I want to talk about the commercial side of copyright. Not the art-part, purely an artist who wants to be paid in a proper way for her/his music. Keep on Reading…

When an author is a member of a rights agency (in Holland we have one called BUMA/STEMRA, non-profit organisation… I am a member and my music here at ccMIXTER might even cause problems!) she/he can’t put his music under a Creative Commons license because this organisation takes charge of all events where the author’s music is been played.

One main concern with this is that when your music as an artist is used for one of these events, you won’t gain any money. A good example is television. When your music is used often you can make money for this. Broadcast companies pay these organisation and feel this is perfectly normal. An artist with a Creative Commons license would not be able to make money this way. Maybe he can arrange something special but she/he needs to arrange this for all events in which her/his music appears. This means an artist needs to put a lot of work into this, too much work in my opinion.

For example I have done music which is playing in the Heineken Experience in Holland, 6 days a week all day long. Heineken needs to pay the BUMA because of this. Not because it’s my music, but for ANY music they would need to do that. I think this is normal, they charge 10 EURO for every visitor. Heineken makes money and they need to pay artists as long as they are using these artists to promote what they are doing, right?

On the other hand, when an artists wants to promote his/her music on the internet, an organisation like BUMA feels webcasting is like digital copying, so even money for material rights are being charged. This might prevent the artist to promote her/his music.

I really believe discussions between Creative Commons and these rights agencies are very much needed. They both have great things, but there are also major issues which need to be solved.

I believe that in the future a totally new system needs to be started. The commercial licenses should be taken seriously because a musician needs to be paid in the same way we pay for other ‘products’.

p.s. Next week I will be having a discussion with Creative Commons Netherlands and this will be one of the things I’d like to discuss.

Maybe I should add that this morning BUMA/STEMRA simply told me I can’t put my music online using a Creative Commons license.

So now what?

Quote:
When an author is a member of a rights agency (in Holland we have one called BUMA/STEMRA, non-profit organisation… I am a member and my music here at ccMIXTER might even cause problems!) she/he can’t put his music under a Creative Commons license because this organisation takes charge of all events where the author’s music is been played.


That’s not quite true. Those agencies "protect" only the works that you have registered with them. You are free to release whatever you wish without registering it.

In my contract with BUMA/STEMRA they state that also for future work they are "protecting" my work. Also for the past, so when a company mentions my name Marco Raaphorst, BUMA will ask for money. (in BUMA contract this is Article 2.1,2.2 and 2.3). They also told me this on telephone this morning. But correct me if I am wrong. It IS complicated!

BUMA also told me that one of the reasons for choosing this model is the enourmous paperwork they have to do when I tell them that only 50% of my pieces need to be controlled by them for example. Because in that case it would be more a song-match which needs to take place instead of an author-match. I can understand that, but because of the Internet things SHOULD be changed. There are good things about organisations like BUMA because they can do lots of work for artists who simply don’t have time to do this sort of paperwork. But on the other hand these organisation have many bad things as well, even more now with the Internet.

So, we need to solve these issues. I am sure we can, but we need to break the rules! Create new laws! Revolution… sounds good!

Hmm… it’s a specific contract you have with them then. And very limiting. A lot of paperwork?! Wtf? For that handsome percentage they get they sure ought to solve each little paper that comes their way.

I admit I don’t have much songs released, but they were all under per-track registration.

But there’s a workaround. Release all the CC tracks under different name. Legally, it should stand, I think.

And that opens another can of worms. If a radio station is playing a CC or otherwise unregistered song, they still pay for it - who gets the money? Performance rights organisations…. (and when you think they moan about having a lot of paperwork, fercryingoutloud!)…

Dear Marco,

Thanks for your comments. You raise some good points that CC is current working on & you will no doubt will be able to discuss further with CC-Netherlands who have been also working on this. In the meantime, you may be interested to check out & participate in a new site that has been established to explore "open business" models.

Rgds, Mia Garlick, CC General Counsel

CellarOfRats, I have the standard BUMA contract. I don’t think anything special can be arranged with them. I also do understand most what you’re saying. Paperwork needs to be done, if it gets more complicated because of the Internet they still need to do it. New technology causes new work and changes in copyright laws. I don’t know how much they charge exactly for running their organisation etc., they are non-profit, but it might be more than reasonable.

Jerry Atrik, what you’re saying sound very interesting. I will contact you. Thank you!

people need to use nicknames or go underground because of this.