by David JM » 26 Sep 2009, 16:04
Quite simply, here in the UK, it's the venue owners/operators who should hold a licence for public entertainment, not the artist.
This used to be based on a submitted playlist - an onerous task at the best of times, but now it's a yearly amount, dependant on venue, number of hours during which music is played - whether live or not, it doesn't matter. This payment is made to The Performing Rights Society (who have received bad press lately for being heavy-handed with small business owners who provide a bit of background music in shops, hairdressers etc.). They then distribute the income amongst artists and composers. How the payment structure is formatted, I have no idea, but they profess that the sytem works.
If you peform regularly in public along with BT's, or other musicians, don't worry. Even if the premises aren't covered, it's not your problem, although it may be wise to check with them first and remind them of their responsibilities.
If, however, you as an artist record an existing piece of music - whether or not you also perform the BT - and offer the result for sale, then you are responsible for paying royalties to the owners of the copyright on the composition.
If you are the composer, and play the piece, copyright rests with you - but be aware that the cheapest way to register a copyright is to post a copy of the work to yourself by registered post, but don't open it or break the seal. Better still, have it sent to and deposited with a friendly lawyer ("friendly", as in won't charge you - but that would be a first !!).
If there is any copyright infringement later on, "prior art" can be cited - in other words, you got there first.
It can be a bit of a minefield, but it is the venue which must be licenced, not us as musicians. We can play with impunity - but beware - not in the street. That's a whole new ball-game............
David JM