| | | | | Wedding and Event Videography Share tips and advice on working within the wedding and event videography industry. | 
01-06-2007, 11:25 PM
|  | Just Some Bloke | | Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Kent
Posts: 9,656
Thanks: 36
Thanked 60 Times in 54 Posts
| | 
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: Although fees for the use of a musical work in a television programme are negotiated on an individual basis using the above information, the following are useful guidelines: Channel Four clearance for 5 years (two transmissions) £85.00 per 30 seconds of music Channel Five clearance for 5 years (two transmissions) £62.00 per 30 seconds of music World-wide clearance for 5 year (unlimited transmissions) £600.00 - £800.00 per 30s
| 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. |
01-06-2007, 11:50 PM
| | Junior Member Standard Definition | | Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 11
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
| |
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  |
01-07-2007, 12:07 AM
| | Just Some Bloke | | Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Kent
Posts: 9,656
Thanks: 36
Thanked 60 Times in 54 Posts
| |
Originally Posted by rick_uk Could the answer lie here: "Details of the sound recordings to be used" |
Not judging by the example give by the website
Originally Posted by rick_uk I know Sting, Phil Collins and the chubster from Take That have all been grateful for being the writers of their songs.
|
That is their share of the royalties rather than the explicit overall cost of the royalties payable.
Originally Posted by rick_uk And the fact that so many TV shows blatently avoid using lyrics suggests there may be some differential somewhere. |
As I say, I've only noticed this where the use of the lyrics would seem inappropriate; either they would ditract from the feeling the director is trying provoke, or a voiceover is being used.
|
01-07-2007, 10:54 AM
| | Junior Member Standard Definition | | Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 11
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
| |
Cheers Marc.  |
01-08-2007, 03:31 PM
|  | Opinionated Moderator | | Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Bristol uk
Posts: 8,947
Thanks: 11
Thanked 94 Times in 93 Posts
| |
It is not the person who wrote the song / performed the song that is important, it is the person / organisation who own the rights.
Rights to songs really are the oil of the music industry - owning the rights to some old beatles stuff is the only thing currently keeping M Jackson out of debtors jail (I think) - thay are gold dust and are jealously guarded - extreme caution advised for any commenrcial use. All this must keep thousands of laywers rich.
|
01-08-2007, 09:15 PM
| | Senior Member Video Editing Junkie | | Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 407
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
| |
I don't know if music is the same a written work, but you can reproduce written without paying fees as long as it's less than 10% used of the original material. i.e if you are copying text for lectures etc.
__________________
ggmabaapbnebtrbatst
|
01-09-2007, 08:33 AM
| | Junior Member Standard Definition | | Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 11
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
| |
Originally Posted by Mark W It is not the person who wrote the song / performed the song that is important, it is the person / organisation who own the rights.
Rights to songs really are the oil of the music industry - owning the rights to some old beatles stuff is the only thing currently keeping M Jackson out of debtors jail (I think) - thay are gold dust and are jealously guarded - extreme caution advised for any commenrcial use. All this must keep thousands of laywers rich. |
Mark,
He recently sold some/all of the rights to pay of some/all of his debts. He got 50 million/billion/gazillion, whatever. McCartney said it had always annoyed him that he had to pay someone for the pivilege of singing his own songs in America!
rick
|
01-09-2007, 08:16 PM
| | Junior Member Standard Definition | | Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Milton Keynes
Posts: 8
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
| |
Hi All, at the APV we act as agents for Phonographic Performance and issue licences on their behalf.
In fact we have been doing this for many years and are only one of three licencing agents in the UK
Dubbing in post for a private event or wedding video will be covered if a licence is issued by us (valid for 1 year) and one PPL sticker is purchased for every tape/dvd produced and attached to the packaging (Note: commercial or web distribution is not covered). There is a minimum number of five stickers must be purchased per licence issued. See here http://www.apv.org.uk/apv_ppl_licences.asp?menu=m2
There is a new scheme for professional wedding videographers (as a result of lobbying over many years) whereby if you purchase 50 licences (or more) a very attractive discount scheme is in operation this is only available to our members, but the purchase of 50 saves you more than the APV membership costs (contact the APV by email if you want details).
The PPL licence covers post-production dubbing of commercially available music from UK based performers. To cover live music recording at a wedding in cluding the copyright of the composer etc. you need additionally an MCPS licence (which also covers you for 'some' production music).
BTW I am the director of the APV (Association of Professional Videomakers in case you were wondering...)
I hope this helps  |
05-01-2007, 11:08 AM
| | Junior Member Standard Definition | | Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Milton Keynes
Posts: 8
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
| |
Hi Chaps,
Just for your information PPL Licencencing has now changed and all licences are £4. A more realistic price than before when the sliding scale of charges started at well over £8. A minimum quantity of 5 units (£20) still applies as do all the other rules concerning PPL licences.
These are available for the APV as mentioned above, the address is on our website.
|
05-13-2007, 09:22 PM
| | Junior Member Standard Definition | | Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 11
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
| |
This might help.
I had a wedding client who worked for PRS, so I thought what a good time to create a wedding slide show and add popular music to it and see what she says......nothing.....
I questioned her about it, and her reply was that they are really not interested in the small fry. If you were making 5,000 copies of your film and sending it out, they might sniff at it, 10,000 they would make a report and 25,000 they would get in touch with you. As long as you are not directly making money by selling the dvd's of your films,a dn just using them as promo material they really dont mind....
the artist may get a little upset, but that would be down to them to start the claim via PRS and they woudl have justify the cost of doing so.
None of this is gospel and was a conversation with a client who worked for them, so use it as you wish, but always be carefull.
| | Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode | 
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
| | | All times are GMT. The time now is 04:26 PM. | | | | |
