Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Peters  I'm just making an interpretation, but the definition of publisher is the owner of a song, where song is defined as the words, music, melody, harmony and lyrics. Given that each use of a song incurs liabilities, I would assume that one or all of the above would incur said liabilities. Indeed, I understand that royalties payable are dependant on the length of the song used; it would get rather complicated if you had to calculate the length of the song with lyrics and that without. Additionally it would also suggest that songs without lyrics are worth less than those with words, which seems bizzare to me
From the MCPS website:
[/left][/list] The following information is required by the MCPS: List of musical works required, including composer/artist information
Name of production company
Name and description of programme
Description of music use including duration where known
Details of the sound recordings to be used
Channel(s) the programme is to be broadcast on
Territory(s) the programme is to be broadcast in
Number of transmissions or the licence period required. For a definitive answer, I would contact the MCPS direct. |
Marc
Could the answer lie here: "Details of the sound recordings to be used"
I'm thinking particularly of the recent Whiter Shade of Pale case. Until now, the writer of lyrics got the lions share of the royalties - I think; whilst here the author of the main melody was recognised. I know Sting, Phil Collins and the chubster from Take That have all been grateful for being the writers of their songs. And the fact that so many TV shows blatently avoid using lyrics suggests there may be some differential somewhere.
rick