Imagine you are driving down the road in the summer with the windows down, a legally purchased CD playing at a reasonable volume on the stereo. Later that week, you get sued by an organization for broadcasting a public performance of the work and they want fees for the artist. Laughable? Not really:
Car maintenance chain Kwik Fit is currently tied up in a bitter legal battle with the UK Performing Rights Society (PRS). It’s alleged that Kwik Fit’s mechanics allowed their radios to be played within earshot of the public - a truly heinous crime for which the PRS are demanding £200,000 in damages.
And if that isn’t ridiculous enough, a charity is being sued because children were singing Christmas carols without the proper license.
Did you know you can’t sing “Happy Birthday” in public? Yup - it’s copyrighted.
Are the organizations that police copyright infringement (ASCAP, PRS, etc.) getting carried away here?
Save This Page
December 16th, 2007 at 2:24 am
Hi Dave -
That is indeed ridiculous.
A lot of people have misconceptions over Happy Birthday and copyright law. Any creative work - whether it is an article, music composition, web design or logo is copyrighted material. Even e-mails are copyrighted. Heck, even this comment I’m posting is copyrighted by me.
The real issue here is one of licensing. I purchased published sheet music for Happy Birthday. This means that I have purchased the license to play it live, whether it’s to teach a student how to play it or whether I play it at a gig.
Summy-Birchard Music, who owns the copyright on Happy Birthday, allowed Warner Bros. to publish the lyrics with the music. One could presume that this is Summy-Birchard’s acquiescence to it being sung when the music is played.
Now perhaps the charity who sung Christmas carols were using photocopies in their performance. If the choir was using photocopies instead of using a song booklet or sheet music they purchased (one for each chorister), then they did not purchase the right/license to perform the songs. Then, the fine makes sense.
Professional orchestras spend a good chunk of their budget on purchasing sheet music for all the musicians in the orchestra. They cannot go on stage and perform with a photocopy. Could you imagine the fine they’d have to pay if they were caught performing with photocopies?
This point is driven home strongly at music festivals and exams, where they insist on the performer using an original score, e.g. purchased sheet music or a book. Photocopies are confiscated and shredded and the performer is given a lecture on copyright law.
To demonstrate the flip-side: a teacher/composer colleague of mine e-mailed me his ragtime arrangement of a Christmas song as a Christmas gift. It hasn’t been published so he’s only given me the right to learn the arrangement. I would have to ask him if I could perform it at a paid gig or a recital. It’s the same courtesy I would ask for if I were to send out any of my compositions or arrangements to my colleagues. It’s just common sense.
As for this post, by hitting the “Submit Comment” button I, the copyright holder, am granting you permission to publish my comment and use it for your purposes.
Rhona-Mae
December 16th, 2007 at 2:32 am
I forgot to add a this link - a very informative blog on social networking as well as links to info about copyright:
http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/
Rhona-Mae
December 16th, 2007 at 10:26 am
Rhona-Mae - thank you for that excellent clarification of copyright and licensing. It’s a confusing issue for pretty much everyone, and I think current laws, and laws-to-be (Canadian DMCA), are making the issue more confusing, not less.
Question: if the song was on the radio at Kwik Fit, is a radio broadcast is a public performance and does PRS have any issue with this? If the song was a CD that some brought in (assuming it was bought legally), does that change things? In a quick survey of CDs on my desk, there is no mention of where I can and can’t play them, other than the ambiguous (to a consumer) “All rights reserved” and “Unauthorized duplication is a violation of applicable laws”.
Friend and social media professional Doug Walker said in a (heavily summarized) conversation last week that digital media, social networking and media distribution is leveling the playing ground for musicians. Lesser know bands and musicians can create a much larger following through new pipelines, but the new distribution world does hurt the large artists. The RIAA and other organizations are being cut out of the picture, and are fighting this tooth-and-nail. I wonder if they see their own irrelevance writ large.
The current uproar over copyright is going to force everybody from consumers to lawmakers to artists to rethink copyright and distribution. We’re on the cusp of a brand new world for artists and consumers of art.
And thank you for granting me limited publishing rights for your comments :D
December 16th, 2007 at 9:01 pm
Copyright law and licensing may be different in the UK. I don’t think the Kwik Fit case is even an issue here in Canada. If it were, billions of drivers would be slapped with lawsuits for blaring their music loud enough for other people in other vehicles to hear.
The idea of suing Kwik Fit over this is ludicrous.
As for CD’s and digitally purchased music, I understand that we purchase the license to listen to our music for our own pleasure - alone or while entertaining family and friends. We can rip a CD to our computer for our personal enjoyment.
The moment things get sticky is when financial gain is involved. For instance, ice dancers Shae Lynn Bourne and Victor Kraatz had to ask Eric Clapton for permission to use “Tears from Heaven” in a professional ice dance competition performance. They took their personal recording and aired it at a public event (equivalent to a public performance) in which they stood to win hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Back to Kwik Fit. Sure, they are getting paid for their work on the cars but they certainly weren’t seeking payment from passersby to grant them access to listen to the radio show. The PRS has a very weak case.