Bar & Club Bar Hit With $45,000 Fine for “Pirated” Karaoke Songs.
- Thread starter CMWAT
- Start date
Low is trying to pass off one's ignorance of the basic regulation and law governing their activity as some sort of legal ambiguity.
Low is entertaining and couching the potatoes who spew that kind of misinformation.
He's just a lazy fool who doesn't have a clue about performance rights and continually pretends that there's no real law out there.
Entertain him if you will. I called his bulls--t for exactly what it is.
- - - Updated - - -
I'm not your tutor. Get off your a-- and do your own homework.
They are all public records, sh---head.
Did I take a step in the right direction?
I see I went from a f_cking idiot, up to sh_thead status -- that must be a step in the right direction. Can I be Major Asshole next?
My corporation also has a copyright attorney, and we've won a number of suits.
BTW, I like the angry elf comment as well.
Did I take a step in the right direction?
I see I went from a f_cking idiot, up to sh_thead status -- that must be a step in the right direction. Can I be Major Asshole next?
My corporation also has a copyright attorney, and we've won a number of suits.
BTW, I like the angry elf comment as well.
What a proud shareholder, CEO, and staff you must be.
Great! Perhaps your attorney will explain the difference between Copyrights and Performance Rights before you put your foot in your mouth again.
Major A--hole.
BTW - the correct characterization is "disgust" not anger. So go elf yourself.
Last edited:
Whew are we happy we got that off our chests? I feel much better now.
I know that Soud Choice Karaoke (which is now Slep Tone) offers a program where you can either purchase all of their discs for about $4500 or for $130 a month pay for having all your music on your computer no matter where you got the music from.....they have been suing and pretty successful in about 50% of their cases.
I've asked the same question and rarely get what I consider a straight concrete answer.
I've played in parks..backyards..rinky dink social clubs..a preschool, a HS and other schools, I see DJ's on the street at car cruises (litereally...every 2 blocks in town) and I played a retirement home's community room. I know the backyard's don't have licenses and I doubt the retirement community did...the preschool? No way.
And no, I can't show you all my CDs...damned itunes! LOL
And it's probably I'll be playing at my gun club's picnic...and I know they don't have a license.
But I've asked about musicians too - tonight was the HS's talent and art show. My son and 3 buddies played a beatles tune, a CCR tune and then everyone in the show got up for one last song ..plus there were 4 other acts.
I GUARANTEE nobody got royalties, credit or anything for their performance.
Does anyone care? At what point DO they care? I bet if my son's group did covers and sold out some shows there'd be people with a hand out.
I've played in parks..backyards..rinky dink social clubs..a preschool, a HS and other schools, I see DJ's on the street at car cruises (litereally...every 2 blocks in town) and I played a retirement home's community room. I know the backyard's don't have licenses and I doubt the retirement community did...the preschool? No way.
And no, I can't show you all my CDs...damned itunes! LOL
And it's probably I'll be playing at my gun club's picnic...and I know they don't have a license.
But I've asked about musicians too - tonight was the HS's talent and art show. My son and 3 buddies played a beatles tune, a CCR tune and then everyone in the show got up for one last song ..plus there were 4 other acts.
I GUARANTEE nobody got royalties, credit or anything for their performance.
Does anyone care? At what point DO they care? I bet if my son's group did covers and sold out some shows there'd be people with a hand out.
So music is different than a movie?
If I play a movie in my home for 5 friends, no problem.
If I pay you to bring the movie and screen...now we're likely to have an issue.
If I or you play the movie for say, the local 4H club..again, we have a problem - no money exchanged hands and it's a private event...but it's not okie dokie with the movie industry.
I went round and round once at a place I worked regarding music - if you play a radio that the customers can hear..it's a violation. I'm talking commmercial radio...and forget music on hold. You pay for it or else.
If I play a movie in my home for 5 friends, no problem.
If I pay you to bring the movie and screen...now we're likely to have an issue.
If I or you play the movie for say, the local 4H club..again, we have a problem - no money exchanged hands and it's a private event...but it's not okie dokie with the movie industry.
I went round and round once at a place I worked regarding music - if you play a radio that the customers can hear..it's a violation. I'm talking commmercial radio...and forget music on hold. You pay for it or else.
I'm in awe at the level of ignorance that persists on this issue. People - get an education!
Private is defined by the purpose and intent of the gathering specific to the type of attendees expressly described in the Copyright Act.
It does not matter that you are in a public park or the town green - it matters that you are there to serve a private purpose.
The mere fact that passers-by might overhear something does not meet the legal standard of commercial use.
Private is defined by the purpose and intent of the gathering specific to the type of attendees expressly described in the Copyright Act.
It does not matter that you are in a public park or the town green - it matters that you are there to serve a private purpose.
The mere fact that passers-by might overhear something does not meet the legal standard of commercial use.
Coming from a photography perspective I have become accustomed to a very different definition of 'private'.
If you are 'in public' or can be seen from a 'public' place then you have no expectation of privacy and I can take your picture.
If you are 'in public' or can be seen from a 'public' place then you have no expectation of privacy and I can take your picture.
Not exactly. The point at which you stop being a photographer and become a stalker is very plain when dealing with the average person.
The news-worthy status of celebrity is not an argument that will protect you if your camera habits impede the personal liberty or sensibility of the average person. The right to photograph public spaces without ascertaining any individual permissions or identity (tourism, documenting) is very different than seeking or singling out specific individuals to be photographed. You also don't acquire the right to use discreet individual images commercially without a model release or valid fair use.
If you doubt that, head to the nearest public beach and start photographing people sunbathing. Go to a cafe and shoot people while they meet and eat. . . . Note how fast the authorities respond, question, or detain you.
Let one of these public "subjects" identify themselves being unwittingly used in a non-newsworthy (fair use) commercial publication and see how quickly you get served with a summons.
Last edited:
nope. Stalking is very separate from taking pictures in a public place. And what you can do with them is yet another issue.
Go look at traffic cams and all the other cameras out there. You've never signed a release.
Go into most any store..lots of cameras. Again, you signed nothing - not even a sign at the door in most of them.
If you famous and in 'public' I can take your picture all I want. If I can see you from a public space (side walk say) then it's just about as fair game. You have no expectation of privacy. Go look at google maps..be then street views or aerial views.
What I can do with your picture, for money, is limited. I can sell it as 'news' (aka editorial) or educational use. I can't however put it on tshirts or posters and sell them. I can take a 'street photo' shall we say and use it in a work of art and sell that - and whether i need a release or not becomes debatable. YOu see people on the news and at ballgames on TV all the time - odds are you've been on TV. I know I have been -as a sub-18 year old in the crowd I was on teh news, in the 80s I was in the newspaper (human interest story). I signed no releases. Even as a minor!
On the friday night tykes - steel country (on esquire tv) a friend's 10 year old son was on teh show - a shot of the team running onto the field and she is not happy at all. (the show is about youth football in my area) But they did it with no release..they told the parents 'we won't show your kid without your permission' but did anyway.
Youth sports are often played on quasi-public spaces - gov't owned field, anyone can come watch the game, anyone can take pictures. USUALLY when you sign up there is a photo release as part of the paperwork - I know my gradeschool uses one as does the middle school and HS for yearbook, for ass'ys, for sports, school dances, etc.
As I'm 'authorized' to take pictures at teh event I'm allowed to shoot the OTHER team as well...
and this applies to wedding also - as a guest you may be photographed, and said photograph may end up being used for commercial purposes (see my website, see ANY photogs website, look at bridal magazines....). Maybe the bride and groom signed a release but nobody else did - not the bridal party, parents, guests, etc that are often in the pictures.
Go look at traffic cams and all the other cameras out there. You've never signed a release.
Go into most any store..lots of cameras. Again, you signed nothing - not even a sign at the door in most of them.
If you famous and in 'public' I can take your picture all I want. If I can see you from a public space (side walk say) then it's just about as fair game. You have no expectation of privacy. Go look at google maps..be then street views or aerial views.
What I can do with your picture, for money, is limited. I can sell it as 'news' (aka editorial) or educational use. I can't however put it on tshirts or posters and sell them. I can take a 'street photo' shall we say and use it in a work of art and sell that - and whether i need a release or not becomes debatable. YOu see people on the news and at ballgames on TV all the time - odds are you've been on TV. I know I have been -as a sub-18 year old in the crowd I was on teh news, in the 80s I was in the newspaper (human interest story). I signed no releases. Even as a minor!
On the friday night tykes - steel country (on esquire tv) a friend's 10 year old son was on teh show - a shot of the team running onto the field and she is not happy at all. (the show is about youth football in my area) But they did it with no release..they told the parents 'we won't show your kid without your permission' but did anyway.
Youth sports are often played on quasi-public spaces - gov't owned field, anyone can come watch the game, anyone can take pictures. USUALLY when you sign up there is a photo release as part of the paperwork - I know my gradeschool uses one as does the middle school and HS for yearbook, for ass'ys, for sports, school dances, etc.
As I'm 'authorized' to take pictures at teh event I'm allowed to shoot the OTHER team as well...
and this applies to wedding also - as a guest you may be photographed, and said photograph may end up being used for commercial purposes (see my website, see ANY photogs website, look at bridal magazines....). Maybe the bride and groom signed a release but nobody else did - not the bridal party, parents, guests, etc that are often in the pictures.
You're really confused.
High school sports are news. The team is also covered in helmets and padding - a jersey number is not exactly a photo-identity crisis.
You're allowed to photograph public spaces and the incidence of people within them. You do not have a right to single out and track individuals in those spaces as your photo subject matter without permission or a valid press credential - you could be charged with assault, harassment, or invasion of privacy in many jurisdictions.
best response that I got from ASCAP is that if the event is a private affair the the licensing is not necessary (wedding reception, closed event not open to the public)....if you play a public venue (bowling alley, open dance, bar) then the venue has to be licensed and they are charged according to the amount of seating available, if you are playing a charity where no vendor gets paid and everything is donated, again you don't have to have the licensing.....it's funny because there are a lot of Dj's who would pay to have an associate membership to pay the artist (producers, etc) yet they don't want to do that??
I've been involved in many a charity event...and asked for many more (as a photog). Interesting that you say 'where no vendor gets paid' cause boy oh boy do charity events spend the money...food, advertising, tickets to sell, alcohol, prizes...
No, not at all. If the charity event is soliciting the public for attendance then it is liable for performance royalties. Many may already have blanket agreements that cover their operations, so as a DJ you're not going to be aware of that. Furthermore, the charity event is usually a fundraiser - which is another liability for every bit of media they produce - such as videos, etc. that may have a soundtrack. These have to be made with licensed or royalty free production music, or proper licensing and permission for all Copyrighted scores and pop songs.
Likewise, if you are a DJ or videographer producing video montages for private weddings, you are not liable for a performance royalty for songs played live, but you ARE liable for the license to use and synchronize any songs to the video (synchronized meaning record with the visual) and for damages if you are distributing copies to your clients without the proper license to create and distribute a derivative work.
Your latter suggestion that ASCAP an BMI etc. collect royalties from individual DJs is prohibited by law. The Copyright Law (Title 18 USC) is not applied in a vacuum - it must conform with other laws that guide and restrict commerce such as anti-trust regulations (Title 15 USC.) This is also why (unlike Canada) there is no one agency that can grant a license to DJs who want to copy music for multiple libraries. A license like that in the USA is not a copyright issue - it is an anti-trust issue.
Last edited: