I'm in the middle: I'm all in favor of paying the rights owners, but I think that there should be a master database with pre-determined rights charges (which could vary based on type of usage) and a clearinghouse that would handle the rights. The current system is way, way too complicated and imposes a lot of costs on both the person trying to use the music and on the rights holder(s). It is much like the theoretical "use" taxes that various states and municipalities would like consumers to pay when they purchase an item on the internet without paying sales taxes: every time reporters have investigated this, it turns out that the computations are so freakin complicated that nobody in their right mind as an individual consumer would do it, but states aren't willing to enforce a simpler, uniform model.
Originally Posted by jiejie
that is why in IMHO the organizer should be responsible for that. They are making money of that not the athlete. You cannot compare small senior B competition with almost no viewers to GP , EC or WC where millions (in my wildest dreams) are watching,hence the pay to artist should be greater.
Originally Posted by barbk
The fees paid by arenas and rinks to generally broadcast music are the same whether I'm skating to some obscure local punk band or Beyonce. So that's not really an issue for competitions. It's only an issue if someone wants to make a recording of the competition and sell it at a later date. The fees paid to broadcast music over the arena/rink sound system don't cover rebroadcasts so ...
Originally Posted by Frau Muller
It wouldn't get around it if the performer was also the composer. A lot of pop singers write their own songs. (Er, okay, maybe not a lot. But some do. )
Originally Posted by overedge
The answer is: it depends, maybe, and sometimes.
Originally Posted by joeperryfan
Seriously though, you've got several situations and rights issues mixed together. In the case of the website, you can't rebroadcast performances without getting the music rights. Whatever rights were gotten for the original competition do not apply to any future rebroadcasts. The exception is a news broadcast where the music of the performance is part of the ambient sound. That's just news and you don't need music rights to broadcast a new story. However if an entire video of an entire performance is played as news, that's a gray area.
Though I don't see how it would be news. Maybe you'd see that on those morning "news" programs or the talk shows you mention, but that's not really a news story and replaying the entire performance is not really a news story. A real news story would almost always feature an excerpt only as part of telling a bigger story, not the complete performance.
I agree. I was referring to music (and to an extent, creative arts in general).
Originally Posted by jiejie
I'm pretty sure this happened to Todd Eldredge once. He had to change out music becuase he couldn't get permission to use it.
It wasn't for the their competitive programs that season. It was for their exhibition number, dedicated to Isabelle's late father, to Eric Clapton's "Tears in Heaven." If I'm remembering correctly, she wrote explaining her father's death and wanting to use the song for that reason. I don't know if he ever saw the performance live, but I seem to remember a commentator mentioning that he had been moved by B/E's program to the song or touched by Isabelle's request.
Originally Posted by blueglass