posted
My daughter is a competitive gymnast, and uses music for her floor routine.
Well, you may not be aware, but buying CD's with floor music on them is ridiculously expensive. About $50 for one song that is 1:30 long. That's $50 per song
Is this because the person making the CD has to obtain rights to use the music? Is there a licensing fee I'm not aware of? I mean, I'm assuming it would not be right for me to say, make my own, using someone else's music?
I've tried to find music from the Lord of the Rings soundtracks, and can't. Is that because Howard Shore or New Line or whoever hasn't released the rights for it to be used in this way?
I'm just curious what all is involved, because I'm looking at having to buy two songs - one for my daughter to compete with and one for my older daughter to use for a captain's routine in her color guard tryouts, and it's a bit overwhelming to pay $100 for 3 minutes of music.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yep, licensing costs for public performance. And there could be a few reasons why a particular piece isn't available, but the most likely reason is that someone along the way decided not to make it available for licensing.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wonder if it is because they have edited the music to go well with the structure of a typical floor routine, and to give good auditory cues to when the jumps and bounces should be happening. It's also important that they get breathers in the right places, like before the finale tumbling run, but I think there may be bad form to spend too much time standing around.
However, if you're not at the level where this kind of stuff is commonly known... well, maybe the emporer has no clothes. :shrug:
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Our gym tries to make it easier on us, by offering up tracks they've purchased in prior years. At one time they bought several selections from Grease, and while they're cute my daughter doesn't want to do the same routine three other gymnasts at our gym have done. Not to mention, it really doesn't suit her style.
And, when something new comes out that is popular, dozens of girls will use it. I've probably seen 20 routines to the Pirates of the Caribbean soundtrack this year. I also think it probably bores the judges to tears, too.
I'm guessing since the music is being played in front of crowds, it does count as a public performance and that's why the cost is so high. It's just frustrating, because it's so much money.
[ March 24, 2008, 04:04 PM: Message edited by: Belle ]
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is it possible to use classical music for these routines? I can think of a few that might work pretty well for a floor routine, and, depending on the piece of music in question, it could be public domain.
Posts: 681 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wait... they don't let you just burn a cd and play that through the speakers? You've got to be kidding me! That's ridiculous!
I mean how is this at all different from a swim team playing a burned CD of psyche up tracks over it's pool loud speakers before a swim meet? Something every swim team at every swim meet I've ever been to has done.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Is it possible to use classical music for these routines? I can think of a few that might work pretty well for a floor routine, and, depending on the piece of music in question, it could be public domain.
The recording itself, not just the composition, would have to be public domain. This means a recording made something like 80 or more years ago.
quote:I mean how is this at all different from a swim team playing a burned CD of psyche up tracks over it's pool loud speakers before a swim meet? Something every swim team at every swim meet I've ever been to has done.
That's very likely a violation of the right of public performance as well.
Moreover, it's definitely different in some significant ways. When one performs gymnastic routines to music, one is incorporating a work into another creative work. If that performance is fixed in a permanent medium, it's a derivative work.
That raises additional questions beyond merely playing a song over a loudspeaker at a public event.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nothing is okay anymore. The last thing musicians and composers want is for people to hear their music. "What?! A twelve year old is going to do gymnastics to my movie soundtrack?! It's not licensed for that! I explicitly withheld permission from twelve year olds! (*sweeps all the papers of his desk*) RAAR!!"
I have to think there's still a place in our society for reasonable people to be reasonable.
posted
There hasn't been a time where it has not been a copyright violation to do this without explicitly acquiring a license (likely involving a fee) in the past 35 years.
There's no need to withhold permission from 12 year olds. Permission is not given by default, and it hasn't been (for sound recordings -- longer for other stuff) for 35 years.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Belle: And, when something new comes out that is popular, dozens of girls will use it. I've probably seen 20 routines to the Pirates of the Caribbean soundtrack this year. I also think it probably bores the judges to tears, too.
I'm guessing since the music is being played in front of crowds, it does count as a public performance and that's why the cost is so high. It's just frustrating, because it's so much money.
One angle for you would be to research a couple of things. I realize it's not likely to be your daughter's first choice, or even her last choice, but there is a ton of classical and popular classical music out in the public domain. If you could find a piece who's copyright has expired- safely assuming anything written before about 1920, and then find a recording of the piece which is also free-to-use or easy to obtain permission for using, that would be one way to save the money. There is also the practical fact that the likelihood of someone recognizing a recording and reporting its unauthorized use is slim, especially if it is a public domain piece. Nevertheless, universities regularly record public domain pieces for archival purposes, and many of those recording are available online and are free to use. There is an online database of such music, but the name now escapes me.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TL: Nothing is okay anymore. The last thing musicians and composers want is for people to hear their music. "What?! A twelve year old is going to do gymnastics to my movie soundtrack?! It's not licensed for that! I explicitly withheld permission from twelve year olds! (*sweeps all the papers of his desk*) RAAR!!"
I have to think there's still a place in our society for reasonable people to be reasonable.
What questions?
I would be hard pressed to find a situation in which I would not grant the rights to use my music in a public setting- probably only in a situation when compensation was in order, but was not offered.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Moreover, it's definitely different in some significant ways. When one performs gymnastic routines to music, one is incorporating a work into another creative work. If that performance is fixed in a permanent medium, it's a derivative work.
That raises additional questions beyond merely playing a song over a loudspeaker at a public event.
I have a follow up question Dag. I was payed by the city where I live to compile a CD of music for backing a 4th of July fireworks show. Rights were not discussed- and the city representative I was dealing with specifically asked for recordings from popular movies, as well as classical recordings, etc. My question is, given that the fireworks show was coordinated with the music, and this music was copyrighted, and played without permission, would there have been a case, had anyone taken umbrage, for copyright violation?
There is also the matter of damage, which I am not certain of. Considering that the music was played to a public crowd by the city at a free event, and the fireworks display is arguably a traditional ritual and not a performance piece (not sure how that shakes out) could the complainant show any damage in that case?
As I said, the rights were never discussed, and my assumption was that the city considered it no different from background music- which is, as I understand, not the same as a public performance, or an incorporation of music into an artistic performance, creating a derivative work.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: I have a follow up question Dag. I was payed by the city where I live to compile a CD of music for backing a 4th of July fireworks show. Rights were not discussed- and the city representative I was dealing with specifically asked for recordings from popular movies, as well as classical recordings, etc. My question is, given that the fireworks show was coordinated with the music, and this music was copyrighted, and played without permission, would there have been a case, had anyone taken umbrage, for copyright violation?
Yes, there would definitely be a case. It might not win, but it wouldn't be a novel complaint.
The publicity would likely be very bad for anyone pursuing that case.
quote:There is also the matter of damage, which I am not certain of. Considering that the music was played to a public crowd by the city at a free event, and the fireworks display is arguably a traditional ritual and not a performance piece (not sure how that shakes out) could the complainant show any damage in that case?
Damages include 1) fair market value for the use - in this case, if their are public rates charged for such performances, a judge might award that license fee; 2) disgorging of profits - in this case, none; and 3) statutory damages of $200 to $30,000 per song (up to $150,000 if the damage is willful), assuming the copyright was registered.
My prediction on this case would be the licensing fee if any, otherwise minimal statutory damages. But there's never any telling what a judge will do.
quote:As I said, the rights were never discussed, and my assumption was that the city considered it no different from background music- which is, as I understand, not the same as a public performance, or an incorporation of music into an artistic performance, creating a derivative work.
There are some restrictions on background music, too, but you're right in that they raise slightly different issues.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
