Re: p.s. copyright

[BarMusProd <BarMusProd...>]

Dear Eve and Listers,

In a message dated 12/30/03 1:41:41 AM, SICULAR (at) aol(dot)com writes:

>just comparing a couple more notes on this subject:
>
>for the covers we've recorded, I have not found that each copyright-holding
>
>company is so easy to get hold of, or that they're particularly interested
>in 
>being contacted by small producers.

Eve is correct on both counts. And sometimes it is impossible to actually 
locate the current copyright holder--if they even exist. Most of my work has 
been 
with published music, where the copyright holder is readily perceivable. 
Dealing with some of the music recorded on this list would certainly be more 
challenging.

 Steve's informed response is about
>the Fox 
>Agency minimum of 500 paid-up copies for licensing fees, a minimum which
>he 
>points out can be circumvented by not going through Harry Fox. the other
>(5,000) 
>figure was one which I brought up *not* as any kind of minimum number for
>
>which a per-copy rate would be paid; rather, it was a level below which
>the 
>rights-holder asked to be contacted directly rather than sending producers
>to the 
>Fox Agency. in our case, a run of 1000 was not given any discounts but
>was 
>licensed as 1000 x current statutory rate.

Eve, I'm sorry but I'm not quite following this. Someone told you that if you 
were producing 5000 or more CDs that they, as copyright holder, should be 
contacted directly rather than going through the Fox Agency. Perhaps their 
reasoning is that they would like to get the statutory rate for that many CDs, 
and 
that if you go through Fox, *you* will pay the statutory rate in advance, but 
that Fox can negotiate a lower payment with them (that's how the Fox Agency 
makes a profit and stays in business, along with publisher membership dues) so 
that the copyright holder will end up with less, even though you've paid the 
statutory rate to Fox. I've never run into this before, but I guess I can see 
the 
reasoning. This is not an industry-wide practice, to the best of my knowledge.
>
>Steve's points about negotiating rates, and paying only for sold &/or promo
>
>copies rather than produced copies are excellent.  still, at least in my
>
>limited experience, certain copyright owners don't have any easily accessible
>pe
>rmissions department.

True.

 in fact, if my memory serves, sometimes all they
>have is a 
>weblink to HFA.

Some are so small as to have no permissions department at all.

  any more comments are quite welcome on this -- inside
>info is 
>hard to get!!

True again--this is a great list because of our shared knowledge. My point 
was that you do have a choice when you pay mechanical royalties: pay full 
statutory rate in advance for all CDs that you replicate with a 500 CD minimum 
at a 
one-stop-shop with the Fox Agency, or do a lot of legwork and calling 
yourself, perhaps negotiate less that a statutory rate with the copyright 
holder, pay 
only for the CDs that you distribute, and pay *after* the sale or distribution 
(according to the copyright law you are to pay mechanicals *monthly*--no one 
does this, of course, but most pay quarterly or bi-yearly--you also can 
negotiate the royalty payment schedule as well with the copyright holder).

Best wishes,
Steve

Steve Barnett
Composer/Arranger/Producer
Barnett Music Productions
BarMusProd (at) aol(dot)com 

---------------------- jewish-music (at) shamash(dot)org ---------------------+