Public Domain

Larry Bell · Post by **Larry Bell** » 31 Jul 2003 9:16 am

Be cautious of the wabbit . . .
but FEAR the Fudd.

------------------
Larry Bell - email: larry@larrybell.org - gigs - Home Page
2003 Fessenden S/D-12 8x8, 1969 Emmons S-12 6x6, 1971 Dobro, Standel and Peavey Amps

seldomfed · Post by **seldomfed** » 31 Jul 2003 9:59 am

read the form PA link above (easier said than done)

The 'collective work' thing is what I've done. I send in the lead sheets (lyrics) and a recording with all songs. Simple lyric, melody, chords on a guitar. Not a full 'recording' as they say. Easy if you choose not to or can't transcribe as sheet music.

I believe the SR form is that case where you want to copyright all the Led Zepplin actual recordings - so when GM Cadillac wants to sell their junk to baby boomers - they have to pay Robert and Jimmy some big bucks for synchronization rights.

SO WHAT ABOUT foreign language songs??

Our band CD coming out will have some Hawaiian language songs. They do not show up on Harry Fox?? So what's the right thing to do? Are these 'Trad.' therefore in the public domain??

chris

------------------
Chris Kennison
Ft. Collins, Colorado
"There is no spoon" www.book-em-danno.com

[This message was edited by seldomfed on 31 July 2003 at 11:21 AM.]

Tony Prior · Post by **Tony Prior** » 31 Jul 2003 10:31 am

Rick, good choice.I too pay the mechanical license fee's when they are necessary as I would rather pay the $42 up front as opposed to finding out what happens if you don't pay the $42 fee and someone is checking in on me.

tp

Bobby Lee · Post by **Bobby Lee** » 31 Jul 2003 2:29 pm

How much of the $42 does Harry Fox pocket?

Tony Prior · Post by **Tony Prior** » 31 Jul 2003 5:33 pm

I'm thinking $41.75 ?

Actually $40 is the agreed license cost and the $2 is the supposed fee for administering it..

tp

Tom Olson · Post by **Tom Olson** » 31 Jul 2003 10:10 pm

I've been interested in finding out more about this subject too. I happened to have a 1999 copy of the United States Code Title 17 which covers copyrights. Like any book of statutes, reading the United States Code is like trying to read a Russian novel -- in Russian, that is, when you don't know Russian.

Anyway, from what I gather from my reading, and to answer the original question, once a recording of a song has been distributed to the public, anyone can obtain what is called a "compulsory license" from the owner of the copyright of the song.

The compulsory license allows the licensee to record the song and distribute recordings of the song as long as certain things are done according to the copyright laws.

For example, to get the compulsory license, you must serve notice on the copyright owner of your intent to record the song either before it is recorded or within 30 days after it is recorded. The name and contact info for the copyright owner must be registered with the Copyright Office. If not, you can file your notice of intent with the Copyright Office.

Also, you can record the song in accordance with your own style or interpretation, but you cannot change the basic melody or fundamental character of the song.

You must also pay royalties to the copyright owner. The royalty rate is set by the Copyright Office and is periodically revised, so the rate in my copy of Title 17 might not be correct. But anyway, here's what it was as of 1999 at least:

For each song on a recording, the royalty is either: 2.75 cents OR 0.5 cents per minute of playing time or fraction thereof -- which ever is greater. (So, apparently, any song up to and including 5 and a-half minutes long is 2.75 cents per recording. Any song longer than 5 and a-half minutes is 0.5 cents per minute).

As an alternative to the statutory royalty rates, copyright owners and licensees can negotiate and agree upon royalty rates. And, copyright owners can designate agents to negotiate and receive royalty payments.

Statutory royalty payments must be made on or before the 20th day of the month for all distributions of any recordings during the preceeding month. Each payment apparently must be certified under oath in accordance with rules set forth by the Copyright Office.

So, apparently, for example, if you want to record an album of, say, 10 songs that are all copyrighted (not in the public domain), you should serve notice on all the copyright owners of the songs not more than 30 days after you record the songs.

Then, keep records of how many recordings you distribute each month. Then, pay the statutory royalty payments on or before the 20th of the next month.

So, considering your album of 10 songs, if each song is less than 5 and a-half minutes long, then the royalties you would owe are 2.75 cents per song times 10 songs per album times the number of albums distributed per month.

So, if you distributed 100 albums per month, then you would owe $27.50 in royalties for that month -- according to my calculations.

Or, you could negotiate and agree upon an alternative royalty scheme with one of those agents that are mentioned above in some of the previous posts. In any case, don't take my word for it -- read up on it, cuz I might be wrong.

By the way, you can also obain a copyright in the album you make, even thought you didn't write any of the songs -- that's the sound recording copyright. That's different from the copyright in the song itself.

Songs in the public domain (such as traditional songs) are not subject to copyright laws. However, sound recordings of public domain songs can be copyrighted. So, for example, if you want to record a version of "I am a Pilgrim" do it your own way instead of copying Merle Travis' version because whoever owns the copyright to any of Travis' recordings might say you're infringing on the copyright of Travis' recordings, unless you obtain a compulsory license and pay royalties, that is.

[This message was edited by Tom Olson on 31 July 2003 at 11:21 PM.]

Tony Prior · Post by **Tony Prior** » 1 Aug 2003 2:39 am

What Tom he said..I think..

This is why almost the whole planet goes over to the Harry Fox agency website, searches a song,( hopefully the one you are looking to record is available ) clicks on it , enters a credit card # and the mechanical license magically appaears in about 30 seconds.

The Fox agency is not the copyright owner or the publishers, they are the administrators for licenses thru ASCAP and BMI..maybe more..I dunno...I don't care...

I'm thinking this is a good thing.

tp

Leon Grizzard · Post by **Leon Grizzard** » 1 Aug 2003 7:27 am

Harry Fox is a subsidiary of the Music Publishers Association of America. Most people use Harry Fox because it more expediant and less cumbersome than using the compulsary licence provisions of the copyright act.

Tom Olson · Post by **Tom Olson** » 1 Aug 2003 8:46 am

Yep, I agree that although using an agency such as Harry Fox or the like can be a bit more expensive for low-volume distributions, it sounds like it's a lot easier than doing it on your own.

But, if someone really wants to pinch every penny (and has a WHOLE lot of time on their hands, not to mention a lot of patience), they could do it on their own and save a few bucks. For most people, though, it's probably not worth the trouble.

[This message was edited by Tom Olson on 01 August 2003 at 09:53 AM.]

John Macy · Post by **John Macy** » 1 Aug 2003 9:57 am

Current rate is $0.08 per song.

Tom Olson · Post by **Tom Olson** » 1 Aug 2003 12:05 pm

John,

You're right -- $0.08 per song per copy. I don't know why my book showed such outdated rates (from 1978).

Here's address for the Copyright Office webpage showing statutory royalty rates:
www.copyright.gov/carp/#mechanical

With a rate of 8 cents per song per copy, that makes agencies like Fox look like that much of a better deal than doing it on your own.

In fact, if the rate Fox charges is $40 per song for up to 500 copies, then you won't save any money at all doing it on your own assuming you distribute more than 500 copies.

It looks like the only way you'd save money doing it on your own is if you were going to distribute really low volumes recordings and you had a significant number of songs on your recording.

For example, if you made a recording with only 5 songs on it and you wanted to distribute 500 copies, the royalty payments would be the same whether you used Fox or did it on your own. However, if you had a recording with 15 songs on it and you only wanted to distribute 100 copies, it would cost $600 through Fox and it would cost $120 if you did it on your own. 'Course, if you did it on your own, you probably will have pulled out all your hair by the time it's over.

[This message was edited by Tom Olson on 01 August 2003 at 01:14 PM.]