AlanMcKillop wrote:Is the PRS licence the responsibility of the band/players/performers or the venue in which the performance takes place?
I seem to remember reading that someone refused to play in a venue which didn't have the proper licence.
I think I would do the same, Alan. To answer your question, it's the venue that's responsible. It makes for far less paperwork if the venue is in control. After a performance, the hirer of a venue is charged a small percentage of the income generated to cover the venues' PRS fees (in most instances, this is 3% of the ticket sales).
Regarding the current issue, it would seem that most music videos posted on YouTube are technically there illegally, unless you've written the tune yourself. This is the case even if you've simply set up a video camera at home and filmed yourself playing a Shadows tune. Technically, legally, the holder of the composer's copyright can take exception. I think that's what has happened on this occasion. Warner/Chappell must indeed own the composer's rights to
The Savage. For some reason, they don't like it that musicians are recording and "publishing" their own versions on YouTube. This is in spite of the fact that the posters are not gaining money from their video projects, meaning Warner/Chappell are not actually losing any money themselves. What a joke.
To post your own version of a tune on YouTube legally, you need to pay for an MCPS license(!). The same goes for footage of gigs such as Shadowmania.
For now, I recommend everyone who encounters this issue do the same as Lee and use the dispute process. I'm not sure whether that will be the end of the issue for you, but until we know otherwise it's worth a try and a less drastic course of action than to take the whole video offline.
I've said it many times, and I'll say it again many times, but I'm fed up with things like red tape, personalities and politics getting in the way of the simple enjoyment of our favourite music. On this occasion, it's the red tape. And it's wound me right up.
J