Re: [TANGO-L] Music licenses

[Stephen Brown <Stephen.P.Brown @DAL.FRB.ORG>]

Trini wrote:
>Suppose a restaurant doesn't play music.
>If one wanted to tango there and brought his/her own music,
>does that present a legal issue for the restaurant
>regarding licensing if he/she is not charging anything?
>Does anything change if one rents the restaurant for a
>private party?

In the United States, the use of music in commercial spaces such as a
restaurant is licensed by BMI and ASCAP.  Both have claim agreements with
SADAIC that allows them to collect fees for playing Argentine recordings
in a restaurant.  Restaurants with no music are unlikely to have paid such
fees.

The events described do present legal issues to the restaurant. The
restaurant is benefitting from the business generated by playing the
music.  Even if the restaurant is just being nice and isn't really
benefitting, the ASCAP or BMI representative is a big union town is likely
to take a different view.  Maybe the restaurant is small enough to qualify
for the exemption.

In a 1999 post to Tango-L by Carol Shepherd ( a copyright attorney) wrote:
>[P]laying music in private is very different from playing in public in
>a commercial establishment.  Commercial establishments playing music
>(bars, dance studios, halls, etc are included, so this includes a
>milonga at these places) are subject to the legal requirement to pay
>royalties for 'performance' (ie playing the music).  Most businesses buy
>an ASCAP and/or BMI license on an annual basis for their facility and
>the royalties get paid that way.  Businesses that ignore this issue and
>do not buy a license run a risk of getting caught because the artists
>organizations (ASCAP, BMI) go from city to city and find out who's not
>licensed and force them to pay up and sometimes sue them for double or
>triple damages.  But the odds of getting caught in this way are not very
>good because of the large number of businesses.  Most people are
>ignorant of the law and don't even know their business is covered under
>the act and they are required to purchase a license.

>[I]t doesn't matter if you purchase a CD or you make your own, there is
>still a violation involved if a commercial establishment covered under
>the act is playing the music without a license.

>This might or might not apply to a milonga in the US for one of the
>following reasons.  One is that the business is small enough to be
>exempted from the act (based on total floor size of the business and
>number of loudspeakers).  This is a new exemption since October 1998
>because small business was complaining to the government about the
>royalty requirement.  Another reason could be if the milonga is a
>no-charge event and not in a commercial establishment (a home, a church,
>etc, and no money is being charged).  Or the milonga might be in a place
>where the establishment already has a license and the terms of the
>license cover the milonga as well as all other activities there.

Bob Dronski who ran Tango Nada Mas in Chicago added:
>ASCAP claims they have an international exchange affiliation with
>SADAIC.  This means that they attempt to enforce SADAIC
>copyrights.  I speak from experience, as I have not only been
>charged a dance school fee, but a nightclub licensing fee as well
>for my milongas!  This becomes some substantial money I'm
>paying.  Unfortunately, ASCAP plays very hard ball, and it is often
>is less expensive to pay out than to fight it.  Individuals at ASCAP
>admit that SADAIC will never see the money I pay, but there's
>nothing I can do about it.

See
http://pythia.uoregon.edu/~llynch/Tango-L/1999/Jun/Jun-14-to-Jun-15.html

With best regards,
--Steve (de Tejas)