links

website jamendo last.fm facebook mysapce youtube

.

Flickr

This is a test post from , a fancy photo sharing thing.

Flickr

This is a test post from , a fancy photo sharing thing.

Contracts for artists & physical spaces.

Recently i was in Belgium, home of rights organization SABAM. It seems that the cost for use of music content is going up via the rights organizations, yet the interest in self published content is going down.

Venues funded by the government are often promoting published and label acts, while self published artists and bands are being asked to perform no cost. This funding combined with a strict regulation for use of music content by the rights organizations, make things not so easy for the self publishing artist. What to do?

The contract ideas bellow might give venues an incentive to play music from self publishing bands and artists that are in contact with that physical space.

1)-Contract that the artist signs to tell the venue that the artist is not with rights organization and shall perform only original content at the venue.

2)-Contract that the artist signs that allows the venue to use the recorded music of that artist in that venue free of charge. It would be up to the artist to let the venue know if in the future the artist joined a rights organization.

Myspace and youtube do not pay for use of the artists or bands content, yet venues do. Venues are not beaming soap commercials above performers heads during the show.

Contracts for artists & physical spaces.

Recently i was in Belgium, home of rights organization SABAM. I spoke to both venue owners/promoters and artists about SABAM. It seems that the cost for use of musical content is going up (via the rights organizations), yet interest in quality “self published” content via commercial and non-commercial media streams is going down.

Culturally funded venues/festival/theaters in Europe are promoting published and label acts mostly. Self Published acts are often asked by culturally funded spaces to perform at no cost. This bureaucracy of cultural funding combined with a strict regulation of music rights, makes it mostly impossible for “self published” artists to get exposure in Europe. Cultural funding is creating conditions that often ensure “self published” artists join rights organizations when possibly they don’t have to. What to do ?

Could Creative Commons create contracts that help “self published” artists and venues/spaces? The two contract ideas bellow might give venues an incentive to play music from bands/artists that were in direct contact with that space. It could also give physical spaces an incentive to invite bands to tour when they created new music.

1)-Contract that the artist signs to tell the venue that the artist is not with rights organization and shall perform only original content (that the artist her or himself created) at the venue on that particular night.

2)-Contract that the artist signs that allows the venue to use the recorded music of that artist in venue free of charge. It would be the obligation of the artist to let the venue know if in the future the artist joins a rights organization. The rights organizations might in the future provide a list of artist’s that are registered with a rights organization(s)

Myspace & youtube do not pay for use of the artists or bands content, yet venues & spaces mostly are (even when the artist is not with a rights organization). Venues mostly are not beaming soap commercials above performers heads as they perform their tunes. Physical spaces might welcome the opportunity to be able to collect works that the venue could use free of charge. Many artists would give their content freely to a venue that would give them the opportunity of a paid performance combined with regular exposure in that space.

music

Myspace or APRA who is more evil ?

This article was deleted from myspace twice by myspace. This is kind of strange, I don’t think the article is that radical.

Myspace or APRA who is more evil ?

If you put your profile up on Myspace and you don’t let people know about your music, then nothing much happens with your art. Maybe a random search will bring someone to your art, you have to publish your works to be successful on Myspace. In order for an artist to get known on Myspace you are going to spend a lot of time clicking on profiles or you are going to buy a bot program. You could get a fan to do this for you or you might pay someone.

It’s a difficult situation for the artist that wants commercial success through Myspace. When Myspace sold to News Corp none of the contributors within the system received any type of bonus. The bonus they got was that it would get bigger. Myspace gets its revenue from advertising and does not split any of this advertising revenue with artists, nor does it pay for the rights to use this content to any rights organization.

The contract that the artists agree to when they put their music on Myspace is in conflict with all collection societies outside the US, but Myspace has had no major legal problems as a result. Even artists that contribute to Myspace are bombarded within their own profile by banners. Sure you can take your music off Myspace and go back to some other form of publishing, yet most artists/musicians go with what seems to work.

Myspace doesn’t have to pay a fee to the collection society for the use of any material. A venue does, a radio station does; everyone else has to. One way of looking at Myspace is this: Myspace went into a bus, cut a door in the side of the bus, and started selling tickets to people coming onto the bus. Now if I did this I would be in court/jail straight away, yet if I knew the bus company and the driver of the bus, it might be easier. So the bus that is owned by the public (the contributing musicians who are members of the collecting societies outside the US) is now partly owned by Myspace; well at least that door is.

Who has been ripped off here? The artists were always upset that they could not publish without a publisher and Myspace has created a stream of exposure for them. The collection societies created a system where the price of content worked in favor of the artists that were published, so self-published artists are really happy that Myspace is here now. Maybe the bus is not necessary anymore, or maybe the artists have to build their own bus. Why did myspace accept music from artists with APRA ? Why has APRA not done anything about this ? Would be nice if myspace was for artists not with APRA, yet that would be a good reason not to join APRA ! and myspace would not be popular if it did not have popular art within its system.

How was myspace able to get away with using content without paying, any live venue would be within its rights to create its own contract with any artist, to use content for free. Does this mean the need for the rights organizations is no more ?

response to someone asking for more info about US rights to those outside the US.

My answer: The point is more that the myspace terms and conditions are in conflict with the rights organization artist conditions. A venue or online business in the UK can’t create a similar myspace contract (for artists with a rights organization). Yet business in the US can create this type of contract. Why? artists with rights organizations in the US are able deal with content as they choose and remain within the terms and conditions of the rights organization. A similar business to myspace based in the UK would have to pay the UK rights organizations for use of content. last.FM have to pay for use, they would love to have it all for free. More an issue of double standards.

The hex of cultural funding

In Europe most art is culturally funded in some way. Even commercial labels/publishers might be dependent on the income that they get via performance in culturally funded venues. Some small business possibly don’t provide live entertainment because they are unable to compete with the nonprofit venues. Culturally funded venues also could be seen to create conditions that encourage artists to join rights organizations, when possibly they shouldn’t. This means venues have the view that they have to pay the rights organizations for all use of content. Artists have little incentive not to join the rights organizations as media/venues/festivals (not myspace though) pay blanket licenses for the use of content. An artist (outside the US) not with a rights organization is able to license her or his content as they choose, however as the rights organizations issue blanket licenses to media for the use of content, commercial media almost always is going to choose well published content over that of “self published” content. An end to the blanket license system and an adaptation of a system similar to that of the US, would create a better flow of art. The problem seems to be that people from both sides of the political fence benefit from the system being the way it is. What organizations benefits when art is “self published” ? how to be punk when no-matter what way you look you have to fill in forms or give up rights for any exposure.

Contract ideas for venues and artists

contract 1
contract that the artist signs to tell the venue that the artist is not with sabam and shall perform only original content on that night

contract 2
contract that the artist allows sunshine concerts to use the recorded music of that artist in any venue that sunshine concerts chooses. it is also the obligation of the artist to let sunshine concerts if in the future they joined Sabam. Sunshine concerts can use the artists content free of charge until the artist has joined a rights organization.

What is Sabam?

done

Belgium copyright law makes the composer of a song the exclusive owner of that song and SABAM collects royalties on behalf of that owner. SABAM is an organization that has a monopoly on royalty collection in Belgium. The conditions that the board of SABAM maintain effect the way that members and non members deal with all forms of media. If you join SABAM you give SABAM the rights to your musical and artistic voice. SABAM do not protect creative works of its members from theft. (theft as in someone taking your music and calling the tune theirs) SABAM’s job is to collect royalties for the use of its members content where ever SABAM can. Very much more than most of what is collected by SABAM goes to labels & publishers outside of Belgium. When an artist gives up their music and artistic voice to a rights organization the artist gives up the right for a venue to use that content without SABAM’s permission. This means the price for the use of the “self published” content is the same as that of “well published” content. By joining SABAM your making your content less attractive to grass routes venues and spaces. Don’t join SABAM, SABAM works best for artists signed to a publisher or label. Consider licensing your content with a Creative Commons license and maintaining the rights to your musical voice.

SABAM provide content at one price, this means that published content is used by media almost all the time. 95 percent of SABAM members are self published artists however rights are exercised to benefit corporations like universal music.

Consider also: of the 121 million dollars that SABAM collects for use of universal musics content, 100 million goes to those that own the rights . This compared to rights organizations APRA in Australia that is able collect royalties for a fee’s for around 5 percent. Artists also do not have to pay a fee to join APRA in Australia. What makes it so expensive to collect and distribute a royalty in Belgium?

Recently i read that SABAM want to put a ban on the availability of peer 2 peer file sharing software to the people of Belgium. Organizations like Jamendo however are able to use this technology to help artists distribute their art. It seems Belgium artists are not able to distribute what they create because SABAM price all content at one price. It seems unfair that SABAM shall try to ban this form of P2P distribution.

Consider: Technology allows us all to create new media at home without the use of a regular publishing system. It seems natural that these changes in technology are going to decrease revenues for some corporations. Can the law adapt to have an understanding of new technology? What is next form of technology to be ban in Belgium? blank DVD’s, regulate all online hard drives. Where did it start? where does it end? Is this about control of information or financial gain for corporations, or both. How do the people of Belgium gain from the introduction of this law? How much of that 100 million dollars that is to be paid to universal music is going to people that are still alive that created this content. Is this the future “we” or you as the reader of what i say here want. Are you going to do anything about this?

“We” being the people without a commercial or (non-commercial !!!) publisher. The basic difference between the rights organization in the US ASCAP and SABAM, is that SABAM and its European partners get artists to sign exclusive contracts for the right to use their copyright content, where as ASCAP have artists sign non-exclusive contracts. With changes in technology it makes sense that all contracts now are non-exclusive. Media needs to rebuild, artists need to be business people.

ice tea

Use of How Far and Walk the streets in youtube film

It was great news.. when i found out that how far and walk the streets were used to make some cool independent films about life in Bangladesh and also life after the cyclone, thanks Shawn. The tracks were able to be used in these films because of the Creative Commons licenses attached to tracks. No publisher or lawyer had to participate in the use of this work. I reckon CC licenses are changing things radically for use of content.

Its great to be able to help.

“I bought a camera, grabbed my computer, and flew to Bangladesh to see if I could make a difference. ” what a dude.

view youtube link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92-DNzNMHYw

view website link