAP, BMI Want To Increase Radio Royalties

from the squeeze-squeeze-squeeze dept

While the RIAA keeps pushing and pushing for a performance tax for radio stations, it looks like ASCAP and BMI on the songwriter/composer side are apparently now looking to increase their existing tax on stations (via Michael Scott). As you probably know, right now, stations do pay royalties to ASCAP and BMI for the "performance right" on music they play on the radio, which gets distributed to the composers and songwriters. But performers don't get a royalty, as Congress recognized (correctly) that radio was free advertising for musicians. So, the first battle is about adding another tax, but this newer battle would be about increasing the existing one.

Again, this shouldn't be a surprise. As we've been detailing lately, ASCAP, BMI and other similar groups around the world have gone on something of a rampage lately, trying to get larger and larger fees from just about any use of music -- including ringtones, the 30-second previews on iTunes, and YouTube videos embedded in blogs (despite the fact that YouTube already pays a fee). Sucks to be a terrestrial radio station these days. Not only do you have a ton of new competition from other sources, but the rest of the industry is looking to tax you until you're gone.

Filed Under: copyright, radio, royalties
Companies: ascap, bmi

Music Publishers, Songwriters To Congress: Our Royalties Should Be Guaranteed, No Matter What The Market Says

from the songs-from-luddites dept

In digging deeper into the request from music publishers and songwriters' representatives after they started demanding performance royalties for the 30-second previews in iTunes, Greg Sandoval was able to get a copy of the letter that was sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee concerning copyright laws from the National Music Publishers Association, ASCAP, BMI and the Songwriters Guild. Reading the quotes is stunning, in that you could basically paraphrase them as saying "we are luddites -- do not let technology change the way the world works." Here's one quote:

"Technology should not be used to strip rights from songwriters, composers and music publishers. The choice of certain audiovisual delivery systems or methods over others should not result in a diminution of creators' rights or royalties."

Read that one carefully. They are saying that as technology changes, and as the market changes, their royalties should never be allowed to drop. Notice that they're not taking responsibility for adapting to a changing market. They're not saying that they need to adjust and put in place smarter business models. No, they're saying that Congress somehow needs to guarantee that no matter what happens in the market, their royalties remain the same.

What's really revealing is that this quote highlights the fact that these representatives view their royalties as "rights" to be protected -- not revenue to be earned.

No wonder they're lashing out and doing all sorts of ridiculous stuff like trying to get extra royalties on embedded videos, ringtones and 30 second previews. These are the same groups that have publicly decided they need to try to start a PR campaign against people who are trying to protect user rights and fair use. Since that time, we've noticed various people associated with ASCAP and the Songwriters Guild putting up various blogs attacking copyright skeptics in the most ridiculous ways. There's one, which isn't worth pointing out, where a lawyer who works with these groups regularly mocks Larry Lessig, William Patry, Michael Geist and myself -- using nicknames and making up fanciful stories about us. It's the sort of activity you'd expect from a 12-year-old.

It looks like these groups simply feel entitled to having the government force everyone to hand over money. Songwriters who belong to these organizations are being led down a dangerous path. It seems like there's room in the market for groups to represent songwriters' interests without being anti-fan or anti-technology. Quite clearly, ASCAP, BMI, NMPA and the SGA do not fall into that category. Instead, they're pretending that the world owes them money just for existing, and they're going to lash out anyone who tries to suggest otherwise.

Filed Under: congress, entitlement, music, publishers, royalties, songwriters, technology

Senegal President Wants Royalty On Tourist Trap He Built

from the something's-not-right-here dept

While some may point out that the bigger issue in this story may be ego, hubris or (perhaps) corruption, the story of Senegal's President Abdoulaye Wade, and his $27 million statue has a ridiculous intellectual property twist, as well. Apparently, Wade had the government spend $27 million on a statue with a "heroic" pose -- this is a country where the per capita yearly income seems to be in the low four figures (CIA Factbook says $1,600). Approximately half of the country lives in poverty. So, clearly, what they need is a giant expensive statue. But the IP angle is that Wade is claiming, since the statue was his idea, he, personally, should receive 35% of any tourism revenue, as a royalty. So, just to get this straight -- he appears to have used a bunch of taxpayer money to spend millions on a statue -- and he wants to personally get a huge cut of all tourist revenue. And while this may be driven by corruption, it's the sort of concept that would only occur to someone in a world where such "ownership" and demands for royalties after an idea is put in place are commonplace.

Filed Under: abdoulaye wade, intellectual property, royalties, senegal, tourist trap

Court Refuses To Dismiss Allman Bros. Lawsuit Against UMG; iTunes Royalties At Stake

from the a-license-or-a-sale? dept

There have been a number of lawsuits over the past few years from artists who are complaining about how the major record labels account for iTunes sales. The question is whether or not a song sold on iTunes is the same as a CD sale (a tiny tiny royalty) or more like licensing a song for a commercial (more like a 50% royalty). Obviously, the record labels want iTunes treated like a CD. But musicians have a reasonable argument that an iTunes sale may be a lot more like a typical license, as a big part of the reason in the discrepancy in the royalty rates is that there's no (expensive) physical packaging and distribution to handle. The Allman Brothers were one of the first to file lawsuits on this issue suing both Sony Music, and then a couple years later, Universal Music Group (I'm still not clear why they sued the two separately, years apart). Eminem also had sued UMG over this issue and lost, as a jury said iTunes was more like a CD sale.

UMG tried to get the case from the Allmans dismissed, but davebarnes alerts us to the news that the court has refused to dismiss the case, and it will proceed to a full trial. Of course, like Eminem, the Allmans may lose the trial, but it's better than having the case dismissed outright. Of course, if the Allmans win, it will create a bunch of similar lawsuits in short order, as pretty much every artist will be demanding a lot more iTunes revenue.

Filed Under: allman brothers, itunes, licensing, royalties, sales
Companies: universal music

How Performing Rights Groups Funnel Money To Top Acts And Ignore Smaller Acts

from the nice-trick dept

It's no secret that most of the traditional "recording industry" really is structured almost entirely to help the big name acts, but whenever we write about the collections organizations like ASCAP and BMI we get angry people sending in emails and comments insisting that it's unfair to lump those two in with the RIAA, since they're really out to help the actual musicians, even the small guys. Uh huh. Of course, we've already shown how ASCAP and BMI and their overly aggressive attempts to collect royalties from just about everywhere actually have been known to harm up-and-coming singers, such as by destroying the ability for many venues to host open mic nights. ASCAP has been particularly aggressive lately in making bizarre claims about how embedding YouTube videos requires a license (despite the fact YouTube already pays ASCAP -- so it wants to double count) and how ringtones represent a public performance. These are pure money grabs that make it that much more difficult for anyone to help promote up-and-coming musicians and songwriters. Is it any wonder, in the meantime, that the organization is spending time setting up efforts to try to push back against people who support open culture and content sharing? It apparently would prefer that the songwriters they "represent" not know about these efforts that actually do quite a bit to harm the vast majority of songwriters out there.

But, back to the original point. ASCAP, BMI and their supporters insist that they're not as bad as the big, mean RIAA, and that they're especially focused on providing important royalties to less well known artists. Except... even that may be questionable, at least when it comes to live performance royalties (admittedly, a smaller segment of overall royalties). Reader btr1701 sent in some email exchanges from a mailing list, which I won't share directly since I don't have approval, concerning a jazz musician trying to find out why she doesn't receive any live performance royalties, despite knowing that these organizations collect them, supposedly on her behalf. In response, she's told that ASCAP and BMI only distribute that royalty money to "the top 200 grossing US tours of the year." If you're smaller than that? Too bad. Except... they do have one minor exception. If you play "serious music" (no joke), then they'll pay you your royalties. So, the musician asks what is "serious music" and is told it's "generally considered to be classical music."

The musician tried re-registering her own (jazz) compositions as "serious music" but it "does not appear to have made any difference whatsoever" and she notes that she is "yet to receive a single penny... for any US performance or radio broadcast of any kind" despite the fact that her music has been performed in the US for almost ten years, and "the vast majority of performances of my music take place in the US."

I went looking for some more details, and it appears that, indeed, ASCAP and BMI have a policy in place to only provide performance royalties to the top 200 grossing tours in the US. If you're a "smaller" act, the only way to get paid is to be an opening act on such a tour. Otherwise? Too bad, you're on your own. Aren't you glad you signed with ASCAP or BMI? Update Good clarifications in the comments on this. Despite what the musician was told originally, it appears that it's not that ASCAP and BMI only pay the top 200 tours, but that they only monitor them (it's not explained how they know ahead of time which are the top 200) in order to figure out who to pay. The end result, of course, is functionally quite similar. If they're only monitoring the top 200 grossing tours, then the likelihood of them finding out about songs from less well known composers is close to nil. But those big names? They get more than their fair share.

Filed Under: collections societies, money, royalties
Companies: ascap, bmi

RIAA Loses To Yahoo Over Webcasting Rates

from the finally dept

Well, finally. The RIAA has lost its case against Yahoo over what royalties the Launchcast service needed to pay. As per usual, the RIAA kept trying to add on additional fees. Rather than just webcasting fees, it also wanted an additional royalty for being an interactive service. This is a neat trick that the RIAA has been pulling a lot lately. In the past, every time some new technology comes along, the recording industry runs screaming and crying to Congress about how unfair it is, and how it needs a special new royalty for that new technology/service. But here, because Launchcast was online and combined elements of different services, the RIAA simply figured it could lump all the different royalties together and get Launchcast/Yahoo to pay multiple times for each use of a song. The entertainment industry sure does love trying to get everyone to pay multiple times for the same thing.

But, it appears the court was having none of that, saying that the service didn't provide enough user control to make it an interactive service that would require a different license (though, it still has to pay the basic webcasting fees). The ruling here did not take kindly to the RIAA's argument that being able to choose which station you wanted to listen to (or that you could skip songs) made it somehow interactive beyond regular radio:

"Launchcast listeners do not even enjoy the limited predictability that once graced the AM airwaves on weekends in America when 'special requests' represented love-struck adolescents' attempts to communicate their feelings to 'that special friend'."

Filed Under: music, royalties, webcasting
Companies: launchcast, riaa, yahoo