RSS
How ASCAP Takes Money From Successful Indie Artists And Gives It To Giant Rock Stars
from the not-cool dept
Back in 2009, we wrote about the crazy situation in which ASCAP, the giant US collection society will funnel money from indie artists and pay it to big rock stars -- which seemed incredibly unfair. It's just one particular part of the royalties that ASCAP pays, but it's still clearly a case of taking from independent artists and giving money that they should be paid under the system and giving it to the most successful artists. The short version of the story is basically that, to make its own life easier, ASCAP just pays those performance royalties to the top 200 grossing tours in the US, and every other touring musician is more or less screwed -- unless you can convince ASCAP that you play "serious music."
Very successful independent musician Zoe Keating, who has had multiple run-ins with the unfair practices of collections societies giving money she's owed to major labels, just came across this same issue and wrote a blog post about her experience:
But, really, this seems borderline criminal. There is simply no way to describe what's happening here other than ASCAP taking money that is owed to independent artists and giving it to the most successful artists in the world instead.
Keating then discusses how, in researching this, she came across a separate program which appears to be something of a lottery for independent artists for herself:
I know that lots of musicians swear that ASCAP isn't like the RIAA, and that it really is about helping artists, but time and time again, we see that it really just functions to perpetuate the system that only rewards the biggest artists, and causes significant problems for the smaller artists. From examples like the stories above, to ASAP's aggressive efforts to shut down any and all open mic nights unless coffee shop owners pay up, ASCAP has successfully been screwing over independent artists for quite some time. It's a real shame and something that organization should work on. As Keating notes, it is possible to do this in a much more fair manner, such as the way PRS handled the exact same situation in the UK (though, obviously, PRS has its own issues).
Perhaps, rather than focusing on attacking Creative Commons, EFF and Public Knowledge -- three organizations that have done amazing things for independent artists, ASCAP should focus on actually paying those artists what they've earned.
Very successful independent musician Zoe Keating, who has had multiple run-ins with the unfair practices of collections societies giving money she's owed to major labels, just came across this same issue and wrote a blog post about her experience:
After a concert, there is this thing called “doing the settlement”. This is where the artist or their representative meets with the promoter, goes over the financial outcome of the night in relation to their contract…and gets paid.Yup. The thing is, I actually would have thought that Keating, whose music is usually classified as "classical" would have qualified for that "serious music" exception -- because back in 2009, we were told that applies to classical music. But now it appears they're limiting that to "live symphonic and recital concerts" and telling her she doesn't qualify for that either.
Sometimes the contract is for a percentage of the gross revenues, but more often for me, I get a guarantee and maybe a percentage of “net” if it was a positive number. The line item deductions that go into the calculation of net are things like sound & lights, staff, venue rental, advertising, insurance, etc. There tend to be many line items in the calculation of “net” and I can’t help but notice that one of them is ASCAP.
For example, at one concert I played last month the gross ticket sales for the night were $9336. Of the many expenses deducted that night, one of the items was $86 to ASCAP.
What is this? This is the nightly portion of a license fee that the hall pays to ASCAP for the permission to perform music by ASCAP artists in their venue. My compositions are registered with ASCAP, so I should get this money eventually, right?
Wrong.
I remembered that when I’ve played in the UK I listed all the songs I played on something called a PRS from and gave it to the venue. Six months or so later, I got a check for the percentage of the night’s revenues due to me according to the PRS formula for that venue.
Thinking that maybe instead of placing the burden on the venue, ASCAP puts it on the artist, I called ASCAP to see how I should go about claiming these concert royalties.
The customer service representative on the phone said there was nothing for me to claim. He informed me that ASCAP pays out performing royalties only to the 200 top-grossing concert tours, as determined by Pollstar. They also pay royalties for “Live symphonic and recital concerts”, whatever they are (he said I don’t qualify for those).
In other words....
Every day, thousands of venues are required to pay a percentage of their gross ticket sales to ASCAP who then gives that money to... let’s look here on Pollstar and find the highest-grossing concerts for 2011....U2, Taylor Swift, Kenny Chesney, Lady Gaga, Bon Jovi, etc.
But, really, this seems borderline criminal. There is simply no way to describe what's happening here other than ASCAP taking money that is owed to independent artists and giving it to the most successful artists in the world instead.
Keating then discusses how, in researching this, she came across a separate program which appears to be something of a lottery for independent artists for herself:
Looking online, I found an ASCAP program that I didn’t know about. Perhaps in an attempt to compensate for this incredible distribution of wealth to the wealthy, ASCAP has something called the “ASCAP Plus Cash Awards”. What are these amazing “awards”?Of course, we've written about this "program" too -- such as noticing in 2010 how ASCAP was bragging about bringing in more money than ever... at the very same time it announced it was massively cutting payments to those who qualify for this mysterious ASCAP Plus program.“For over 50 years, these special awards have recognized writer members each year for substantial performance activity in media and venues that are not included in performance surveys, or whose works have unique prestige value. The program has also been an inspiration to members just starting out to persevere in advancing their music careers. More than 4,200 songwriter and composer members of ASCAP received Plus Awards in their January 2012 disbursement…”You have to submit an application to ASCAP to qualify for consideration (which I just did). The gist of it, as far as I can tell, is that if you are the winner of this black-box calculation ASCAP will make a special award to you of a portion of your own money. Awesome! I’ll let you know if I “win”.
I know that lots of musicians swear that ASCAP isn't like the RIAA, and that it really is about helping artists, but time and time again, we see that it really just functions to perpetuate the system that only rewards the biggest artists, and causes significant problems for the smaller artists. From examples like the stories above, to ASAP's aggressive efforts to shut down any and all open mic nights unless coffee shop owners pay up, ASCAP has successfully been screwing over independent artists for quite some time. It's a real shame and something that organization should work on. As Keating notes, it is possible to do this in a much more fair manner, such as the way PRS handled the exact same situation in the UK (though, obviously, PRS has its own issues).
Perhaps, rather than focusing on attacking Creative Commons, EFF and Public Knowledge -- three organizations that have done amazing things for independent artists, ASCAP should focus on actually paying those artists what they've earned.
I’m looking for policy...
Policy Resources: Software Patents
Application Developers Alliance Applauds Schumer Plan To Introduce Patent Legislation
I have a business...
The Future Of Commerce Will Combine Your Social Network And Mobile Device
How To Successfully Get Your App Into China
I have an idea...
Securing Venture Capital for that Next App Development
App Developer Conversations: Successful Fundraising Techniques
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
Can you say double standard?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
They want smaller artists so they can bulky venues into fees
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
/troll
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm pretty sure this is a ponzi scheme...
So next step is for them to run away with the money they got from the scheme. Lets wait and hope that's the worst that happens.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm pretty sure this is a ponzi scheme...
However, knowing how inept the executors of said scheme are; they apparently never figured out the "cut and run" part--or somebody make a drunken dare "I'll bet you can't string them along for 50 years!" which was accepted; or something like that.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm pretty sure this is a ponzi scheme...
I am not a fool.I never wanted nor will I ever accept Big Labels, RIAA, ASCAP, BMI, ETC.
They are not there to hhelp out the INDIE Musician but they are there to fleece you of your earnings.
Stay DIY and keep your Money & your Earnings.Hang in there and use the Internet, build a fan base, and the World is Yours.
None of you younger starting out Artists need these Big Assholes any longer in this day and age especially.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I'm pretty sure this is a ponzi scheme...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN KNOW THAT I AM JOKING. EMPHASIS ON I. But the trolls who would and do say the following are perfectly serious when they say similar things.
"Maybe these "independent" artists should stop sucking and become top performers. It's not ASCAP's fault they aren't part of the top 200, maybe if they had a little talent they'd be receiving royalties as they would if they were good enough to earn them."
"It's these own artists fault for not being thorough in checking their contracts before THEY WILLINGLY SIGNED THEM, to make sure any royalties collected would go to them. Too fucking bad. Their problem. No one forced them to sign."
"Yeah, yeah, yeah. Whatever Mike. Making it seem like you care about the artists when all you do day in and day out is promote piracy. You and the rest of these Techdirtdouchebag Freetards. Caring all of a sudden about this one, obviously pathetic and nobody of an artist, when the rest of the time you're all too busy stealing from them when you pirate those songs. Just another way to deflect from the real issue at hand, piracy."
"Oh, Mike. Just grasping for any excuse to slam these people who are helping out the artists. I don't see you putting up any articles about all the good they do for artists, but first chance one makes a small mistake there you go. STOP THE PRESSES! Kind of pathetic, chubby. I guess I can see how you would make a big deal though about this ONLY one time incident. What with your debit Marcus/Leigh on the payroll, another nobody of an artist."
And so on and so forth.
There, now that I've covered all the usual troll points/arguments/etc let's see what they bring to the table.
And please, for the love of all that is possibly holy, realize that I DID NOT MEAN ANY OF THAT UP ABOVE. I just wanted to beat the trolls to the punch and show That One Guy what their usual comments would be in such an article, if they do show up (in articles like this they tend to stay away... wonder why).
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'm not sure if it's funny or tragic, or both even, that I've actually run across all of those examples being spouted, at one time or another, by the trolls that lurk TD.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
To me (not sure if USA is same) this reeks of conversion and fraud.
They are intentionally ONLY giving money taken to top 200, willingly tell everyone who asks that this is the way it is done, and are never dispensing any fees collected to the artist who has payed for the privilege of performing their own Intellectual property in the first place by making it a part of venue contract..
I'd say a class action for Trover and/or Detinue is appropriate. Though Conversion is better since the defenses are a LOT less (and needs no intent).
Why any artist in the USA allows this is beyond me. Oh and the top 200 artists could be held vicariously liable for accepting these monies, though its a stretch!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'm intrigued by Part XI B.3.a where a member resigns and shall recieve distribution. Though I think the whole decree rests on what a members classification is defined as. Maybe that needs to be changed, and seeing as this comes from the 1940's with revisions in 60's and then in 2001.. well As Dylan states (and prob doesn't get ASCAP payments fro too) "The times they are a changin"
Interestingly the performer might have an action towards the venue provider in certain circumstances where they are ONLY playing their own IP under the contract for non consideration and also conversion (agency), and lets not talk about those artists, though rare, that are not a part of ASCAP and are getting charged by the venue (and ASCAP) for them they are not a part of the decree and have full standing to recover any monies taken. Now there's a class action in waiting ;)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
I once heard about something similar with respect to radio: rather than collect playlists from stations, even when the stations offered them, ASCAP (or some similar entity, I don't recall which) would sample what was on the air at some times and pay out for only those songs -- and again they didn't bother keeping track of "small" accounts.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
dooH niboR
Studio exec:
Nothing to see here move along people. Business as usual.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: dooH niboR
Government Bigshot: Just what made you think you could get away with such practices as taking from the poor and giving only back to the rich? Where did you learn such underhanded and shady tactics?
ASCAP: I learned them from you, OK! I learned it from you!
Knowing in advance the answer to that question, it would be a non-starter of any government "investigation" right there.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: dooH niboR
He steals from the poor, and gives to the riiiiich!
Stupid bi--
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
leave
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The whole industry is a racket.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
PRS, ASCAP etc
Bear in mind that that PRS cheque will have been "less PRS expenses".
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: PRS, ASCAP etc
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm sure they probably are naive to this as well.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Straight from their own website.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
1. Most of the artists that join ASCAP buy their story and don't realize that they are being cheated so they go along with it.
2. Most of the small venues (like bars and such) that are likely to hire talent that wouldn't be ASCAP members still want to hire cover bands that play music that everyone is familiar with.
3. The larger venues that are likely to only have original talent want to hire acts that are likely ASCAP members so they have to agree to the ASCAP terms in order to get acts that will play there.
Otherwise the venues could just not hire ASCAP artists and acts that do original material then tell ASCAP to go screw themselves.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Unfortunately the system has been rigged in favor of ASCAP/BMI/SESAC and against the venues. I, too, have protested that a venue should not have to pay these organizations if no music written by members of these organizations is being played there. However, any venue that has tried to argue this has run into this response: "We have so many members that if you are playing any music at all, you're likely playing music by one of our members. Unless you can prove otherwise, you need to pay us a fee." The burden of proof is on the venue rather than these collection agencies.
That's where the encouraging indie songwriters to join comes in. ASCAP/BMI/SESAC get their clout by having so many songwriters sign up. If they only represented a handful of songwriters, then it would be much harder for them to tell the venues that chances are member music is being played.
Therefore, once I realized this, I began to suggest that songwriters hold off joining one of these organizations until there is a legitimate reason to think they will get royalty checks in the mail from them. If not, don't join. That way if you go to a venue to play your original music, you can at least claim ASCAP/BMI/SESAC has no right to make the venue pay a fee when you play. Not that it is going to do any good, because unless the venue can prove that no member music is being played there ever, the venue owners will be taken to court and forced to pay. But it is a start. The fewer songwriters who join, the less power these organizations will have. It isn't that I am against ASCAP/BMI/SESAC. It's that most members never get any money, even when they play live shows and their music is played on the radio. The organizations claim to represent them but then don't pay them their due.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Sorry about the caps, don't know how to switch out this font.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Why is this surprising????
That means that the ASCAP management is rolling in cash for which they did absolutely nothing to earn. So let's think about this for a minute. The top 200 artists are only looking for the compensation due to them, they are not looking for the other money. The ASCAP "says" they pay the money from indie tours to the biggest artist, but with the recording industry's track record, I sincerely doubt that money is going to the top 200 touring artists.
More likely than not, all of that "extra" money is going into ASCAP management bank accounts. If you had a "free money machine", would you want anyone messing with it?????
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why is this surprising????
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
"Well, Taylor Swift should start being as successful as U2 and maybe she can get paid one day!"
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
hypocrites
"Williams’ testimony served to highlight the challenges American songwriters, composers and publishers face in securing fair compensation from the public performances of their music in Russia and urged the U.S. Government to address these challenges as they consider Russia’s entry to the World Trade Organization. Williams pointed out that American music creators are grossly underpaid for the public performances of their works in Russia.
American music creators depend on the efficiencies of performing rights organizations (PROs), like ASCAP and its reciprocal relationships with a network of foreign societies around the world, to license their public performance rights and collect and distribute royalties. Williams pointed out that RAO, ASCAP’s Russian counterpart, is handicapped in its efforts to collect on behalf of American music creators through an ineffective legal system and threats to its authority to collect royalties for music used in films and shown in Russian theaters."
http://www.ascap.com/Press/2012/0315-Hearing-Statement.aspx
Seems to me that, in the US, our artists are handicapped in their efforts to collect monies captured on their behalf by ASCAP, the organization doing the collecting.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
I see nothing here that says ASCAP gives indies' money to stars. They said they give the stars back their own money and keep the indies' money.
Is their justification the fact that it's too hard to do all the paperwork? It obviously isn't too much paperwork to take the money!
Also, let's start calling them ASCAAP and GEMAA.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
No one can defend...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
ascap
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It should be this way. If an artist is playing his own music, he/she should have the option to wave having the venue pay a fee for that music. But the venues end up playing a blanket fee to ASCAP, which covers all the music played at the venue, and then in theory it is divvied up among all the ASCAP members whose music is being played there. However, monitoring systems being what they were, ASCAP decided only to pay a small percentage of members because it couldn't track what songs were actually being played.
Now with digital monitoring that problem should be corrected (not that it will be, however) and each member paid according to how often his/her songs are on the radio, in venues, on TV, in film, and on YouTube.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
criminal
backed by usa government
#occupyeverything
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
spotify
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
This Isn't About Indie Artists and Rock Stars
Not all performing artists write their own songs. In fact, about 60% of the songs you hear are not written by the artists that perform them.
About 90% of the venues that feature indie artists demand that those artists do 'cover' songs because audiences, in general, are their to get laid not listen to some unknown artist sing unknown songs. Familiar songs breed, as it were, more intimate familiarity among customers.
Those that write the songs the artists sing deserve to get paid.
But let's say you are an unknown independent artists singing songs your written in some little club.
That club owner has paid about the cost of a glass of beer to ASCAP ... say $4.00 .. to let you perform there for that evening.
If you are a member of ASCAP - as you (Mike) point out... ASCAP has its ASCAP Plus program that lets the writer of the songs apply for payment... which will probably be more than you would get if you received $4.00 for every night you performed your songs in a licensed facility in any given year.
If you are a cover band, the $4.00 goes into a pot to be distributed via a very carefully designed and constantly reviewed survey of public performances to insure as fair and equitable distribution of funds in the most cost effective way possible.
But, the most important thing to remember about ASCAP is that is is about songwriters and their SONGS... not about those who perform them like Indie Artists and Rock Stars.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This Isn't About Indie Artists and Rock Stars
ASCAP needs to improve how it monitors songs so that more songwriters can be paid. I read about a situation where two songwriters co-wrote a song. One was a member of ASCAP or BMI and the other was a member of SESAC. Every time the song was played somewhere, the two songwriters should have shared equally in the performance royalty payments. However, the SESAC writer got considerably more money than the ASCAP/BMI writer.
So that's my complaint. I understand why the performance rights organizations were created, but many people join and never see any money even though their songs are on the radio, are performed in clubs, etc. If songwriters only earn tiny amounts of money, they should at least be able to see a record of that. It's time for a better monitoring system so that every song performance is recorded and every member songwriter gets credit for it.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This Isn't About Indie Artists and Rock Stars
Re: monitoring: the US is a gigantic country. To monitor everything would cost more than the moneys that get collected. Think about it ... if you hired people to visit and survey each of the thousands of clubs that pay $4.00 a night in license fees it doesn't take a mathematical genius to figure out that the numbers just won't work.
That's why scientifically designed sample surveys are employed when they are the most cost effective.
Where financially feasible the societies do track 100% of the performances ... and that's generally where the big money is found.
Every time ASCAP can employ a complete census survey that produces more income for its members (meaning the complete census costs less than a sample survey) they employ it. As the world goes more and more digital the number of complete census surveys expands.
One of ASCAP's main objectives is to drive costs down so its members receive more in royalties. Every dime over and above the cost of running ASCAP is paid to its member owners.
And remember, ASCAP is the only society in the US where its owners are its members.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This Isn't About Indie Artists and Rock Stars
Eventually there will likely be a monitoring device that goes to each venue that pays a blanket license to ASCAP/BMI/SESAC so that every song played on the premises is recorded and royalties can be assigned to each member according to plays.
What I have been pointing out to singer/songwriters is that telling a venue you play only original music isn't enough if you are a member of ASCAP/BMI/SESAC. By becoming a member, you have given these organizations permission to collect from venues on your behalf. You don't get a say on who has to pay royalties for your songs and who doesn't have to pay if you have signed up as a member of a collection agency. If you don't want them to collect money on your songs, don't join. (You may still be docked the money the venue pays to ASCAP/BMI/SESAC if that's something they bill all performers, but then that's something you'll have to try to negotiate with the venue owner.)
In other words, ASCAP/BMI/SESAC are collection agencies. If you join one of them, you have given them permission to act as your agent. That might be to your benefit and it might not depending on how often your songs are being played and where, and what other perks you can get from ASCAP/BMI/SESAC.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This Isn't About Indie Artists and Rock Stars
Live performances are a tiny piece of the pie here, which makes it even more inexcusable to bully every single little venue that even has a TV in it, making it so that although there are 10 beautiful rooms with sound in a depressed midsized city, only one of those rooms belongs to a music venue which will let you throw a show there.
My personal opinion is that these methods serve not only to steal money, but to protect the vertical integration on music production, distribution, sales, marketing, performance, etc which the music industry has. It's the same type of thing as signing all the bands from a genre and shelving all but a few of them. If you make it illegal for all the Metallica sound-alikes to perform, Metallica becomes more profitable.... If you make it so that most small venues can't afford to risk having live music, musical/cultural movements you don't control have a harder time forming. Get it?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Venues have to pay a relatively nominal licensing fee to all of the PROs, generally for what is called a blanket license (mentioned above somewhere) from each of the societies. This license allows the venue to perform all songs represented by ASCAP, BMI and SESAC respectively.
Unfortunately, there are a lot of venues/promoters who decide to recoup that cost from the artists who perform at said venues. In this case, ASCAP is not charging the artist (the PROs pay their songwriters when their music is publicly performed, why would we charge them for it?), ASCAP is charging the venue, and the venue is chosing to essentially recoup that cost from the arist, which is an awful practice that is unfortunately becoming more popular.
Further, live performances are not the only thing that the societies pay out for. Licensing fees are also collected from terrestrial and internet radio, TV stations, hotels, nightclubs etc. Operational costs are deducted from the total pool collected, which is then distributed to all songwriters whose songs have been performed in the quarter being paid on.
In this case, the venue is requiring this artist to reimburse them for the fee that they have to pay ASCAP, which goes into that distribution pool, then out to all songwriters with performances recorded across all platforms mentioned above and more. While ASCAP only pays on the top 200 tours for live shows, those are not by any means the only performances being paid out for - dont think of the word "performance" to mean only live.
As of a year or two ago, BMI launched a program called BMI Live, in which songwriters, regardless of caliber, can register their songs/setlists/venues for payment on their live performances of their work. More info here www.bmi.com/live. SESAC does the same, and ASCAP is working towards it.
Feel free to ask questions. This world is admittedly very confusing but the whole purpose is to ensure that songwriters get paid when their music is publicly played. If we took money from them, then paid it right back to them, what would be the point?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The reason the live performance issue comes up is that singer/songwriters have run into coffee shops that used to offer open mic and acoustic nights and then decided to stop those to avoid paying the blanket licenses to the PROs. Now it may seem like a small fee to the PROs, but if the venue is barely getting by and has to pay fees to three different PROs, they often decide not to bother.
I am glad exceptions have been made for house concerts and I would like to see a similar arrangement for small venues that don't make most (if any) money from live music. To encourage a music industry, having these small places for indie artists (particularly those just starting out) is a good thing.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ASCAP Plus Awards
In checking the ASCAP website ... I see that the ASCAP Plus Awards which the BMI and SESAC programs you mention attempt to emulate has been in existence for 50 years.
http://www.ascap.com/Press/2012/0313_ascapplus.aspx
http://www.ascap.com/members/ascaplus .aspx
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: ASCAP Plus Awards
Could BMI Live Help Local Musicians Get Paid? | Ear Bud
Someone commented about how much his band got for such a gig:
"As the publishing admin for a band that played Austin Music Hall last NYE to a sold out crowd (4400 paid), I can attest that BMI Live paid out about $1.50 per original song they played."
So I ran the math for that. It would work out to about $.00034 per audience member per song.
That's not a lot of money, but at least the process seems transparent, which is a good thing. So based how many shows you play a year, how many people are in the audience, and how many songs you normally play, you should be able to estimate what your live show royalty payment might be at the end of the year and decide whether or not it's worth it to you to send BMI your setlist for each show you play.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
in response to Tonsotunez
Not sure where you got the $4 figure but I hope ASCAP's overhead is not so high that a payment of $86 would net the copyright holders $4 ;-)
Yes, you're right not every artist owns their material. I do though, so for me "artist" is synonymous with "copyright holder". I have composer and publisher accounts with ASCAP.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: in response to Tonsotunez
In the big cities some scumbag venue owners actually change (rather than pay) new artists to play their rooms.
It the venue owners that are the creeps ... not ASCAP.
And, have you applied for ASCAP Plus ... With the schedule I see on your website ... It is more than likely that you would receive more than you are allowing venue owners to steal from you.
Again, from what I see on your website, you are an exciting, extremely talented and very unique artist.
My wish for you is that in the very near future you will be so successful that you will no longer be afraid to tell venue owners to shove it if even suggest that they are going to reduce your earnings by an amount they claim to be paying ASCAP.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: in response to Tonsotunez
"I," the venue (aka 1,500 sf coffee shop) owner should have to pay ASCAP, $1,200 to cover copy write licensing for the 15 songs that the once a week struggling singer plays for FREE for my 12 customers to hear after purchasing their $3 lattes. I say "we'll, that doesn't seem fair." He begins to rant to me how "life" isn't fair and wouldn't I rather pay him $1200 and not the $150,000+ that Ill be sued for?
This lovely phone call is of course followed up by a barrage of threatening letters and more threatening phone calls each escalating in their level of threat. It gets better, because then they send some kid into my store to threaten me in person. I feel like the hole-n-the-wall bar owner in the Bronx that gets shaken down weekly by the local mafia thug. Real Professional!!!
The songwriting community really should find a higher class of representation.
I do have a question, why is it that the small cafe owner is shaken down for the licensing fees for the tools of the musician. Is it not the musician that is responsible for bringing their tools to a gig. Their instruments, speakers, voice etc. The songs they choose to preform are part of their toolbox. The cafe should not be responsible for the tools. Even if it is inconvenient for the PRO...It's just wrong.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
You said: "Further, live performances are not the only thing that the societies pay out for. Licensing fees are also collected from terrestrial and internet radio, TV stations, hotels, nightclubs etc. Operational costs are deducted from the total pool collected, which is then distributed to all songwriters whose songs have been performed in the quarter being paid on."
I only know about ASCAP, so I don't know if this is the case with BMI, but they do not actually distribute money to " all songwriters whose songs have been performed in the quarter being paid on. "
For entities like the major networks NBC, ABC and CBS, ASCAP distributes to the artist's who's works were logged in cue sheets filed by the production company (no cue sheet, no logging at ASCAP, no distribution). In my experience its up to the copyright holder to follow through and make sure cue sheets are filed. For other entities, like MSNBC, ASCAP only pays to the songwriters who's songs were performed on the two days that ASCAP chose as "sample days". Here's an example: if a songwriter has 30 minutes of music in a documentary that aired on MSNBC in July and December of 2011 (as I did), they will not get a distribution from ASCAP for that because the random 2 sample days for all of 2011 were in May. The same is true for radio, the distribution doesn't go to " all songwriters whose songs have been performed in the quarter being paid on. " it goes to songwriters who's works were logged during ASCAP's sample periods.
Just thought I'd clear that up.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The larger point of my original post was to clear up that no, the PROs are not charging the artist for licensing fees, and no, the top 200 tours are not the only performances that we are paying out. This article makes it seem like the PROs are organizations that exist to rob artists earlier in their careers to pay the 1% so to speak which is simply not true at all.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes, I think that is a big issue. If you are a songwriter and you know you are getting radio play yet see no acknowledgment from your PRO, then you get suspicious. I have heard that SESAC is better at tracking radio play for DIY artists, but I have no personal knowledge of this, so I don't know for sure if it is true.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
I didn't make this up, the rates and how they are calculated are listed in ASCAP's concert licensing agreement which you can find online at:
http://bit.ly/GX1RJZ
I also play in bars and clubs, how it works for them is an annual lump sum based on amount of live concerts per week and venue capacity:
http://bit.ly/GX1RJZ
Regarding the ASCAP Plus Awards: The idea of your own money being an "award" is Orwellian.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
It IS Your Money
Zoe ... Irrespective of the fact that you don't like the term 'award' - it IS your money! Why not collect it? Apparently you play venues that are currently uneconomical to survey. Basic economics says it's irrational to pay more to survey, collect and process fees than the fees themselves.
According to the ASCAP website, for 50 years ASCAP Plus has given songwriters, such as yourself, a way to participate in the income generated by the performances of their works in unsurveyed situations.
If you have refused to participate feeling the program was "Orwellian" - what is "Orwellian" about a program that tries to be as cost effectively fare as possible?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It IS Your Money
How many members get to participate in this program? Does everyone who "qualifies" get to be part of it, or are there quotas limiting the number of participants?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It IS Your Money
While it's not totally absurd, I dislike this trend towards predictive economics. Especially when involving smaller artists who by their very nature are going to have varying plays based on the whims and vagaries inherent at the lower end of the scale.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Network TV is census. Some cable stations like MTV are census. MSNBC is sample (music is paid for on 2 sample days per year) even though you'd think it was network since NBC and MSNBC produce their shows from the same building.
It's important to know this info as a copyright holder, because if a producer tries to give you a low sync fee or no fee because you'll get "backend from the PROS", it is useful to know that actually isn't always true.
For example: 30 seconds of my music on NBC (census) Dateline (who doesn't directly license my music, I only get the PRO fee) nets aroujnd $240 ($120 composer + $120 publisher)
30 seconds of my music in Teen Wolf on MTV (census) = $100 ($50 compoesr + $50 publisher)
30 MINUTES of my music in a documentary on MSNBC (survey) = $0
But you're right, this is all outside the scope of this post, which is about live concert reporting.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Way Wrong!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Way Wrong!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
They Jack Up the Club Owners, Too
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
The technology is coming
Musical ‘Big Data’ Problem Could Be Depriving Artists of Significant Revenue | Evolver.fm
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
ASCAP bullying
About a year ago, she decided it would be fun and would provide some support to local musicians if she started hosting concerts in the garden on Saturday evenings a couple of times a month in the spring and fall when the weather is nice...maybe 10 shows per year.
The performers use the deck as a stage and either play acoustically or provide their own sound systems. The audience sits in folding chairs in the garden. Tickets are $10... every penny of which goes directly to the performers. Typically there'll be 15 or so people in the audience so the performer can count on taking home around $150 bucks. Not too shabby for a couple of hours work - even if you're dividing it between 3 or 4 band members.
My friend pays to advertize the shows out of her own pocket and she also puts out free chips and dips and sodas and iced tea for the performers and for the audience. Performers are all local singer/songwriters who mostly sing their own compositions but who occasionally sing a cover tune in response to a request from the audience. Some of the singer/songwriters have registered their own works with ASCAP or BMI. Others are totally independent artists. None are close to being among the 200 top touring acts in the U.S.
My friend isn't even trying to make any money off of the shows. She is SPENDING her own money (well, actually her husband's money) to support local musicians. At one time she would probably have been lauded as a patron of the arts.
But, my friend just got a letter from ASCAP demanding that she purchase a license to the tune of $300 per year plus a percentage of the ticket price...or cease and desist holding public performances immediately. Given the number of shows she holds per year, the basic license alone comes out to $30/show and, with tickets set at $10 only about 15 people in the audience, that is 20% of the gross revenue.
I'm an IP lawyer so she came to me asking "what should I do?"
Basically I had to tell her she had three options:
1) IF she could be absolutely certain that no one would ever again play an ASCAP registered song unless it was their own copyrighted song, she could tell ASCAP to take a flying leap. Problem is, as we all know, once a performer is on-stage, there is no possible way for the venue operator to control what he/she plays. Even asking for a play list prior to the performance AND insisting on iron-clad language in a contract that the performer will play only his/her own music or music in the public domain, won't help. The law puts liability for infringement on the venue operator...NOT on the performer.
2) She can purchase "protection" by paying the ASCAP licensing fee. She could then take this money out of the gross door before paying the remainder to the performer. Worse, once ASCAP gets its hooks into her, you can bet that BMI and SESAC won't be far behind. Their demands together will probably about equal ASCAP's so figure $600/year total for the three licenses. That means my friend will need to take $60 out of the gross door to pay for licenses, leaving the musicians with $90 instead of $150.
3) My friend can stop putting on musical shows.
I strongly recommended the third course of action. Believe it or not tho, my friend has actually decided to purchase the licenses out of her own pocket and will continue hosting concerts and giving the entire door to the performers. Like I said tho, her husband has a very well- paying job so she can afford to do this.
Most people would not be able to.
If ASCAP really wanted to be fair and truly support all songwriters (instead of just the big names), they would institute a policy whereby any songwriter who registered his/her music with ASCAP automatically received a license from ASCAP that allowed him/her to play any other ASCAP musician's music in any venue that was below a certain size WITHOUT the venue operator being required to have a license. This blanket free-use license would continue to be good until the songwriter reached that magical "top 200 songwriter status" at which point any venue that wanted to hire him would have to pay a licensing fee. Coffeehouses and other small venues would proliferate and venue operators would LOOK for ASCAP registered songwriters to perform at their venues. Then, if the ASCAP performing songwriter screwed up and sang a BMI registered song, the onus should be on the songwriter, not the venue.
BMI and SESAC should do the same thing. Then they would actually be offering something real to new songwriters who would want to join whichever PRO already had the largest stable of other songwriters whose works the performing songwriter might want to cover in his shows.
Just my 2 cents
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ASCAP bullying
I wonder if it might also be possible for a group of friends to agree in advance that they will each chip in $10 per person to be given to the performer, but they would still treat it as a private party because it isn't billed as a public event.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ASCAP bullying
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
non payment of any kind
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
what if someone were to go to a coffee house and hear a bob dylan song , and then go out and buy it, you just made money , its free advertiseing, you are money grubbing crooks, but karma will catch you
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
And by the way ASCAP just launched a new program to address this issue. http://www.ascap.com/Press/2012/1001_onstage.aspx
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Overseas Live Performances
For the overseas live performances, while you may fill out a form at the venue for the local PRO, you still need to notify your PRO of those performances. There's a chance the form might not be sent to the PRO and then there would be no way for your PRO to know that you were supposed to be paid for those performances if they didn't know about them.
If you're a BMI member, BMI has a form for notifying them. If you're an ASCAP member, ASCAP either has a form or should take some sort of notification to them, probably by accessing your account online.
Unfortunately, what ASCAP or BMI needs from the songwriters about these live performances isn't exactly easily found on their websites, if it's even there. The PROs do have departments that specifically work with the foreign PROs to notify of performances and track down those royalties.
The BMI explanation on that is kind of buried in their International section but it's there: http://www.bmi.com/international/entry/C2253.
I couldn't find it mentioned anywhere on ASCAP's website, but as the songwriter, you should be able to let them know you performed overseas so they can go after your royalties from the appropriate foreign PRO. I'm not sure how helpful their Member Services would be but you can try them. If they tell you that you don't need to do anything, tell them about the overseas concerts anyway.
Hope this helps in some way but you CAN and SHOULD get paid for those overseas live performances. The foreign PROs collected the fees from the venue, they just need to know where to send the royalties.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
YOU ARE WRONG
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Add Your Comment