Advertise on ChoralNet
Non public domain performance onlineDate: October 2, 2009
Folks,
Can someone who has gone through this tell me if this is correct?
It's pretty clear from choralnet archives that one can only put performances of copyrighted songs on a website for downloading (which includes listening online without downloading to one's computer, correct?) if one first obtains permission from the copyright holder or a mechanical license. So, if I want people coming to my website to hear what we have done, I have to license each piece. I can do that either directly with the copyright holder (usually the publisher) or through a place like the Harry Fox Agency, and the process is the same as if I were making a CD. ANd it doesn't matter whether the piece is for sale or just for listening.
Unless I put on the site only a few seconds of each piece (how many?).
Yes?
Thanks!
David Janower
janower(a)albany.edu Replies (32): Threaded | Chronological
Allen H Simon on October 2, 2009 1:37pm
Here's Harry Fox's page on digital licensing, although the PDF they link to with the statutory rates is pretty opaque.
What duration of excerpt constitutes "fair use" is not defined by statute. iTunes (as well as Amazon and others) seem to think 30 seconds works, and although record companies are actuallly suing Apple for royalties on those excerpts, IMO it's doubtful they'll prevail.
on October 3, 2009 9:14am
Hi, David. I think this is one of those things that's legally still up in the air because the definitive court cases haven't happened yet, but from my viewpoint these would seem to be the basics. (I am no an attorney, just a musician who tries to keep up!)
If you record a concert, that is permitted as long as it is an archive copy--a SINGLE archive copy. But doing anything to distribute that recording, including duplicating it (which an internet posting is), distributing it (which an internet posting which allows downloading does), selling copies or even giving away copies takes you far outside the exeptions for educational use under the Fair Use Guidelines, and must be handled just as any commercial recording is.
Wasn't the whole Napster fiasco based on making copyrighted music, in copyrighted recordings, freely available for downloading at no charge? I think so. And that's basically what led to the creation of iTunes and other legal, commercial, royalty-paying websites.
So the first fees you're liable for are the mechanical license fees for making the recording in the first place. And unfortunately those fees are based on the number of copies "made and distributed," which can be difficult or impossible to document on a website (although the technology may be available and I just don't know about it).
Now if it IS possible to post your recording but make downloading it impossible, that would change the situation, but it then gets too complicated for this musician's mind to figure out!
As to "how many seconds" might be legal, Allen's correct that it isn't covered in the law, nor is it specified in the Fair Use Guidelines, so it's anybody's guess. What IS in the Guidelines relates to photocopying examples for classroom use. And THAT specifies 10% as long as it is not a performable excerpt.
So I guess the bottom line is whether or not you're willing to set yourself up to be a test case in court, and argue that "everybody does it," or "the law doesn't say I can't do it," or whatever other reasoning your lawyer comes up with. Or, pehaps that lawyer really can learn enough from more recent modifications of the law and relevant court cases to establish a solid precedent that would protect you (and the rest of us). But the publishers have more money and more lawyers, and courts (with obvious exceptions) are swayed more by irrefutable logic than by wishfull thinking.
All the best,
John
on October 3, 2009 1:32pm
There's a difference between "copyright" (simply, the right to make copies) and "performance rights," which are overseen by people like Harry Fox, ASCAP, and BMI. When something whose performance rights are managed by a rights agency gets "performed," and that "performance" can be live, over broadcast, or on film, the rights-holder earns a fee. ASCAP allows free performances of ASCAP musicians's works in K-12 school performances and within services of worship, and so may other rights agencies; this is why a lot of us Choralnetters never have to worry about such things. However, if you're involved with musicals or other dramatic works, you've already dealt with this distinction; buying the script (from someone who owns the COPYright) doesn't give you permission to perform the work (which you get from whoever owns the PERFORMANCE rights.)
Internet downloads are a cloudy issue; there are some (for example, the performing-rights-managing agencies) who wish every download to count as a "performance," and thus cause the cash register to ring. This hasn't been settled yet... and nobody wants to be the test case, 'cause that's gonna be REAL expensive, to win or to lose.
Certainly a safe place to stand is that you only webcast music that is in the public domain, because such music won't be covered by performance-rights organizations. You can webcast "copyrighted" music all you want, if the work isn't under the aegis of ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, or some similar organization, OR if the composer is a member of such organizations but the piece isn't registered with them. (Tracking that sort of thing gets hairy, which is why webcasting only public-domain works is a simpler rule.)
But nonetheless, copyright and performance right aren't the same.
Robert (ASCAP member)
on October 3, 2009 3:05pm
This is mostly true, but needs a little clarification. Copyright is a general term which includes all these rights, including reproduction rights (mainly handled by publishers), performance rights (ASCAP BMI etc.), recording rights (handled by Harry Fox), arrangement rights (publishers again), and so on. Initially all these rights belong to the composer, but they can be contracted out (or sold) individually. So one person or organization might own the film rights, another might own the recording rights, etc., although for most pieces it doesn't get that complicated.
Generally a publisher acquires the entire copyright itself when they agree to publish a composition, but ASCAP and Harry Fox are only agents authorized to collect royalties in a centralized way, so you'd need to negotiate permission from the publisher regardless of what category your webcast falls under.
on October 3, 2009 5:02pm
I think that "copyright" means "the right to control how one's work is used," not " the right to make copies." The rights referred to in the word "copyright" are those of the copyright owner, not the user. Copyright exists to protect the rights of the person who created the content.
Sarah Hager Johnston BMus, MLS
[former corporate librarian who managed copyright for a large company]
GraceNotes
on October 3, 2009 6:01pm
Hi, Robert. Essentially Allen's response is correct, although somewhat simplified.
Your distinction between "copyright" and "performance right" might make logical sense, but it's a semantic trap. U.S. Copyright law covers ALL aspects of Copyright, not just the right to make copies. As Allen said, U.S. Copyright is actually a bundle of several different rights, each treated differently in the law, each traated differently in the Fair Use Guidelines, and each capable of of being sold or assigned separately. Copyright is an aspect of Property Law, as is much U.S. law (including the laws that made slavery legal by treating slaves as property!).
Secondly, the Harry Fox agency does not handle performance rights, it handles recording ("mechanical") rights and the payment of royalties for those rights. I'm not sure which agencies are tasked to handle broadcast and synchronization rights. (Please remember that I am NOT a lawyer, and these are not legal opinions.)
Thirdly, ASCAP (and the other performance rights organizations, BMI and SESAC) does not "allow free performance of ASCAP musician's works in k-12 school performances and within services of worship." The only reason those rights were protected is that during the runup to the 1976 revision of U.S. Copyright law, a committee including representatives of the Music Publishers Association, the MENC, and NASM agreed on very MINIMUM rights for educational and worship music without payment of performance royalties. (And please note that neither the MENC nor NASM has the power to enforce anything on their members!) No representatives of professional musicians were included on that Committee, and as far as I know no representatives of religious organizations, but the Music Publishers had to give those minimal concessions in order to get what they really wanted, the repeal of the loophole in the 1909 law that performance royalties were only due from "public performance for profit."
And fourthly, the several angencies (including MTI, Tams-Witmark, and the Rodgers & Hammerstein Library) do not OWN the copyrights to the music they represent, they simply represent the real copyright owners, and they police the system so that the Grand Rights that apply to "musico-dramatic" works (including operas, musical theater, and ballets) are strictly enforced, and from Grand Rights there are no exceptions and no appeal in U.S. Copyright law. And in general you cannot buy those scripts on the open market, nor can you buy the orchestrations. You MUST rent them, and at the same time pay the performance fees that are due for performing those works.
And finally, while your stat ement about public domain music is essentially true, it's possible that music which is in fact PD may be performed from an edition which has a later, quite valid copyright, in which case all the protections of U.S. Copyright law apply to that edition (although not to the music which is PD itself--I didn't say this was simple, and that's why the lawyers get the big bucks!!!).
Please accept my apologies for responding to your post in what may seem like a negative way, Robert, but there is a huge amount of incorrect information circulating regarding U.S. Copyright law and its implications for working musicians, and I feel an obligation to straighten out that misinformation when I come across it. I thoroughly recommend a small book by Jay Althouse, distributed by Alfred, which explains all this more coherently than I can.
All the best,
John
on October 3, 2009 8:13pm
David (and all)-
This spring, I wrote a paper on copyright issues for the independent ensemble director (specifically geared toward ensembles not associated with a school or church - as memory serves, this is exactly what your group is).
If anyone would like to read this paper, I'm more than happy to share it. Just drop me an email at ttropp(a)u.northwestern.edu.
Tom
on October 4, 2009 11:17am
All,
I'm doing a Choral Journal article called "Technology For the 21st Century Choir" that is coming out in the December issue.
In it, there is a section on the YouTube and Choir Directors . . .
Here's what I found out:
Website and YouTube performances are not clearly covered by current copyright laws and there is no clear legal guideline covering the practice. If there were, you can bet that the music publishers would be informing us of the law.
With that being the case, I recently did a little "investigation" into the policies of many music publishers towards performances of copyrighted works on YouTube. I contacted 25ish music publishers and put the question to them.
There are three categories of answers from the music publishers:
1. They have no policy towards YouTube performances and they don't care if you put your performance online.
2. They want you to ask and receive permission from them
3. They may ask you to pay a small fee or even try to enforce synchronization and mechanical rights (something I don't think they have the legal right to do).
It was a fascinating "investigation." At times, it was clear that they music publishers were as curious about industry practices as I was in asking the question. In many cases, they wanted to know the information that I was discovering . . . I began to realize that because I was asking the official question, they were being forced to come up with the actual policy.
My advice after this investigation is this:
1. If it is Public Domain, don't worry. And John, they can't copyright a public domain work even if they reset it in a new typeface. They may tell you it is copyrighted, but I dont think that it is.
2. If it is copyrighted, contact the publisher. Most don't have a problem with it. They may ask you to provide a credit at the end of the video and acknowledge that you are performing it with permission.
It is significant that I could not get a response from the Music Publishers Association on their official policy towards a copyrighted work's performance on YouTUbe. I had a great time doing the "investigation" and may provide a more extended article/exploration that could result in a standard practice for the industry.
on October 4, 2009 12:59pm
Philip: Thanks SO much both for doing that survey and for sharing it with us. Just one question:
You wrote: "And John, they can't copyright a public domain work even if they reset it in new typeface. They may tell you it is copyrighted, but I don't think that it is."
My understanding, like yours, is that once a work enters the public domain, it may never again be copyrighted or claimed by anyone. BUT--and this is the important thing--a new edition or arrangement CAN and WILL be granted a new copyright. That new copyright covers only the NEW "intellectual content" and not the original music, but that new intellectual content may include phrasing, resetting or new translations of the text, or other things that do affect the music itself. Which DOES mean that anyone who performs from that edition or arrangement is performing copyrighted music, even though the "music" (i.e. the original notes and the original text) is unquestionably PD.
So I am not simply talking about reengraving the music. That has NEVER been covered by U.S. Copyright law, although it has been under European law.
Case in point: As the marches by John Philip Sousa and the other march composers of his generation begin to approach PD, several people including Keith Brion and Fred Fennell have brought out new editions of those marches, with their own legitimate new copyrights. They are printed on regular sized paper rather than the tiny Quickstep versions of the original, and complex repeat schemes are often written out, but some of them go further and claim to give the versions that Sousa actually PLAYED rather than the way he had them PUBLISHED. And since those versions were never copyrighted in the first place, and have simply been passed down from one generation to the next from Sousa's players, there's no question that the modern copyrights are valid.
John
on October 8, 2009 11:42am
"1. If it is Public Domain, don't worry. And John, they can't copyright a public domain work even if they reset it in a new typeface. They may tell you it is copyrighted, but I dont think that it is." Careful there. I once was working with a performer who just had to have X song on her album, and the company had gone out of business decades ago. Come to find out -- after nine months -- that the work had been written in 1892 and published in Australia. The American company had obtained copyright in 1957 by simply changing the key from B flat to C. Bogus? Probably. But I looked up the rule. If someone changes a public domain work 20 percent, they can claim the "derivative" as belonging to them. Re-typesetting it probably doesn't cut it. Merely changing the key probably doesn't cut it. But if there is a change in arrangement, look out. Be careful; when using works from the public domain, it will be worth your while to hit up some library and make a copy of a pre-1923 edition (the National Library of Australia ended up coming through for my case).
Sincerely,
Deeann D. Mathews
on October 4, 2009 12:41pm
It would certainly be useful if there were a clear easy-to-understand policy about this; better, even, if the publishers could agree to a single policy as copyright holders.
I have discovered so much new repertoire for my own groups via Youtube videos, resulting in the purchase of well over a thousand dollars worth of music from the very publishers who might (or might not) want to charge a fee or enforce synchro or mechanical rights. Without seeing/hearing the Youtube recordings, I probably would not have found this music, and likely would not have purchased it. I use Youtube as a sort of "advertising" that allows me insight into the performance potential of a given piece.
Of course, this only works if the person who uploaded the video includes the title and composer. Unfortunately, many do not have this basic info.
Lana Mountford
Bellingham, WA
Ass't Conductor -- Cantaré Vocal Ensemble, Seattle, WA
Director -- SilverSounds, Seattle, WA
on October 4, 2009 2:45pm
For myself, Lana, I'd prefer not to rely on music publishers deciding the policy. If it's left up to them, they will of course choose the most restrictive policy possible. What we need is for legislators to refine the law so that it balances the interests of copyright holders and the public at large.
on October 5, 2009 8:14am
This is certainly an interesting and important topic, in that the legality of the posting of performances of copyrighted choral music online is far from clear. How do the YouTube videos differ (in a legal sense) from MP3s posted online? I think it's fairly clear that distributing MP3s of copyrighted music online without permission violates the spirit and probably also the letter of the law (remember the demise of the original incarnation of "Napster"?). A video has the same audio content as those MP3s, so does the addition of a visual element therefore make the publishing/sharing/distributing of those recordings legal? I doubt it.
I'd also like to thank Philip for sharing the summarized results of his informal survey, but more details would be welcome, such as which publishers fall into the three categories (unless you promised them anonymity, of course). The statement "you can bet that the music publishers would be informing us of the law" seems to be a bit of an assumption. I think there are multiple reasons that isn't happening just yet, including not only lack of clarity in the application of laws, but also in that traditional choral programs are a "niche market" (relatively small) when compared to the larger commercial music (and entertainment) industry. Furthermore, the choral publishers most likely are hesitant to "bite the hand that feeds them" and so, while many are likely concerned about violations of their rights, they're biting their collective tongues and looking the other way, hoping that having the music "out there" is a net benefit, when it comes to increasing sales of the sheet music.
I tried to bring the issue of YouTube videos up in the forums on ACDA's website, but it didn't generate much of a response, and the site administrator seems to have censored (removed) that discussion thread. I asked if ACDA had done as Philip wisely suggested above and obtain specific permission from the copyright holders of the music contained in the videos being posted to the "NationalACDA" channel on YouTube. I eventually received a response to the effect that they don't think they need permission.
Regarding the archival copy of concert recordings (that John Howell mentioned above), there's some interesting "back and forth" about that in the comments of one of the ChoralBlog entries from last July:
Blood from a turnip
That discussion, involving the practice of distributing multiple copies of the "archival recording" of a concert was never resolved. Feel free to jump in, if you have an opinion.
I agree with Allen -- I think we're overdue for legislative clarity, as opposed to the assumptions that both users and copyright holders appear to be operating under.
on October 5, 2009 9:23am
This is getting a little technical, but what makes choral YouTube videos different from Napster is that Napster involved reproduction rights on the recordings themselves, vigorously defended by the record labels and their zillion-dollar legal budgets. It was the performers, not the composers, defending their turf. Video content creators such as CBS and Disney have been vigilant about watching for copyright violations on YouTube, since that is threatening their core business.
But with YouTube performances of choral works the performers are the ones posting (usually) so we're talking about recording rights of the compositions, which publishers with their relatively shoestring budgets are unlikely to pursue. Still a violation, if the work is copyrighted and mechanical license wasn't secured, but springing from a different source. The content of these videos isn't the "same audio content" as MP3s formerly posted on Napster, from a legal standpoint. If somebody had put a recording of their garage band doing covers of Backstreet Boys songs on Napster (the equivalent of me putting a video of my choir singing Biebl's Ave Maria on YouTube), it wouldn't have gotten the same legal reaction.
on October 5, 2009 10:51am
Thanks for further technical clarification, Allen. The Napster example is indeed a bit like "apples and oranges," in that the vast majority of MP3s being shared were ripped off of commercial CDs, which is a reproduction/copying/distribution issue.
However, you seem to be clearly stating ("Still a violation, if the work is copyrighted and mechanical license wasn't secured") that posting YouTube videos of performances of copyrighted choral music does indeed violate copyright restrictions as they currently exist, in that in the absence of either permission or a mechanical license, the person posting those videos is distributing an unlicensed recording, yes? My contention is that those videos are violations, but that for various reasons, the copyright holders aren't (yet) doing anything about them.
I notice that ACDA hasn't posted any performance videos of copyrighted music on YouTube for the last five months (since early May).
on October 5, 2009 11:11am
David,
Who are you to contend that the videos are in violation of the law? The copyright holders (music publishers) are clearly avoiding any policy on the matter for the simple reason that there is no legal basis for them to do so.
on October 5, 2009 11:18am
"Who am I..."? I'm a member of the choral profession, expressing an opinion that differs from yours, Philip, but I think I have a right to that different opinion, don't I?
on October 5, 2009 11:55am
You certainly have a right to your opinion, David, but you shouldn't be making accusations of illegal actions if you are not in possession of the facts. An accusation is different from an opinion.
on October 5, 2009 1:40pm
Which facts do I lack, Philip? I was told that specific permission had not been obtained from the various copyright holders of the selections in question because ACDA was of the opinion that they could post the videos to YouTube without doing so. I'm of the opinion that they're incorrect, and that permission and/or licensing is necessary. Others here seem to agree with that opinion.
I'm perfectly willing to be proven wrong on this issue, but this difference of opinion regarding the legality of online videos is a far cry from say, accusuing someone of murder or some other severe crime. Nor am I intending to contact any of the specific copyright holders of any of the videos in question. I'm citing a prominent example of a practice that I *think* is a violation, and LOTS of people are doing it.
on October 5, 2009 4:01pm
David, all you have is opinion, not facts.
You don't know what the law is.
You don't have first hand knowledge of the positions of music publishers on this issue.
On the basis of what you *think*, you are maligning the practices of a national organization and the people that run it.
on October 5, 2009 10:31pm
Hi guys,
It seems to me that every post here should begin with the disclaimer "I am not a lawyer" (IANAL ;). Philip, you said, "The copyright holders (music publishers) are clearly avoiding any policy on the matter for the simple reason that there is no legal basis for them to do so."
In fact, music publishers may not have a policy for other reasons which Allen alluded to. Most likely, there is little/no financial incentive for them to take legal action. They MAY have a legal basis based on some of the partial rulings in "A&M Records vs. Napster." There are differences between that case and this issue, especially with regard to loss of revenue and potential damages. In short, legal action has little upside, and a small possibility of a downside. The point will remain moot, unless a legal challenge is made.
on October 5, 2009 10:59am
The difference is this:
1. YouTube isn't "downloadable" and that really matters. (i know that it is possible to record YouTube videos but the practice isn't easy and requires significantly more skill than the average computer user has)
2. YouTube isn't a CD recording or a DVD - the law clearly covers that and has not ventured into the world of YouTube videos . . . thus the discussion here and the purpose of my "investigation" with the music publishing companies.
3. I am keeping a record of what each music publisher has said to me, but I'm not sharing it with the public (although my first inclination was to do so). I may make a compilation of the responses and post eventually, but I'll probably bring the publishers into the discussion and may even make a recommendation about the practice.
4. ACDA has not violated any law by posting videos of choral performances on YouTube - there is currently no law that requires them to do so. ACDA is following EVERY law regarding their sale of MP3's from their website. In my opinion, it is in poor taste to publicly speculate on whether ACDA is following the law or not . . . especially when the publishers themselves admit that there is no legal basis or policy regarding the matter.
The one big thing that is absent from YouTube is the transfer of $$$. Publishers have a legal "right" to a percentage of funds resulting from the sale of any CD or DVD.
There is no "spirit" of the law and there is no need for anyone to impose additional qualifications on the matter. There is the law, and that's it. There is no reason to go beyond what is clearly stipulated in the law.
Music publishers have not been forthright in communicating any policy on this matter that I can find. Until I began asking questions, I had never heard one publisher make a statement regarding the YouTube practice. Perhaps that will change soon, but who knows?
on October 5, 2009 11:29am
I don't think that the distinction that the videos aren't designed to be downloaded is as significant as you think, although that further differentiates this from the downloadable MP3s of the old Napster. In their purely online form, they're available on demand, and that's another distinction that differentiates them from playing them on the radio, for example.
Whether or not any money is involved bears little import in many copyright violations. It's the act of making the copy (or the recording), and distributing it in some fashion, whether or not money changes hands, that is the initial violation. Copyright holders do indeed get more interested when there's money involved, but not always.
As for ACDA, I initially tried to contact the admin of the YouTube channel privately to raise this issue, but didn't receive an answer, so I posted a question in a forum on the website, which was answered, but which has since been removed. I think you're being more than a little defensive, but that's just my opinion.
Neither of us are lawyers, and we disagree, but let's try to do so without any further accusations, OK?
on October 5, 2009 8:43pm
Friends,
If I might point out something that should be glaringly obvious:
No law needs to specify in detail every single instance that may be a violation of that law. In fact no law CAN ever do so, because no law can ever anticipate every possible violation under present conditions, let alone every possible violation under future conditions which CANNOT BE PREDICTED!
When the revised law was voted on in 1976, the Internet baresly existed. Email barely existed. YouTube wasn't even a gleam in anyone's eye. It's pretty obvious that the law could not specifically deal with those items, and it's been trying to play catchup ever since.
So any law specifies what is acceptable, and what the members of Congress feel are the most egregious violations that they can envision in their wisdom (or what lobbyists present to them, more likely!), and gives general guidelines to help the courts decide what the law REALLY means.
So it is illegal to break ANY of the specific 5 rights which the law reserves to copyright owners, without obtaining permission. Q.E.D.
One of those rights is the right to record. We've been talking about the right to record. It's illegal EXCEPT in those specific instances covered in the Fair Use Guidelines (which I reiterate were NOT part of the law, but was an agreement entered into by the Music Publishers Association). Whether going beyond those Guidelines is specifically illegal is not an issue. If someone goes beyond them the Music Publishers have reserved the right to sue for infringement. Q.E.D.
And one of those exceptions, given in the Guidelines (and right there for anyone who cares to read them), is the right to make one (count them, ONE!) archival recording of a school concert or, presumably, a religious service, without getting hit by mechanical fees or performance fees. You cannot duplicate that recording without permission. And posting it on line is making a duplicate! Again, that isn't specified word-for-word in the law itself, but it goes beyond the Guidelines the Publishers agreed to.
So can't we please back off from the personal attacke, which have absolutely no place on this forum at all, and get back to a calmer discussion of the actual situation that we all face?
Thanks for listening--or reading, I guess.
John
on October 5, 2009 10:31pm
Thanks for that, John.
Let me go back to restate the three categories of responses that I had from the music publishers after asking them their specific policy towards putting a performance of a copyrighted work on YouTube.
1. Some have no policy towards YouTube performances and they don't care if you put your performance online.
2. Some want you to ask and receive permission from them
3. Some may ask you to pay a fee.
I think that the best policy is to contact the music publisher and ask them their particular policy regarding the matter. Nearly every publisher told me that they had never been asked the question.
on October 6, 2009 8:28am
Quoth Philip: "I think that the best policy is to contact the music publisher and ask them their particular policy regarding the matter." I think that's good advice, and I'd guess that most of the people posting such content to YouTube have not done that.
Peace,
David T.
on October 6, 2009 11:18am
The poster that suggested beginning all responses bordering on legal matters with "I Am Not A Lawyer" hit upon a very good suggestion. A large percentage of the posts lately might be labeled with the acronym - "IANAL" - perhaps it could also become a popular license plate.
If it is possible, it would be great if personal defensive responses, sometimes bordering on cat fights, could be directed to the individual involved rather than to the entire readership.
Charles Q. Sullivan
on October 8, 2009 11:59am
I Am Not a Lawyer (as per a previous suggestion)
But, from one music businessperson to another . . .
So far as I know, the "seconds" business has never been defined. The U.S. Sixth Circuit Court did a ruling related to that issue regarding sampling, and disallowed sampling entirely (so that would be ZERO seconds).
But look . . . if you make it streaming audio/video, there's no mechanical license to deal with (which is why I think YouTube can do so much of what it does). But even if you did have downloads, we're still talking 9.1 cents per song (up to four minutes). The performance rates per song are a bit higher, but again, unless you have thousands and thousands of people on your site, we're still talking pennies. To most big publishers, that's not even worth their time, particularly since, as other posters have mentioned, the law is not yet clearly defined as regards the Internet. But, to be safe, you can contact the publishers, tell them what you're up to (providing a showcase for their music, after all), and tell them you will be including links to the publishers' catalog for the works in question. Suddenly, you are helping the publishers with their advertising, free of charge . . . suddenly, you become an ally, not an adversary. Smaller publishers would especially LOVE the free advertising, and if you can convince a bunch of them to link back to your page, well! Songs, SEO, and security . . . music to everyone's ears.
Sincerely,
Deeann D. Mathews
|
Help support ChoralNet by buying via these links
|
