Author Topic: Copyrights and royalties (Read 2598 times)

Pandora · « **on:** March 08, 2012, 10:34:26 AM »

Rush (the band) has recently demanded Rush Limbaugh stop using their music for bumpers. If Rushbo is paying a royalty for its use, is the band within its legal rights to make him stop?

Libertas · « **Reply #1 on:** March 08, 2012, 11:28:30 AM »

I dunno, any lawyers here? Damn, I don't wanna out anybody...

LadyVirginia · « **Reply #2 on:** March 08, 2012, 12:05:27 PM »

My guess would be they don't control who gets a license to play their work. And I'm not sure BMI or ACSAP could refuse to issue a license to someone willing to pay for it.

I found an article written in 1991 that referenced a decree issued in 1941 that stated: " No discrimination was to exist between users similarly situated, nor could ASCAP and BMI refuse to license any work upon request."
link It looks like the article is about BMI and ASCAP being monopolies but it seems that decree would apply.

I maybe all wrong on this--I don't know anything about it so I may have read this out of context-- so I hope someone who knows speaks up. I know I've heard of artists complaining before about the use of their work by people they didn't like.

Pandora · « **Reply #3 on:** March 08, 2012, 12:08:09 PM »

I'm thinking IDP may know as he's in the business. When he pops in, we'll see.

IronDioPriest · « **Reply #4 on:** March 08, 2012, 12:38:04 PM »

For a commercial enterprise to use copyrighted material for anything other than parody, news, reviews, etc, permission must be sought from the owner of publishing rights (publishing rights are a license from the owner of the creative copyright), and a royalty paid to the publisher for a use license. Often (particularly with up-and-coming artists, very old music by more obscure artists, or deceased artists whose estates just collect royalties) that is an academic matter - pay the royalty and use the music. Permission is implied in the payment.

But in an instance where a band is huge like Rush, it is more complicated. Bands that big will often self-publish. They own the creative copyright, set up a publishing company, transfer creative copyright licenses to that self-owned publishing company, and thus own the rights to everything. Other times, an established artist will have the "muscle" to stipulate in the publishing contract that the publishing company does not have the authority to issue licenses without permission from the creative copyright owner.

So without a doubt - but admittedly without knowing the specifics in this case - Rush has the legal authority to force Rush to stop using Rush. I can't imagine it being otherwise. A band can't be successful for that long without gaining the needed muscle to have control over their own music.

Pandora · « **Reply #5 on:** March 08, 2012, 12:41:54 PM »

Quote from: IronDioPriest on March 08, 2012, 12:38:04 PM

For a commercial enterprise to use copyrighted material for anything other than parody, news, reviews, etc, permission must be sought from the owner of publishing rights (publishing rights are a license from the owner of the creative copyright), and a royalty paid to the publisher for a use license. Often (particularly with up-and-coming artists or very old music) that is an academic matter - pay the royalty and use the music.

But in an instance where a band is huge like Rush, it is more complicated. Bands that big will often self-publish. They own the creative copyright, set up a publishing company, transfer creative copyright licenses to that self-owned publishing company, and thus own the rights to everything. Other times, an established artist will have the "muscle" to stipulate in the publishing contract that the publishing company does not have the authority to issue licenses without permission from the creative copyright holder.

So without a doubt - but admittedly without knowing the specifics in this case - Rush has the legal authority to force Rush to stop using Rush. I can't imagine it being otherwise. A band can't be successful for that long without gaining the needed muscle to have control over their own music.

I guess it depends on whether Rush themselves issued a license to Limbaugh for which he paid, then? If that's the case, do they have the right to revoke the license?

IronDioPriest · « **Reply #6 on:** March 08, 2012, 12:56:52 PM »

Quote from: Pandora on March 08, 2012, 12:41:54 PM

Quote from: IronDioPriest on March 08, 2012, 12:38:04 PM
For a commercial enterprise to use copyrighted material for anything other than parody, news, reviews, etc, permission must be sought from the owner of publishing rights (publishing rights are a license from the owner of the creative copyright), and a royalty paid to the publisher for a use license. Often (particularly with up-and-coming artists or very old music) that is an academic matter - pay the royalty and use the music.

But in an instance where a band is huge like Rush, it is more complicated. Bands that big will often self-publish. They own the creative copyright, set up a publishing company, transfer creative copyright licenses to that self-owned publishing company, and thus own the rights to everything. Other times, an established artist will have the "muscle" to stipulate in the publishing contract that the publishing company does not have the authority to issue licenses without permission from the creative copyright holder.

So without a doubt - but admittedly without knowing the specifics in this case - Rush has the legal authority to force Rush to stop using Rush. I can't imagine it being otherwise. A band can't be successful for that long without gaining the needed muscle to have control over their own music.

I guess it depends on whether Rush themselves issued a license to Limbaugh for which he paid, then? If that's the case, do they have the right to revoke the license?

I don't know for sure. If he was paying, and it was kind of an "auto-pilot" thing with the publishing company (even if the publishing company is owned by the band, they don't operate it), it would be safe to assume that neither Rush Limbaugh, nor Geddy Lee, Alex Lifeson, or Neil Peart had anything to do with the arrangement. So I would think they would have the authority to step in an put a stop to it, but I would think that would also imply the return of any royalty money paid.

The thing is, we're not talking large sums of money here. Those royalties are collected by BMI or ASCAP on a sum basis, and paid out the same way. It is up to broadcasters to report what they use, and up to BMI or ASCAP to monitor stations and pay royalties to artists whose music is used, but a lot of that is estimated and projected on both ends. They don't actually tabulate every single use of every single song, and pay the artist and publisher an exact amount based on hard numbers. Instead, broadcasters pay a monthly fee to BMI & ASCAP, and in turn, BMI & ASCAP pay out royalties based on a variety of factors.

So in the instance of Limbaugh and Rush, we're likely talking literally a few dollars. It's about a hissy-fit from the band, not some sum of money they are owed by Rush Limbaugh - or Rush Limbaugh being out a substantial sum of money by being denied access to what he paid for. Conversely, the monetary risk for Limbaugh to refuse to comply would be enormous vs the benefit he gets by playing the songs. He will just stop using the music, end of story.

ToddF · « **Reply #7 on:** March 08, 2012, 01:00:45 PM »

We've come a long way from our Ayn Rand days, haven't we?

Maybe, Mr. Peart, you should go on the show you've been a frequent guest on, to announce this new policy...

Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher.

Living in California with the newish trophy wife hasn't been good on the brain, I see.

Pandora · « **Reply #8 on:** March 08, 2012, 01:07:36 PM »

Quote from: IronDioPriest on March 08, 2012, 12:56:52 PM

Quote from: Pandora on March 08, 2012, 12:41:54 PM
Quote from: IronDioPriest on March 08, 2012, 12:38:04 PM
For a commercial enterprise to use copyrighted material for anything other than parody, news, reviews, etc, permission must be sought from the owner of publishing rights (publishing rights are a license from the owner of the creative copyright), and a royalty paid to the publisher for a use license. Often (particularly with up-and-coming artists or very old music) that is an academic matter - pay the royalty and use the music.

But in an instance where a band is huge like Rush, it is more complicated. Bands that big will often self-publish. They own the creative copyright, set up a publishing company, transfer creative copyright licenses to that self-owned publishing company, and thus own the rights to everything. Other times, an established artist will have the "muscle" to stipulate in the publishing contract that the publishing company does not have the authority to issue licenses without permission from the creative copyright holder.

So without a doubt - but admittedly without knowing the specifics in this case - Rush has the legal authority to force Rush to stop using Rush. I can't imagine it being otherwise. A band can't be successful for that long without gaining the needed muscle to have control over their own music.

I guess it depends on whether Rush themselves issued a license to Limbaugh for which he paid, then? If that's the case, do they have the right to revoke the license?

I don't know for sure. If he was paying, and it was kind of an "auto-pilot" thing with the publishing company (even if the publishing company is owned by the band, they don't operate it), it would be safe to assume that neither Rush Limbaugh, nor Geddy Lee, Alex Lifeson, or Neil Peart had anything to do with the arrangement. So I would think they would have the authority to step in an put a stop to it, but I would think that would also imply the return of any royalty money paid.

The thing is, we're not talking large sums of money here. Those royalties are collected by BMI or ASCAP on a sum basis, and paid out the same way. It is up to broadcasters to report what they use, and up to BMI or ASCAP to monitor stations and pay royalties to artists whose music is used, but a lot of that is estimated and projected on both ends. They don't actually tabulate every single use of every single song, and pay the artist and publisher an exact amount based on hard numbers. Instead, broadcasters pay a monthly fee to BMI & ASCAP, and in turn, BMI & ASCAP pay out royalties based on a variety of factors.

So in the instance of Limbaugh and Rush, we're likely talking literally a few dollars. It's about a hissy-fit from the band, not some sum of money they are owed by Rush Limbaugh - or Rush Limbaugh being out a substantial sum of money by being denied access to what he paid for. Conversely, the monetary risk for Limbaugh to refuse to comply would be enormous vs the benefit he gets by playing the songs. He will just stop using the music, end of story.

Yah, he probably will just stop then, and it will hardly be skin off his nose - the bumper music itself is a form of advertising.

Here's the one thing about this that most people don't even consider (I'm sure "Rush" didn't and wouldn't care anyway) - Rush doesn't "compute" new music due to the cochlear implant, so they'll need to find something older, and familiar, with which to replace the stuff by the hissy-fit-ers.

LadyVirginia · « **Reply #9 on:** March 08, 2012, 01:16:51 PM »

Thanks, IDP. That was interesting.

ToddF · « **Reply #10 on:** March 08, 2012, 02:09:55 PM »

http://news.2112.net/2012/03/no-more-limbo-for-limbaugh-rush-pulls.html

No More "Limbo" For "Limbaugh" - Rush Pulls Music From Limbaugh Show

Quote

Rush the band has formally demanded that Rush Limbaugh cease and desist using the band's music as bumper music on his show. Here is the full text of their lawyer's letter to the show:
The Rush Limbaugh Show 1270 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 RushLimbaugh.com Premiere Radio Networks.

Ladies & Gentlemen:
I am the attorney for Rush, their management company, S.R.O. Management Inc., their music publishing company, Core Music Publishing and their record company, The Anthem Entertainment Group Inc.
According to media reports, Rush Limbaugh, Premiere Radio Networks and The Rush Limbaugh Show have been using Rush's recorded music as part of what is essentially a political broadcast.
The use of Rush's music in this way is an infringement of Rush's copyrights and trademarks. The public performance of Rush's music is not licensed for political purposes and any such use is in breach of public performance licenses and constitutes copyright infringement. There are civil and criminal remedies for copyright infringement, including statutory damages and fines.
(see sections 501-513 of Title 17 of the United States Code http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html)
In addition, the use of Rush's music in this manner implies an endorsement of the views expressed and products advertised on the show, and is in breach of not only copyright and trademark rights, but also, of section 51 of the New York Civil Rights Law (excerpt attached).
Accordingly, we hereby demand that you immediately stop all use of Rush's music and confirm that you will do so.

Yours very truly,
Robert A. Farmer
Director of Legal Affairs
S.R.O. Management Inc.,
Core Music Publishing
The Anthem Entertainment Group Inc.

Nice knowing you. You've been part of my life since I was 14. For all the stupid things that have gone on over the years, why now get into US politics? I really thought you boys were a little smarter than that. Nice knowing you. Under my bus you go.

IronDioPriest · « **Reply #11 on:** March 08, 2012, 02:29:50 PM »

I think actors and musicians can get so huge and so used to being adored, that they believe their beliefs on culture and politics must be relevant to their fans. They think that anyone who loves their art must be of the same belief system as they are. Or even worse, that the adoration from fans is so real, that their utterances will have genuine meaningful impact, and change minds.

Does Rush not stop for a moment and realize that their fan base are largely comprised of people 35-55, and that the technical nature of their music is more attractive to thinking people who eschew much of the counter-culture found in pop-rock music?

LadyVirginia · « **Reply #12 on:** March 08, 2012, 02:38:34 PM »

Quote from: MNHawk on March 08, 2012, 02:09:55 PM

Nice knowing you. You've been part of my life since I was 14. For all the stupid things that have gone on over the years, why now get into US politics? I really thought you boys were a little smarter than that. Nice knowing you. Under my bus you go.

We need a bus smiley!

And a bandwagon.

Pandora · « **Reply #13 on:** March 08, 2012, 02:41:26 PM »

Quote

Does Rush not stop for a moment and realize ....

No.

Quote

“To me, that’s treason. I call it treason against rock ‘n’ roll because rock is the antithesis of politics. Rock should never be in bed with politics. When I was a kid and my parents started talking about politics, I’d run to my room and put on the Rolling Stones as loud as I could. So when I see all these rock stars up there talking politics, it makes me sick. If you’re listening to a rock star in order to get your information on who to vote for, you’re a bigger moron than they are. Why are we rock stars? Because we’re morons. We sleep all day, we play music at night and very rarely do we sit around reading the Washington Journal.”
Alice Cooper

ToddF · « **Reply #14 on:** March 08, 2012, 02:48:01 PM »

Once upon a time, back when I was 14 or so, a man wrote

Quote

There is unrest in the forest,
There is trouble with the trees,
For the maples want more sunlight
And the oaks ignore their pleas.

The trouble with the maples,
(And they're quite convinced the're right)
They say the oaks are just too lofty
And they grab up all the light.
But the oaks can't help their feelings
If they like the way they're made.
And they wonder why the maples
Can't be happy in their shade.

There is trouble in the Forest,
And the Creatures all have fled,
As the Maples scream oppression,
And the Oaks just shake their heads.

So the maples formed a union
And demanded equal rights.
"These oaks are just too greedy;
We will make them give us light."
Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.

Funny thing is, this guy really did sit around reading, and writing lyrics such as the above.

Under the bus they go

IronDioPriest · « **Reply #15 on:** March 08, 2012, 02:54:09 PM »

No doubt MNHawk. Or how about this vision of rebelling against a totalitarian regime that has outlawed automobiles? These guys were literally prophets.

My uncle has a country place
That no one knows about
He says it used to be a farm
Before the Motor Law
And on Sundays I elude the eyes
And hop the Turbine Freight
To far outside the Wire
Where my white-haired uncle waits

Jump to the ground
As the Turbo slows to cross the borderline
Run like the wind
As excitement shivers up and down my spine
Down in his barn
My uncle preserved for me an old machine
For fifty odd years
To keep it as new has been his dearest dream

I strip away the old debris
That hides a shining car
A brilliant red Barchetta
From a better vanished time
I fire up the willing engine
Responding with a roar
Tires spitting gravel
I commit my weekly crime

Wind
In my hair
Shifting and drifting
Mechanical music
Adrenaline surge...

Well-weathered leather
Hot metal and oil
The scented country air
Sunlight on chrome
The blur of the landscape
Every nerve aware

Suddenly ahead of me
Across the mountainside
A gleaming alloy air car
Shoots towards me, two lanes wide
I spin around with shrieking tires
To run the deadly race
Go screaming through the valley
As another joins the chase

Drive like the wind
Straining the limits of machine and man
Laughing out loud with fear and hope
I've got a desperate plan
At the one-lane bridge
I leave the giants stranded at the riverside
Race back to the farm
To dream with my uncle at the fireside

IronDioPriest · « **Reply #16 on:** March 08, 2012, 02:58:52 PM »

Or this negative portrayal of communist authority as "religious"...

We've taken care of everything
The words you hear, the songs you sing
The pictures that give pleasure to your eyes.
It's one for all and all for one
We work together, common sons
Never need to wonder how or why.

We are the Priests of the Temples of Syrinx*
Our great computers fill the hallowed halls.
We are the Priests, of the Temples of Syrinx
All the gifts of life are held within our walls.

Look around at this world we've made
Equality our stock in trade
Come and join the Brotherhood of Man
Oh, what a nice, contented world
Let the banners be unfurled
Hold the Red Star proudly high in hand.

We are the Priests of the Temples of Syrinx
Our great computers fill the hallowed halls.
We are the Priests, of the Temples of Syrinx
All the gifts of life are held within our walls.

*Syrinx: The voice organ in birds

ToddF · « **Reply #17 on:** March 08, 2012, 02:59:37 PM »

Quote

No doubt MNHawk. Or how about this vision of rebelling against a totalitarian regime that has outlawed automobiles? These guys were literally prophets.

Literally 30 years (God I'm getting old

) ahead of it's time.

ToddF · « **Reply #18 on:** March 08, 2012, 03:04:04 PM »

Subdivisions --
In the high school halls
In the shopping malls
Conform or be cast out

Right back atcha Neil

Pandora · « **Reply #19 on:** March 08, 2012, 03:10:48 PM »

Are those all Rush lyrics? I wasn't a fan. Jim Quinn plays a bit of "Stealin'" as bumper music and I hate it.