IMRO and uncopyrighted music

B-D-P--

First note is to the mods,
I'm not looking to be illegal, just looking to see if I am correct.

So we have a gym, its only open 2 hours 4 nights a week.
IMRO arrived and now want to take maybe 2 months profit, Needless to say we cant afford it.

If we play non-copyrighted music, of which there is a lot on youtube, do we need to still pay IMRO?

Thanks all in advanced

Walter2016

If the music is non copyrighted, then no issue with playing it.

There is a grey area where music is purely played in the backgroud - there were a coupe of legal cases both here and in Europe where the music was not played as an integral part of the business and the busiensses won - Paddy Bourke shoes in Drogheda and a dentist in Italy were the two of note.

However music probably plays an integral part of a gym's atmosphere, so that argument probably won't wash. But certainly, non-copyrighted music can be played with no charge.

Graham

There's another thread about IMRO charges that resurfaced recently.

There appear to be lots of theories about how to avoid the charges but I see nobody coming back posting about any that worked:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055485862

B-D-P--

Thanks lads. How does PPI come into this bracket also?

jimmii

B-D-P-- wrote: »

Thanks lads. How does PPI come into this bracket also?

You need to have a PPI license if you play music in public so guessing you'll have to stump up for that too. IMRO and PPI have got together to invoice together now so guessing when you get the invoice from them PPI will be on there too.

mneylon

All music is going to have some form of copyright.
There are some exceptions, but they are few and far between.
Just because music is available does not make it "copyright free".
The issue isn't whether you pay to listen to the music or not, but whether you are playing it for other people, even if that's only a small group.
Best thing is to ask IMRO.

Wanderer78

What is the charge for playing copyrighted music?

the perfect ten

B-D-P-- wrote: »

First note is to the mods,
I'm not looking to be illegal, just looking to see if I am correct.

So we have a gym, its only open 2 hours 4 nights a week.
IMRO arrived and now want to take maybe 2 months profit, Needless to say we cant afford it.

If we play non-copyrighted music, of which there is a lot on youtube, do we need to still pay IMRO?

Thanks all in advanced

I think there is also the possibility to appeal the amount of any fee or levy if you feel it too high in your particular circumstances. It is probably the Patents Office who would deal with such disputes about fee levels.

Trojan

There's plenty of non-copyrighted music to choose from (e.g. NoCopyright Sounds have a ton of decent dance music), there's also stuff that's been put in the public domain by artists, and you can explicitly buy commercial-use licences for music from others.

However (from my non-law-speaking-guy interpretation) it appears that IMRO collect fees regardless of the nature or copyright status of the music that you're playing, it's simply the fact that you're playing *anything*. It does sound a bit like mob protection scheme. The fees don't seem outrageous (<=€150/year for the most part), but if I was in that situation I'd be looking for a loophole out of general principle.

StupidLikeAFox

Here is a news report of the court case mentioned earlier. This is how a shoe shop got around this particular case:
http://www.irishtimes.com/business/court-case-means-music-royalty-claims-against-retailers-now-in-doubt-1.1359057

Judge Mary Collins accepted Mr Nuding’s and Ms Heffernan’s arguments that Patrick Burke Shoes was similar to the dentist in that only small numbers of people were hearing the music at any one time.
In addition, the shops were not playing the music for profit and it was not a factor in influencing whether or not people entered the stores in the first place.

jimmii

I tried that argument using the exact wording the judge used and they just ignored it and kept sending demands.

Gloomtastic!

jimmii wrote: »

I tried that argument using the exact wording the judge used and they just ignored it and kept sending demands.

Maybe they are in the wrong and just using bully-boy tactics to try and collect a slice of your hard-earned money.....

Mrs OBumble

Blacknight wrote: »

All music is going to have some form of copyright.
There are some exceptions, but they are few and far between.
Just because music is available does not make it "copyright free".

Not true. It's a vastly complicated field, yes. But there are some basics. Following understanding - I'm not a lawyer, it's not legal advice .. but these are based on a fair bit of research done to keep one of my hobbies legal:


All works are copyright when they are written. But at 70 years after the composer's death, the composition becomes public domain, ie copyright expires.

As well, new arrangements of compositions are also copyright, to the person who made the arrangement. But again, at 70 years after the arranger's death, the arrangement becomes public domain.

As well, performances (except in a church during a service) require licensing. This is even if you own legal copies of the published arrangement. But once the work and the arrangement are public domain, theres no licensing required.

As well, all recordings of performances are copyright. But again, at a certain time (I don't know the timeframe for this), the recording becomes public domain.

As well, broadcasts or public playing (eg shops, hold-music etc) of recordings require licensing - but only while the recording is licensed.


And as well as all those copyright expires, anyone who owns a copyright can choose to allow other people to use their work. And some do. There are entire libraries of copyright free music in lots of genres. So it is possible for people to find copyright-free music. It's just quite a lot of work to be sure that any particular work is actually free of all the possible copyrights that apply.

Atlantic Dawn

What would happen if you played music by non EU artists?

newacc2015

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

What would happen if you played music by non EU artists?

I wonder this too. A lot of Chinese/Korean shops/salons/restaurants play covers of Western songs by Chinese artists. I doubt they are paying IMRO for this

jimmii

Gloomtastic! wrote: »

Maybe they are in the wrong and just using bully-boy tactics to try and collect a slice of your hard-earned money.....

I'd imagine they ignore it unless you show you're serious and send it via a solicitor. They probably (rightly) assume most of us can't be arsed going through all the legal hassle just to make them stop.

jimmii

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

What would happen if you played music by non EU artists?

You still have to have a license to play the music. Even if you made completely original music yourself they would charge you for the right to play it in public!

Atlantic Dawn

jimmii wrote: »

You still have to have a license to play the music. Even if you made completely original music yourself they would charge you for the right to play it in public!

Surely that can't be legal?

davindub

Imro only charge for copyrighted music, you can play royalty free music and not pay them - there are websites for this. The problem with pulling music from youtube is that you don't 100% know if the song is copyrighted or not e.g. someone sings a cover of a chart song = royalty.

But if you are running a gym/fitness classes, good music is essential, better to pay the fee and keep your customers?

jimmii

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

Surely that can't be legal?

Unless you could prove without doubt that no other person was involved in anyway I think you probably would need to pay imro. Once you could show no copyright was involved then ppi doesn't need to get paid. They would probably make you jump through hoops to prove it all though. I wouldn't mind paying it directly to the artists we play but when it's going to who they decide it goes to with their "formula" then f that as they are obviously taking a decent cut from it too.