Re: mechanical license

On 03/01/00, Charles Kramer <tilyou1[_at_]aol.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 29 Feb 2000, Theodora Michaels <michaels[_at_]carlinamerica.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 02/27/2000, Charles Kramer <tilyou1[_at_]aol.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > The owner of the cover gets proceeds from the sales of the recording
> > > of it -- sales, that is, of the physical object -- but the owner of
> > > the underlying song gets ASCAP and other public performance royalties.
> > > In addition, the owner of the underlying song gets a royalty on sales
> > > of the record -- if not at a negotiated rate, then at the higher
> > > "mechanical rate".
> > >
> > > I'm I right so far?
> >
> > Pretty much. Actually the performance royalties are a different issue,
> > not to be confused with mechanical royalties.
>
> This I don't get.
>
> A mechanical license covers making and selling phonorecords... but to
> broadcast them by radio (for instance) would still be an infringement
> unless negotiated performance rights are also obtained? Whoa!

Why "Whoa!"? In the usual case in the U.S., mechanical royalties are collected by the Harry Fox Agency (http://www.nmpa.org/hfa.html), which pays the publisher, which pays the writer. Performance royalties are collected by ASCAP (http://www.ascap.com/), BMI (http://www.bmi.com/), or SESAC (http://www.sesac.com/); the writer share is paid directly to the writer and the publisher share directly to the publisher. The other two main sources of music publishing income -- synchronization and print (sheet music) -- are collected by the publisher, which pays the writer.

Thea

Theodora Michaels
<tmichaels[_at_]carlinamerica.com> Received on Thu Mar 02 2000 - 14:45:41 GMT