ASCAP sues restaurants over music use… are theatres next? August 23, 2007
Posted by Gordon Firemark in : Theatre law, entertainment law, intellectual property , add a commentIn recent months, the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) has sued at least twenty six restaurants around the country for copyright infringement. The claims stem from the restaurants’ playing of music without obtaining a license from the performing rights organization. Before long, theatres and other performance venues may also be targets.
ASCAP and its competitor BMI (Broadcast Music International) are the two largest American performing rights societies, charged with collecting royalties for songwrites and publishers for “public performances” of songs in their respective catalogs. ASCAP’s catalog boasts over 8 Million Songs. a public performance occurs whenever a song is played on the radio, television, or the internet, and most performances (live or recorded) of music in public spaces, such as restaurants, nightclubs and theatres
[Note: Theatres routinely pay play publishers for the right to perform plays and musicals on their stages, but the licenses granted typically cover only those works which are an integral part of the play in question. (so-called “grand performance rights“). If, however, the venue uses additional music pre- or post-show, or fills scene changes and intermissions with songs not written specifically for the play, a so-called “small rights” public-performance license will also be required.]
Both ASCAP and BMI employ investigators to roam the country identifying new restaurants, bars, theme parks or other establishments where music is used. Venue owners are required to purchase a license, typically for a single annual fee based on the size, seating capacity and type of venue.
While many businesses aren’t aware of these rules, entertainment attorneys say that suits to enforce these licensing requirements are increasingly common, and ASCAP’s senior vice-president Vincent Candilora is quoted in the Seattle Times as saying that the recent lawsuits are intended to spread the word that performing such music without permission is a federal offense.
Although the societies have targetted bars, restaurants and nightclubs, any business can be the target of enforcement actions. Theatres, cabarets and other performance venues are especially succeptible to lawsuits of this type. Nowadays, even shopkeepers play music in their establishments to entertain customers and set a mood. If unlicensed, doing so can result in a costly lawsuit.
New and established business owners should consider carefully how music is used on their premises and obtain the necessary licenses.
Tags: noneNew Jersey joins the club: passes a “Truth In Music” law. May 13, 2007
Posted by Gordon Firemark in : entertainment law, intellectual property , add a commentDid you know that in ten states it’s against the law to impersonate a music band?
New Jersey recently became the tenth state to pass a “Truth in Music” bill. Led by a lobbying effort from vintage singing groups like the Drifters and Sha Na Na, musicians have pushed for legislation making it illegal to use the name of a famous band unless it includes at least one original member or unless management holds a trademark. 
In an interview with the L. A Times, lead singer of the original Sha Na Na, John Bauman referred to the indignity suffered by the people who originally created the music when impersonators misrepresent themselves as the real thing as “heartbreaking”.
The statutes read roughly as follows: “It shall be unlawful for any person to advertise or conduct a live musical performance or production through the use of a false, deceptive or misleading affiliation, connection or association between a performing group and a recording group.” Impersonators are subject to stiff fines.
Tags: noneNon Smoking Ordinances vs. Smoking on Stage January 30, 2007
Posted by Gordon Firemark in : Theatre law, entertainment law, intellectual property, Law, art , add a commentZachary Pincus Roth has written an interesting piece about on-stage smoking in the theatre.
Does the 1st Amendment apply to smoking as a form of “speech”. If the stage directions call for a cigarette, and it’s a significant part of a scene, isn’t a ban on smoking a ‘prior restraint’ on the expression of ideas?
Could this conceivably have a chilling effect, by causing producers to NOT select material that calls for on-stage smoking?
Couldn’t it also cause playwrights to self-censor by excluding or altering scenes that involve smoking?
Should government be in the business of dramaturgy?
Tags: none"Urinetown" Creators Get Pissy about Midwest Productions December 5, 2006
Posted by Gordon Firemark in : Theatre law, entertainment law, intellectual property, Law, art , add a commentBy Gordon Firemark for The Theatre Lawyer”
The director, choreographer, and set, lighting and costume designers of the original Broadway production of “Urinetown” have begun to pursue claims against two midwest theatre companies for allegedly copying their work without authorization.
Playbill reports that in response, the producers from one of the theatres has filed a lawsuit against the Broadway team.
The Broadway team’s complaints arose after Choreographer Brian Loeffler won an award for his work on a production of Urinetown at Chicago’s Mercury Theater. Loeffler also choreographed the other accused production, performed by the Carousel Dinner Theatre, in Akron, Ohio.
The Broadway team’s union, the Society of Stage Directors and Choreographers provides legal services to its members in such situations. Ronald Schechtman, the lawyer for the team, sent a letter demanding that Loeffler formally return the awards he’s won for his work on the show, and that the creative teams for both midwest productions provide a detailed accounting for their revenues, from which “an appropriate license fee and damages would be determined”. The Broadway creators threaten court action if these demands are not met.
In response, the Mercury Theater sent a letter denying the Broadway creators’ claims, and the Carousel Dinner Theatre has filed an action in U.S. District Court, seeking a declaratory judgment that its production was substantially different from the Broadway production, and did not violate any laws.
Copyright protection for elements beyond the script and music of a theatrical show is an unsettled and ambiguous area of law. There have been at least two previous, high profile cases involving Broadway productions later reproduced elsewhere. (more…)
Tags: none
