Karaoke Forums

Can anybody help me with this question?

The issue that I'm having trouble with is this: are karaoke recordings of songs considered to be public domain subject to the same piracy laws as karaoke recordings of currently copyrighted songs (not part of public domain)? Further, I know that the use of a backing recording for the purpose of a public performance and/or for recording for profit has a definite licensing requirement; however, does using such a track for the purpose of karaoke in a public place constitute a "public" perfrmance?

Any help here would be greatly appreciated.

I think it depends whether this public performance is free or not. If people have to pay and you make money out of it then you have to acquire the rights for the songs you're performing. (on top of the mechanic rights obviously that you have to pay for any musical event)

At least that's the case where I'm based (France)

You can record your own rendition of a Public Domain songs without having to pay a licencing fee. However, you cannot use someone else's version. For example, Beethoven's 5th Symphany is a Public Domain song. You may record it on your own and sell it without paying the fees. But you may not use the recordings of say the London Philharmic, The Boston Symphany, or say the group who recorded "A Fith of Beethoven" (who used the 5th as its basis). Those recordings are sopyrighted, even though the song itself is Public Domain.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

Karaoke is performance for the sake of performance. People do it to show off and get comment. No one knows before the show what music will be performed. Copyright in force or not karaoke is therefore covered under the doctrine of "Fair Use" in the U.S. The way the law reads to me you don't have to pay anyone for anything including ASCAP.

_________________
Okay, who took my pants?

The ASCAP/BMI collects fees for Jukeboxes where no prior knowledge of what song is to be performed is known. Same with cover bands that do requests etc....

Fact is for ASCAP/BMI they will try to get money from any money making establishment that runs karaoke. They also will have the law on their side.

"Fair use" generally is confined to a non commercial setting and that does not apply to a bar or other establishment that makes money (even if the Karaoke is run for free at such an establishment).

Ascap and BMI do collect money based on the seating from establishments such as restaraunts for just playing the radio. They do appear to have the law on their side as they have managed to shut down establishments for non payment.


Getting back to the origional "public domain" songs question. I think (and I may be wrong here) that ALL the money is going to the performer at the time of the purchase of the recording media and no additional fees are required.

With a non-public domain song it is "legal" so long as the recorder payed the fees to the songwriter, and the song was purchased legally by the KJ and the appropriate public performance fees were paid by the establishment to ASCAP/BMI etc.

THerefore with a public domain song so long as you bought a legit copy (no-illegal shared downloads) I would think you are safe to use it in karaoke.

It all comes down to who you are stealing from. A "pirated" copyright song steals from the songwriter and the performance musicians. A pirated non-copyright song only steals from the musicians. Either way you are in violation if you pirate.

That said some performance musicians may give away non-copyright songs for free....

Incidentaly "Happy Birthday" is still in copyright...

IM not a lawyer but I am trying to do this legal (my interpretation that I hope is "right")

If you compare karaoke and a jukebox then you would be saying that the entertainment value in a jukebox is in pushing the buttons. A jukebox is all about specific music. Karaoke has almost nothing to do with any specific piece of music. The entertainment value in karaoke is perfoming. Let's face it, no one is really listening. They're just waiting their turn. "Fair Use" as far as I remember did not mention venue, only that the purpose that the copyrighted work was use for was to get comments. That's karaoke all over.

_________________
Okay, who took my pants?

Maybe at your shows. Much of our crowds are there watching & cheering on the other singers. There are 'some' that are just waiting, but not the majority.

_________________
LIKE Lonman on Facebook - Lonman Productions Karaoke & my main site via my profile!

Perhaps that was unique to my shows but, watching and cheering on singers has nothing to do with any particular piece of music which was my point about karaoke being covered under "Fair Use."

_________________
Okay, who took my pants?

You are confusing a public performance with public domain.

This article is about public ownership of creative works. For use in relationship to public lands, see public domain (land). For the music album of the same name, see Tryad.
For how the public domain applies to Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Public domain.
Public domain portal
The public domain is a range of abstract materials – commonly referred to as intellectual property – which are not owned or controlled by anyone. The term indicates that these materials are therefore "public property", and available for anyone to use for any purpose. The laws of various countries define the scope of the public domain differently, making it necessary to specify which jurisdiction's public domain is being discussed. Furthermore, the public domain can be defined in contrast to several forms of intellectual property; the public domain in contrast to copyrighted works is different from the public domain in contrast to trademarks or patented works.

The public domain is most often discussed in contrast to works restricted by copyright. Under modern law, most original works of art, literature, music, etc. are covered by copyright from the time of their creation for a limited period of time (which varies by country). When the copyright expires, the work enters the public domain. It is estimated that currently, of all the books found in the world's libraries, only about 15 percent are in the public domain, even though only 10 percent of all books are still in print; the remaining 75 percent are books which remain unavailable because they are still under copyright protection.[1]

The public domain can also be defined in contrast to trademarks. Names, logos, and other identifying marks used in commerce can be restricted as proprietary trademarks for a single business to use. Trademarks can be maintained indefinitely, but they can also lapse through disuse, negligence, or widespread misuse, and enter the public domain. It is possible, however, for a lapsed trademark to become proprietary again, leaving the public domain.

The public domain also contrasts with patents. New inventions can be registered and granted patents restricting others from using them without permission from the inventor. Like copyrights, patents last for a limited period of time, after which the inventions covered by them enter the public domain and can be used by anyone.

Not really otherwise we would just have a single "song" that everyone sang over and over again...

Try telling the next singer who requests a Metalica song to sing "twinkle twinkle little star" instead and you will get my point.

Fact is we spend thousands of dollars and make huge binders listing our songs so we have the specific song that the performer wants.

When it comes to copyrighted materials it is a way to give the creator of the song some reward for his creativity. This is the fee paid to the songwriter, and is recovered various ways through Ascap/Bmi etc as well as royalties paid by the maker of the karaoke version.

It does not matter if the use of the song is entertaining or not. The fact is that the song is being used. If someone wanted to use a song in a commercial, it would be a similar situation. The use of the song ends up helping to sell a product. For most of us who KJ in bars the product being sold is the Beer (etc) and the Karaoke is the advertising that helps sell it.

It does not matter if the reason it helps sell the beer is that the people are waiting to have their turn to sing, or that they actually enjoy the other singer's performance. It is a little of both. For my show crowd participation is a big part of it. Fact is karaoke helps sell the beer. Since this involves a money making business the "fair use" clause is not involved. Even if the only person being entertained is the singer.

If a bar has a jukebox it helps sell the beer. Same with the karaoke. Someone owns the songs (if they are not public domain) in both cases, and therefore that person who owns the song is entitled to some return.

On the other hand if you are listening to a CD at home or Playing a karaoke CD for a home party it is different. There is no additional charge beyond the cost of the purchase cost. Our laws see things very differently between renting a movie and watching it at home, and renting a movie and playing at a theatre for a paying audience. If the movie is entertaining or not is irrelevant to the financial question.

Now it can easily be argued that a karaoke list of ONLY public domain songs would be a pretty dead show in most situations. Therefore the music industry has found a way to sell people the rights to use songs that other people own creating the often confusing money trail between the bar, KJ, karaoke disc makers, songwriters, publishers etc.

Sorry Doc, I can't agree. By your reasoning you would owe every songwriter of every song in your library a fee for each gig. That's just not how it works.

If the music really mattered, the Metalica singer would not sit through a rendition of twinkle twinkle little star nor would the twinkle singer be willing to hear the Metalica singer scream into the mic. But, there they sit because what they're really waiting for is to play with the microphone so their fellow humans might take special notice of them for four minutes. If they just wanted to sing they wouldn't need karaoke, they would just sing.

I'm sure that if the only song you had was twinkle twinkle little star you would still get singers, not many, but singers.

_________________
Okay, who took my pants?

Yes you do owe a fee for every song played (used) in your public gigs in moneymaking establishments (possibly not private events). Even if the only person benifiting from the songwriter's effort is the Karaoke singer.

ASCAP and BMI do collect fees for the songwriters. That is generally paid by the bar not the KJ.

ASCAP and BMI have sucessfully closed bars and other venues that have refused to pay.

Sorry but the law is on their side. Sure it is not always enforced and you may get away with it for a while. BUT eventually they can hit you with the bill or force your establishment to close.