# Copyright board to charge for music at weddings, parades



## Vaneyes

Canadians will start paying for Mendelssohn at their weddings.
Going too far? Read the article, and discuss. :tiphat:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/arts/story/2012/06/01/music-tariff-recorded-copyright-board.html?cmp=rss


----------



## Krummhorn

Simple solution is to hire a musician or group to _play_ Mendelssohn ... most, if not all, of his music is in the public domain.

However, imho, those who willfully use copyrighted media (Pre-recorded Cd's, Lp's, Cassette, Dvd, etc) should be held responsibly for paying the royalties to those musicians or orchestra, and the recording company who owns the copyright.

I fully realize that it's tough to enforce copyright laws ... but if caught, the penalties are very stiff in some cases. For me, it isn't worth the risk, so I don't do it.

Kh


----------



## Jeremy Marchant

Krummhorn said:


> Simple solution is to hire a musician or group to _play_ Mendelssohn ... most, if not all, of his music is in the public domain.


And you'll also be providing much wanted work to living musicians.

Couldn't agree more with the rest of Krummhorn's post.


----------



## Vaneyes

But, we shouldn't be surprised that there is opposition to overcollecting.

Pay the piper - twice

http://www.montrealgazette.com/Business/piper/6717027/story.html

Canadian Music Copyright Killing the Golden Goose

http://www.care2.com/causes/canadian-music-copyright-killing-the-golden-goose.html

Excess Copyright: The Big Fat Canadian Wedding Tax - Socan + Re:Sound + AVLA - Pay Three Pipers and Double for Dancing

http://excesscopyright.blogspot.ca/2012/06/big-fat-canadian-wedding-tax-socan.html


----------



## Philip

That's completely ridiculous. Whenever i throw a party, i have to hire live bands now instead of playing CDs? Or else i'll be charged for copyrights infringement? Please. The whole wedding industry is already enough of a scam.

Sounds like another measure to get a steady cash flow into the fat pockets of the copyright industry, rather than the artists themselves.


----------



## Vaneyes

Re clumsiness of the Re: Sound proposal PR mentioned in atleast one of the opposing articles, I have to mildly disagree. I found their omission of funerals, celebrations of lives, and remembrance services, to be remarkably astute.


----------



## Sid James

Looking at the prices in the article you posted in your opening post, Vaneyes, they don't seem high to me. They are like a drop in the ocean for what a wedding costs these days. But I agree that we don't want this to extend to people playing music in their homes for private parties. But a wedding is a public occasion, so that's why royalties are appropriate.


----------



## kv466

Say what, Sid? Okay where's that dislike feature when you need it?!


----------



## Sid James

kv466 said:


> Say what, Sid? Okay where's that dislike feature when you need it?!


Well this is the part of the article in the OP I'm talking about -



> ...For weddings, receptions, conventions, assemblies and fashion shows, the fee is $9.25 per day if fewer than 100 people are present and goes up to $39.33 for crowds of more than 500 people. If there's dancing, the fees double.
> 
> ...


I suppose it depends what music you use, eg. how many, in your wedding ceremony and possibly the reception after. But these prices do not look that high to me, compared to what I guess is things like dress purchase or hire, car hire, paying the celebrant, hiring a place for the reception, printing invitations, catering costs, etc. All those already cost a huge amount (put together), I'm asking, are royalties for some recordings played at the ceremony or reception, are they going to make a huge difference for the overall wedding budget? Just asking, that's what's on my mind.


----------



## Vaneyes

Sid, the OP article isn't much more than a press release for Re: Sound. Reading the subsequent three articles I linked gives a more complete picture with pertinent history. 

These latest clumsy nickel-diming overcollecting tactics, almost as shabby as airline surcharges, need to be expunged.


----------



## Lunasong

One fee no matter how many tunes/tracks are played?
One fee or two for wedding and reception?

For the record, recorded music at weddings = tacky.

I wonder if there is a statute of limitations on paying if the recording is really old. like 80's


----------



## Klavierspieler

> For weddings, receptions, conventions, assemblies and fashion shows, the fee is $9.25 per day if fewer than 100 people are present and goes up to $39.33 for crowds of more than 500 people. *If there's dancing, the fees double.*


----------



## Krummhorn

Lunasong said:


> . . . For the record, recorded music at weddings = tacky.


As a professional musician myself, I wholeheartedly agree with you on that one .

I was at one such wedding years ago ... and a recording on a LP was being played ... at the precise hour for the wedding to start, the recorded music was briskly interrupted and one clearly heard the needle being scraped across the record grooves as the operator failed to properly lift the needle to clear the LP grooves. Then there was a pause (while another LP was mounted on the player) then the loud 'pop' as the needle was dropped onto the new LP on the turntable.

Of course, when the bridal procession had completed their journey to the church altar, that recording too was abruptly stopped right in the middle of the Wagner ... and of course, the needle again failed to clear the LP surface completely ... rrrrriiippppp! I never laughed so hard in my life.

I've had some very strange 'requests' for wedding processionals/recessionals over the years ... once, I was asked to play "Take Me Out to the Ballgame" for a recessional ... the groom was a professional baseball player ... shucks, for $275 I would even play "Yankee Doodle Dandee" if asked. I did just that once though ... in a church service ... it was on April Fools Day several years back - I played it in a very reverent manner ... only two people caught on to it. :lol:

Kh


----------



## Turangalîla

Lunasong said:


> For the record, recorded music at weddings = tacky.QUOTE]
> 
> Yes! Someone agrees with me!
> 
> I recently played at a wedding-it was a beautiful wedding. I played some nice music for the prelude, then the bridesmaids and flower girls. And then the bride comes out, and I stop playing...a country song plays on the speakers. The whole wedding went _splat_. Not only did the beautiful bride walk down the aisle to a country song, but _they had to fade the music out because the song was too long_.
> 
> Some people just don't get it


----------



## Moira

I entirely agree that recorded music at a wedding is tacky, but I am seeing more and more of it. One almost expects to see artificial flowers as well.

The fact that people don't attend church anymore means that fewer people have an opportunity to learn to sing congregationally and many people don't have hymns at weddings. In fact when I conduct a wedding for non-church people I recommend that they DON'T have any hymns because the singing will be dismal. But it seems that many people are unable to make the leap from no congregational singing to using other live music imaginatively.

<Sigh>


----------



## Moira

CarterJohnsonPiano said:


> Lunasong said:
> 
> 
> 
> I recently played at a wedding-it was a beautiful wedding. I played some nice music for the prelude, then the bridesmaids and flower girls. And then the bride comes out, and I stop playing...a country song plays on the speakers. The whole wedding went _splat_. Not only did the beautiful bride walk down the aisle to a country song, but _they had to fade the music out because the song was too long_.
> 
> Some people just don't get it
> 
> 
> 
> I conducted a multi-cultural wedding a few years ago where they had something similar, with a live string quartet. The bride however, danced down the aisle to a recorded number very popular here in South Africa, "Mama Themba's Wedding". They didn't fade it, however, I simply indicated to the audience that they should rise too and join the dancing. It really worked well. But that was a very specific context.
Click to expand...


----------



## Romantic Geek

So I was trying to find a video to prove my point about the problems of live musicians sometimes (let's just say the last wedding I went to, the organist was a little flimsy on the pedals leading to some...interesting...harmonies.)

But then I found this video of a wedding where the bride marched in to the Largo from _Xerxes_ by Handel???? I've never heard of this before, but it seems so...inappropriate?


----------



## PetrB

At least someone will make a bit of money from the music at a wedding. Cynically, I am quite happy about the import of this. People spend crazy amounts of cash at weddings, and then want to pay the musicians pennies, if at all.


----------



## Delicious Manager

Philip said:


> That's completely ridiculous. Whenever i throw a party, i have to hire live bands now instead of playing CDs? Or else i'll be charged for copyrights infringement? Please. The whole wedding industry is already enough of a scam.
> 
> Sounds like another measure to get a steady cash flow into the fat pockets of the copyright industry, rather than the artists themselves.


Depending on the nature of your parties, you might already be liable to pay for a mechanical copyrights licence to play CDs. There is nothing wrong WHATSOEVER with making sure musicians get their just dues for the work they do. They have the same bills to pay as everyone else, after all.

The difference between a private party at your house (and, if that's what it is, you WOULDN'T be liable to pay for a licence unless the music was in any way entertaining the general public rather than only your private guests) and a wedding is that weddings take place in public, licenced premises. If you play recorded music in one of these spaces, then of course you should pay - you are, effectively, broadcasting to the general public. The other professionals involved in a wedding don't give their services for free, so why should the musicians (just because their work happens to be on a CD)?


----------



## graaf

I just love the way people feel self-righteous about defending copyright, even though it is due to reform sooner or later. But they need not worry, for PR is their friend - it will not be said it is due to the ridiculousness of the current state of copyright, oh no, it will be due to the "embracing new realities and the ever-changing way we think about music, film and other copyrighted material, all in the best interest of the consumers and artists". You know, the generic corporate mission statement talk.


----------



## Delicious Manager

graaf said:


> I just love the way people feel self-righteous about defending copyright, even though it is due to reform sooner or later. But they need not worry, for PR is their friend - it will not be said it is due to the ridiculousness of the current state of copyright, oh no, it will be due to the "embracing new realities and the ever-changing way we think about music, film and other copyrighted material, all in the best interest of the consumers and artists". You know, the generic corporate mission statement talk.


I don't think I'm self-righteous about it. I have actually managed musicians for more than 30 years. Did you know they have the same bills to pay as everyone else? When you consider the years of study, practice and hardship many musicians endure compared to people in other professions with similar levels of training, they get paid peanuts for highly skilled, dedicated work. Would you deny them and their families even that by eroding copyright regulations?


----------



## Prodromides

Krummhorn said:


> However, imho, those who willfully use copyrighted media (Pre-recorded Cd's, Lp's, Cassette, Dvd, etc) should be held responsibly for paying the royalties to those musicians or orchestra, and the recording company who owns the copyright.


Hi, Krummhorn:

Hope you don't mind me asking a tangential question about copyrights, for I'm curious to learn what percentages of album sales are alotted towards musicians' unions and copyright holders?

Not certain if you know this, or are at liberty to divulge the info, but input on this subject would be welcomed.

For example, if a customer purchases one classical music CD @ $19.99, then would 25% (say $5?) be dispursed to the current company holding the rights, and then would another 25% go towards a musicians' union's Trust? And so forth...


----------



## Krummhorn

Hi Prodromides,

A valid question that I too would like to have an answer to. I don't have any statistical figures on what portions of a CD sale go to whatever entity or how it's doled out. That would be the type of information shared between the musician/group and the recording company when they signed a contract. Each contract is probably quite different depending on multiple scenarios, I would think. 

Consider the professional musician/group, who would have paid hundreds of dollars to produce a CD, and expecting to earn a living and/or meet expenses for creating the CD, then only to have it copied and distributed to profit someone else's pocket ... I would be quite incensed if that were to happen to me. 

Kh


----------



## Couchie

Delicious Manager said:


> The other professionals involved in a wedding don't give their services for free, so why should the musicians (just because their work happens to be on a CD)?


Artists also make peanuts - should we start charging whenever their work will be publicly seen on the walls at a wedding?

Charge double if there's dancing in front of them? 

I'm all for public endowment of the arts - increase subsidization of opera companies, orchestras and ensembles - but don't create another stupid bureaucratic headache for the government, the overhead for which to manage and enforce will eliminate any benefits.


----------



## elgar's ghost

I'm a little confused - in Canada would discos playing pop or rock music and pubs with their own CD players be committing the same kind of infringement?


----------



## Delicious Manager

elgars ghost said:


> I'm a little confused - in Canada would discos playing pop or rock music and pubs with their own CD players be committing the same kind of infringement?


The buildings in which the discos take place have to have a licence to allow them to play music on the premises to the public. You will find this is universally true (unless someone is doing it illegally, of course).


----------



## Vaneyes

'Supreme Court ruling scraps royalty for music downloads'http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/07/12/pol-supreme-court-copyright-rulings.html'Supreme Court of Canada Stands Up For Fair Dealing in Stunning Sweep of Cases' 
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6588/125/

It appears from these rulings, that the nickel-and-diming dreams and schemes of some were for naught.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

Is Mendelsohn receiving money?

Martin


----------



## myaskovsky2002

In Canada we must pay for e-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g ! 

Martin


----------



## Delicious Manager

myaskovsky2002 said:


> Is Mendelsohn receiving money?
> 
> Martin


No, but then his music isn't in copyright; it is the Public Domain. This doesn't affect the rights of the people who perform his music, however.


----------

