music without a prs licence

Subject: music without a prs licence
From: GUEST,pub gig goer
Date: 13 Jul 08 - 11:40 AM

I have read a lot about PRS but in all the correspondence I have not seen an authoritative statement on one simple issue (maybe it is just too obvious) -

1 - If you are not a PRS member and if you play only your own original material and carefully researched genuine traditional songs in your own style and not in a manner influenced by a particular arrangement - is there anything at all to stop you playing for profit at a venue which is not licenced by PRS whether it be a pub or a stadium?

2 - Following on from that - if you are a professional gigging band could you put together a separate setlist comprising purely the above material and play it on PRS unlicenced premises for profit?

3 - Last bit - and could anyone require you (or force you) to submit such a setlist to any authority to prove that no-one else's copyright has been violated or do you benefit from the presumption of innocence?

if any lengthy replies could be prefixed by - 1 Yes or No, 2 Yes or No and 3 Yes or No it would be appreciated

Subject: RE: music without a prs licence
From: gnomad
Date: 13 Jul 08 - 12:53 PM

These are questions I have pondered too, over the years, so I am refreshing in the hope of an authoritative reply.

One (prs registered) performer I asked pointed out that it makes better sense to register, so that in the event that your material gets some performance you will eventually get your (probably nugatory) reward. But that bit didn't answer my feeling that the PRS mob are basically horning in on what may be none of their business.

My uniformed guess is that the answers are in fact no, and no, but that the presumption will be applied against you unless you have a damn smart advocate on your side, so that it is less costly and less hassle to give in and comply.

Oh, and don't forget that even if you surmount the PRS barrier, you must still comply with PEL requirements.

Subject: RE: music without a prs licence
From: GUEST,pub gig goer
Date: 13 Jul 08 - 06:04 PM

I am wondering if the absence of a reply indicates a lack of interest or a lack of knowledge?

The question put another way is "can someone pay you to play your own or ancient songs without the PRS getting involved?"

Subject: RE: music without a prs licence
From: GUEST,Chris Brownbridge
Date: 13 Jul 08 - 06:11 PM

The answer is yes, you can. We had this out with the blighters around 1970, when we were running a folk club in York. We told them that we were singing own material or own arrangements of traditional material only and we never heard from them again. One up for the good guys!

Subject: RE: music without a prs licence
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 13 Jul 08 - 06:19 PM

Is there any such thing as a "PRS unlicensed premises"? I thought any venue was liable if copyright material was sung or played there...? They're supposed to give the artist return forms to fill out (in theory at least) which are then submitted and checked for registered songs, for which royalties are payable by the venue. The artist him/herself does not pay, the venue does, as far as I know - I didn't think "licensing" by location came into it.

Subject: RE: music without a prs licence
From: GUEST,pub gig goer
Date: 13 Jul 08 - 06:20 PM

Thanks Chris - is it me or do they seem to be more aggressive in their approach recently - trying to make people believe that if you cough in tune you need a licence?

One of the other threads I was reading before starting this one seemed to hoist up the white flag very readily

Subject: RE: music without a prs licence
From: GUEST,pub gig goer
Date: 13 Jul 08 - 06:24 PM

that's the point - All premises start out unlicenced - if you approach one of those and offer PRS-free music could they employ you using their PEL licence for sky football?

Subject: RE: music without a prs licence
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 13 Jul 08 - 06:24 PM

More info here: http://www.mcps-prs-alliance.co.uk/playingbroadcastingonline/music_for_businesse
Not sure if they mean playing-as-in-live-performing or playing-as-in-recordings, though I didn't have time at the moment to do more than quickly glance at this.

Subject: RE: music without a prs licence
From: GUEST,pub gig goer
Date: 13 Jul 08 - 06:29 PM

thanks for the link Bonnie but going to the PRS site isn't going to give an unbiased view. For example nowhere on their site to my knowledge do they tell you what you can play in public without a licence

Subject: RE: music without a prs licence
From: GUEST,Dave MacKenzie
Date: 13 Jul 08 - 07:06 PM

Is it true that PRS stands for Pirated Rights Society?

Subject: RE: music without a prs licence
From: Howard Jones
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 04:25 AM

You own the copyright in your own compositions and arrangements. PRS only gets involved with its memebers' copyright - when you join PRS you assign the right to collect royalties to them. So if you're performing only your own or non-copyright material then PRS has no jurisdiction.

However, folk music is a grey area. Just because a song is traditional doesn't mean it's not copyright. Some songs and tunes which are widely assumed to be traditional are in fact copyright. So you have to be very careful what you play if you are not to inadvertently play something which the PRS does control.

PRS says, with some justification, that it would be administratively impossible to apportion the licence to reflect the balance between copyright and non-copyright, so if there's any possibility of copyright being performed then they demand a licence. This applies to most folk clubs..

Subject: RE: music without a prs licence
From: GUEST,MC Fat
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 04:31 AM

In my mind the PRS should wear a mask and have a gum they are akin to highwaymen of old. They blurgeoned in on Folk Festivals some time ago and are making money (they take 5% of 'gate' receipts) and give precious little back. Talking to an established performer like Keith Donnelly he told me that the annual cheque from PRS was less than three figures. They say they speak for all composers etc but in reality it's still the big boys like Elton and Paul McCartney that get the dosh. I say feck em and go your own way the less you have to deal with them the better.

Subject: RE: music without a prs licence
From: Rasener
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 04:38 AM

We have a PRS licence as a venue and it therefore doesn't affect the performer. Much better that way. However if you have written songs and eventually become a big big name, it would be worth your while registering with PRS as you will get a % for your songs sung by other people.

I would think it is more important that you have a public liabilty insurance, as not all accidents are covered by the premises public liabilty insurance, especially if you cause the accident. Just a thought.

Subject: RE: music without a prs licence
From: Rasener
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 04:43 AM

Big big names being the likes of Elton John, Paul McCartney as mentioned by MC Fat.

One thought, is that, and I am sure some of the performers on Mudcat will confirm this, is that unless you can prove that your songs are being sung by otheer people or being played on radio etc, you will have a job joining PRS. I may not have that quite right as I am not a performer, but picked up on other performers conversations.

Subject: RE: music without a prs licence
From: GUEST,swordancer
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 07:49 AM

The venue only needs a PEL licence, PRS cannot collect royalties on behalf of non PRS members but can collect royalties for material belonging to their members. The responsibility of submitting set list details is that of the venue or promoter. If works are only performed that have no conection to PRS then the set list submission needs to point this out to pRS.
All the while the PRS database is a total shambles and they do try to collect for works not belonging to them if you let them get away with it, the rules for arrangements are totally disregarded by PRS and also the rules for logging of those arrangements are not adhered to, thus you find many artists with the self same work registered on the database. PRS also claim for works not registered on their database and claim that this fact is irrelevant, I think it is anything but irrelevant as how then do they know who the material belongs to and more importantly who to make royaly payments to for the performance.

Subject: RE: music without a prs licence
From: GUEST,pub gig goer
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 09:26 AM

I appreciate your comment swordancer but like so many on this subject you still seem to be singing the PRS tune

"If works are only performed that have no conection to PRS then the set list submission needs to point this out to pRS."

If works are only performed that have no connection to PRS why am I filling out a form? - does free music (including your own) exist or is all music only by permission of PRS?

Going off my original question for a second - Would all those members of PRS who never sang other people's songs in their early days please put their hands up (or write in)

Subject: RE: music without a prs licence
From: GUEST,Chris Brownbridge
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 06:17 PM

We'll never admit it! (Anon of York)

Subject: RE: music without a prs licence
From: pavane
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 04:44 AM

There was an item on the news this morning that the EU regards this type of society as a monopoly, and wishes to break it up, to allow people to choose from more than one such society in each country. I can't quite see how this could work, but wouldn't it then be possible to set up our OWN folk 'PRS-like' society as an alternative?

(On the other hand, if there were two or more, maybe we would have to get a licence from EACH!!!)

Subject: RE: music without a prs licence
From: GUEST,pub gig goer
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 08:41 AM

Thanks pavane - interesting

http://www.nasdaq.com/aspxcontent/NewsStory.aspx?cpath=20080703%5CACQDJON200807030942DOWJONESDJONLINE000605.htm&&mypage=newshead

looks like this particular article originated in March

Subject: RE: music without a prs licence
From: GUEST,swordancer
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 12:03 PM

I think you will find I am anything but an advocate of PRS, I believe traditional music should be left out of anything to do with copyright and royalty payments. I have been in dispute with PRS for over 12 months and am not about to give in to their bullying ways.
The purpose of completing a set list and indicating to pRS that the material performed is nothing to do with them is indeed very important in preventing them claiming money which they are not due to, and then that money disappearing in to what they lovingly call the general fund never to be seen again particularly by folk performers.
It may be time for the government to consider regulating this industry concerning royalty payments, this would certainly prevent the practices currently employed in demanding money with threats from PRS.

Subject: RE: music without a prs licence
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 01:56 PM

The way the PRS works never fails to amaze me. Before I start I must say that the fee a landlord in a pub, for instance, would pay to host a weekly folk club is paltry compared to the extra profit he could make but that is beside the point.

The PRS reps, I know for certain, try to 'bully' people into taking out the 'licence'. Their tack is that if you play music, recorded, live or otherwise, you will be in breach of copyright and be taken to court for said breach. Because it is easier to pay the small amount than argue most people just cave in. It would only take one high profile case to say 'no' and I am sure the courts would laugh the PRS out.

It is certainly not up to the landlord or performer to prove that they were not infinging copyright. It would be up to the PRS or their representatives to prove that copyright was indeed being infringed.

In answer to the original question - If you can find a venue owner that is willing to stand up to them - remember it will be them facing action, not you - then go for it! I would love to see what the PRS would do:-)

Cheers

Dave

Subject: RE: music without a prs licence
From: Simon G
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 04:02 PM

I don't know a landlord that would consider £8.95 paltry, for that is the published fee they would pay to PRS for a singaround/session.

I suspect most landlords don't declare folk club meets. If they get forced to they will simply stop them.

If whether you one song or part thereof or 24 hours straight it is £8.95. Of course if you move to a community hall the PRS fee is £0.00.

If in doubt use a community hall!

Subject: RE: music without a prs licence
From: GUEST,pub gig goer
Date: 15 Jul 08 - 05:31 PM

forgive me swordancer if I appeared uncharitable - your allegiance came through clearly - it's just that before I started this thread like a good mudcatter I looked to see if it had been covered and slugged my way through most of the 192 posts under "PRS Performing Rights Gestapo"

What struck me was the ease with which people appeared to accept that if you could prove to PRS that it was none of their business you could probably carry on – whereas the answer I had hoped to receive when starting the thread was – it's naff all to do with PRS why are you even asking the question – but that's not the way it is going

One of the problems seems to be the lack of any independent authoritative view on the subject – anyone seeking guidance has to go to the PRS site and in my opinion it's very one sided and there is a lot of dark menace coming out of PRS. Like Dave Polshaw I would like to see a test case and would put to a fighting fund

Can we even agree amongst ourselves that –

If you are not a member of PRS and you have written a song or are singing ones from the 17th century you have the right to do so anywhere in the 'free' world without reference in any shape or form to PRS and if you get paid for it then lucky old you

Another aside – does anyone know the status of the Kwik-Fit case which unfortunately seems to be ducking the principle for the technical ?

Subject: RE: music without a prs licence
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 16 Jul 08 - 08:49 AM

Tell them to get stuffed.

Subject: RE: music without a prs licence
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Jul 08 - 03:41 AM

There are numerous threads going at present discussing formalising the widening of the term 'folk' to include singer-songwriter material.
In the unlikely event of this ever happening, how will clubs that label themselves 'folk' stand in relation to PRS?
If it ever happens, will the music called folk still maintain its public domain status?
The question of performance rights payments came into focus some time ago here in Ireland when the sister organisation Irish Musical Rights Organisation (IMRO) proposed the collection of dues from all venues playing music, traditional or otherwise, on the grounds that all performances were 'arrangements'. It was even argued that payment should be made from sessions 'in case' copyrighted music was played.
The Irish music organisation Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann (CCE) objected vehemently, but on being offered a share of the takings, did an about turn and withdrew their objections.
IMRO employs a number of well-known traditional music names to police the scene.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: music without a prs licence
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Jul 08 - 04:45 AM

I don't know a landlord that would consider £8.95 paltry, for that is the published fee they would pay to PRS for a singaround/session.

Well, firstly, if the landlord DID pay £8.95 for a singaround session in which there were, say, 20 people, each paying for an average of 3 drinks each I think he is on a winner. Average drink price - £2. Average spend £6. Total spend £120. Average profit margin - 20% makes £24 profit for an £8.95 spend. Looks good to me. Considering that landlords are constantly looking for ways to get people in I think a singaround should appeal.

Secondly. The landlord does NOT have to pay £8.95 per session. If they have a licence for the jukebox and radio they are already paying, as at about 5 years ago, around £150 a year to the PRS. To add a once a week live event of no more than 100 people cost our landlord, then, an extra £100. So, for £100 a year, he was allowed to have one live event a week - an average cost of £2 per folk club night. Of course it may have gone up since but I think you will find an annual licence is still FAR less than the £8.95 per session.

I know it looks like I am justifying the PRS fee - I am not! I think they are a set of robbing and bullying bastards. But I do want to point out that the situation may not be as bad as some people say.

Cheers

Dave

Subject: RE: music without a prs licence
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Jul 08 - 05:25 AM

My apologies - just checked with a collegue - 5 years ago it was an extra £200 a year so it worked out at £4 a week. Still less than a lot of people think! I can't find any mention of an annual fee for live music on the PRS site but I believe it can be arranged.

Cheers

Dave

PS - The per event fee is listed as £7.62 if paid by the pub. If we were to pay it as a members club (which we are) it would be £3.82! Where does the £8.95 come from?

Subject: RE: music without a prs licence
From: GUEST,fiddle4me
Date: 20 Jul 08 - 04:06 PM

Jim Carroll you really do know nothing about IMRO or its workings. Either put up more evidence or shut up!

Subject: RE: music without a prs licence
From: Nick
Date: 20 Jul 08 - 06:02 PM

>>If we were to pay it as a members club (which we are) it would be £3.82!

How does that work Dave as our local pub pays a lot more than that I believe - more like £11 a week.

If by a bit of judicious organising of memberships we can cut the costs we might be able to dump the f***ing raffle which gets in the way each week. (As an aside, why do people clap when people win raffles? I find it bizarre)

Subject: RE: music without a prs licence
From: Simon G
Date: 20 Jul 08 - 06:45 PM

Dave ---- £7.62 + 17.5% VAT = £8.95

Nick ---- it doesn't matter what your organisation is, it is the premises that matters. A pub pays pub rates whether you are a members club or not. To reduce the rate you need to move to a different type of premises. Sounds like your pub charges the club to pay the PRS fee, is this correct?

Subject: RE: music without a prs licence
From: GUEST,guest cafe owner
Date: 20 Jul 08 - 06:45 PM

I own a small cafe (6 tables) with 24 covers and have had to pay £350+ this year to PRS and PPL just to play CDs in the cafe. I feel I have been intimidated into paying this money and I need to sell an awful lot of coffees and scones to re-coup. We play mostly traditional music and will have to reduce the opportunity to bring this music to the attention of non folkies next year as, under the current economic climate I will have to switch off the CD player and not play music. Who benefits then? Surely to goodness I am paying enough when I buy the CDs in the first place.
So your loss trad musicians...sorry

Subject: RE: music without a prs licence
From: JHW
Date: 21 Jul 08 - 05:10 PM

I've always thought that PRS are barking up the wrong tree. In most folk clubs we sing for each others pleasure. The landlord can't give his beer away and the organiser has to cover any artists fees but landlord, organiser and floor or singaround singer are not trying to profit by ripping off the songwriter, rather they may popularise his work. The only person who IS there to profit is the booked artist and hard though his lot may be, in my humble opinion that is where PRS should make their charges.

Subject: RE: music without a prs licence
From: Nick
Date: 21 Jul 08 - 07:48 PM

>>Sounds like your pub charges the club to pay the PRS fee, is this correct?

Sort of. He runs a raffle each week and people have a go so we do really. It's done 'to pay the PRS' but think he probably comes out with a a bit of a profit

Subject: RE: music without a prs licence
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Jul 08 - 03:31 AM

Have a look on the PRS web site, Nick - It says private members clubs pay £3-odd. Hope this helps.

Dave.

Subject: RE: music without a prs licence
From: Snuffy
Date: 22 Jul 08 - 09:06 AM

Private members club does not mean a weekly folk club in a back/upstairs room.

It means the whole of the premises of a club like British Legion, Conservative Club, Working Mens Club, Rugby Club, etc. They pay the lower PRS rate on their premises compared to pubs.

Subject: RE: music without a prs licence
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Jul 08 - 09:19 AM

Ahhhh - Wonder why that is less than a pub then?

Subject: RE: music without a prs licence
From: nutty
Date: 22 Jul 08 - 10:54 AM

But couldn't a Folk Club be registered as a Private Members Club if those going to it were provided with membership?

Subject: RE: music without a prs licence
From: Snuffy
Date: 22 Jul 08 - 02:59 PM

Premises licensed as a private members club rather than as a public house may pay the lower fee.

Not many folk clubs have their own premises.