Why on earth is ryanklee's comment dead? He's right - it's not violating copyright to sing a song for non-commercial purposes. Hell, you can even cover a song in a paid live performance and not have to pay royalties. You just can't record it and sell the recording without ponying up.
edit: looks like the live commercial performance thing is not true in the US, according to snopes. I guess those guys don't have cover bands...
"As a performer, you do not have to pay performance royalties. These are paid by the venue which hired you to perform. However, if you record your show and sell it as a live album, you will need to pay for the compulsory licenses, discussed later in this article."
Now, you could try to argue that it's innocent infringement (or maybe even fair use), but you have to do that in court.
From unhappybirthday.com:
"Did you know that if you sing any copyrighted song: ...at a place open to the public ...or among a substantial number of people who are not family or friends You are involved in a public performance of that work?"
For example, singing "Happy Birthday" at a restaurant....
EDIT: I had to turn on showdead to read that comment you mentioned. He mischaracterizes what Snopes said. I'll let Snopes speak for themselves: "performing a copyrighted work in a public setting such as a restaurant or a sports arena technically requires a license from ASCAP or the Harry Fox Agency (although such infringements are rarely prosecuted)." As you can see, the problem there is public performance not just commercial use.
He doesn't mischaracterise it at all. He says it's fine for non-commercial use in response to someone who says everyone singing it is a pirate. The uses you describe are commercial uses, value-adding to commercial ventures, not a bunch of friends singing happy birthday, which is what the 'everyone's a pirate' comment is implying. The wrong comment went dead, methinks.
See also the time ASCAP went after the Girl Scouts for royalties over campfire songs, which can hardly be construed as "commercial uses" under any reasonable definition. You will note their concern is over "public performance." Maybe I wasn't nitpicky enough when I said everyone, but I don't know any people who have only sung "Happy Birthday" privately and never sung it in school, a restaurant, or any other public place. Anyhow, as for the Girl Scouts:
"Things heated up in March [1995], when Ascap sent a mailing to 6,000 camps (out of 8,000 in the United States) and informed them that they had to pay royalties for public performances. But Ascap did not specify what it meant by ''public performance,'' and of necessity did not include a list of its four million songs. (Ms. Bergman says they are available on the Internet; a computer printout of the material is five feet high.)
It did, however, include a schedule of annual fees that went as high as $1,439 for large year-round camps."
And yes, ASCAP eventually backed off after the bad PR nightmare they generated by demanding that Girl Scout camps either pay them fees or tell the kids they're not allowed to sing. From the same article:
''What does the word 'nightmare' mean to you?'' she said. ''We're fighting for our lives. We have to do a lot of work to tell people that we're not greedy songwriters.''
How do you define non-commercial? What if you're rich and have hundreds of other rich people at your birthday party? What if one of the people singing Happy Birthday at your party is a professional singer? What about singing Happy Birthday as customers in a crowded restaurant? What if a band wants to sing Happy Birthday to itself or to an audience member while on stage? What if the audience spontaneously sings Happy Birthday to someone (band, speaker, etc.) on stage? How about someone recording your friends singing Happy Birthday at your small, private party, then posting it on YouTube (or any of the other scenarios gets uploaded)?
Comments
Why on earth is ryanklee's comment dead? He's right - it's not violating copyright to sing a song for non-commercial purposes. Hell, you can even cover a song in a paid live performance and not have to pay royalties. You just can't record it and sell the recording without ponying up.
edit: looks like the live commercial performance thing is not true in the US, according to snopes. I guess those guys don't have cover bands...
That's because the venue pays them on your behalf!
http://www.musicianwages.com/the-working-musician/recording-...
"As a performer, you do not have to pay performance royalties. These are paid by the venue which hired you to perform. However, if you record your show and sell it as a live album, you will need to pay for the compulsory licenses, discussed later in this article."
Now, you could try to argue that it's innocent infringement (or maybe even fair use), but you have to do that in court.
From unhappybirthday.com:
"Did you know that if you sing any copyrighted song: ...at a place open to the public ...or among a substantial number of people who are not family or friends You are involved in a public performance of that work?"
For example, singing "Happy Birthday" at a restaurant....
EDIT: I had to turn on showdead to read that comment you mentioned. He mischaracterizes what Snopes said. I'll let Snopes speak for themselves: "performing a copyrighted work in a public setting such as a restaurant or a sports arena technically requires a license from ASCAP or the Harry Fox Agency (although such infringements are rarely prosecuted)." As you can see, the problem there is public performance not just commercial use.
He doesn't mischaracterise it at all. He says it's fine for non-commercial use in response to someone who says everyone singing it is a pirate. The uses you describe are commercial uses, value-adding to commercial ventures, not a bunch of friends singing happy birthday, which is what the 'everyone's a pirate' comment is implying. The wrong comment went dead, methinks.
His assertion is incorrect. Any public performance, whether "for profit" or not, requires a license.
See also the time ASCAP went after the Girl Scouts for royalties over campfire songs, which can hardly be construed as "commercial uses" under any reasonable definition. You will note their concern is over "public performance." Maybe I wasn't nitpicky enough when I said everyone, but I don't know any people who have only sung "Happy Birthday" privately and never sung it in school, a restaurant, or any other public place. Anyhow, as for the Girl Scouts:
http://www.nytimes.com/1996/12/17/nyregion/ascap-asks-royalt...
"Things heated up in March [1995], when Ascap sent a mailing to 6,000 camps (out of 8,000 in the United States) and informed them that they had to pay royalties for public performances. But Ascap did not specify what it meant by ''public performance,'' and of necessity did not include a list of its four million songs. (Ms. Bergman says they are available on the Internet; a computer printout of the material is five feet high.)
It did, however, include a schedule of annual fees that went as high as $1,439 for large year-round camps."
And yes, ASCAP eventually backed off after the bad PR nightmare they generated by demanding that Girl Scout camps either pay them fees or tell the kids they're not allowed to sing. From the same article:
''What does the word 'nightmare' mean to you?'' she said. ''We're fighting for our lives. We have to do a lot of work to tell people that we're not greedy songwriters.''
How do you define non-commercial? What if you're rich and have hundreds of other rich people at your birthday party? What if one of the people singing Happy Birthday at your party is a professional singer? What about singing Happy Birthday as customers in a crowded restaurant? What if a band wants to sing Happy Birthday to itself or to an audience member while on stage? What if the audience spontaneously sings Happy Birthday to someone (band, speaker, etc.) on stage? How about someone recording your friends singing Happy Birthday at your small, private party, then posting it on YouTube (or any of the other scenarios gets uploaded)?