Comfortel de Champs has agreed to pay Mark off Music publishing Co. $27, 000 in compensation and legal costs for copyright infringement of three songs belonging to its claimants Mc Carthy and Ophelia Marie.
Ya and I got this pic off her FB page...that's her performing at her 30th Anniversary celebration at Krazy Koconuts.
Photo source
These charges arose due to specific acts of infringement committed in the making and posting of videos to the defendants’ website as well as video hosting sites YOUTUBE and METACAFE:
Read the full article HERE.
Showing posts with label copyright. Show all posts
Showing posts with label copyright. Show all posts
Congratulations go out to Colin Lucas who has been appointed as Chief Executive Officer of the Copyright Music Organization of Trinidad and Tobago (COTT).
October 1st will mark his first official day with the title. He wil replace Allison Demas who has held the post since 2002.
Mr. Lucas has been on the board for a while now as a director, COTT Member and is also a musician and composer.
Remember the song "Dollar Wine?" That's his song! He also was a musical director of the band Sound Revolution and also sang with the band TAXI.
Having degrees in Manangement Studies (UWI-St. Augusting) and MSc in Accounting (UWI-Mona), I hope that combined with his music industry experience he will do a great job.
Alright artists, writers,publishers anyone else in or affiliated with the music industry. Here is an event that stands to benefit you and your business. Please read the info below and contact your local organization for exact dates.
From CaribbeanNetNews.com:
The Copyright Advocacy Group for Music and Arts (CAGMA) has launched a project aimed at edifying Caribbean recording artistes, publishers, writers, performers and music industry stake holders about the administrative aspects of copyright, its advancement and challenges.
Hundreds of regional stakeholders and interest groups are expected to benefit greatly from the free project, which would be the first trans-national undertaking of its kind in the Caribbean.
The two-day training project is slated to be held systematically in Barbados, St Lucia, Dominica, St. Kitts, the Bahamas, Trinidad and Tobago, Jamaica, Aruba, Antigua, Turks and Caicos Islands, and Grenada during the months of March and April 2009.
According to CAGMA’s Press Secretary Shevone La Fleur, while the organization is fully prepared to host the projects, discussions are still underway with various stakeholders in the selected territories to provide logistical and moral support. Hence a formal time table for the regional-wide project will be made available when discussions are through and the respective territorial commitments are made.
The Regional Copyright Training Project is partially funded by CAGMA with support from several key players within the Caribbean’s music industry.
CAGMA which is based in Georgetown, Guyana was founded in late 2006, and is arguably one of the most influential copyright entities in the region, and the only one in Latin America and the Caribbeanwhose charter empowers it to negotiate directly with the State.
The organization provides legal representation and international lobbying support to regional copyright owners, musicians and members whose works may have been infringed, primarily outside of the
Caribbean region.
www.cagma.net or contact them by email: info@cagma.net .
House of Marley is the name of the new company created in hopes of preventing unauthorized use of Bob Marley's image. So basically anyone who wants to use Bob Marley's image for profit, will have to pay and get permission from the Marley family who will be licensing his image and likeness.
According to the Wall Street Journal Hilco Consumer Capital has invested some $20 million for half of the company. in a joint venture with the Marleys. The House of Marley will sell the rights to produce products under the brands Bob Marley, Tuff Gong, Catch A Fire and One Love. There are plans for a Marley Lager, coffee line, headphones, snowboards, posters, screensavers and many more products. The deal was reportedly signed on Feb. 5th, the eve of what would have been Bob Marley's 64th Birthday.
Artists/ industry insiders take note:
David Lammy, the U.K. minister of state for intellectual property, has reaffirmed the British government's position on term extension by refusing to accept the European Parliament's legal affairs committee ruling on a 95-year copyright term for music recordings. The vote went through yesterday (Feb. 12), approving a European Commission proposal to increase the copyright term from 50 years to 95 years. The U.K. government has only recently shifted its public position from maintaining the status quo to moving to a 70-year term. In a statement, Lammy effectively reiterated that support for a 70-year term for music recordings. The European ruling will ultimately be voted on by the Council of Ministers, in which Germany and France are supporters of the 95-year term. "While the U.K. believes that performers should be protected throughout their lifetime a period of 95 years goes beyond what is needed to achieve this aim," said Lammy. The minister also questioned the benefits to performers in the committee's report, but welcome the so-called 'clean slate' amendment. The committee amended the original text to prevent the use of previous contractual agreements by labels to deduct money from the additional royalties. Lammy added: "The U.K. strongly believes that any proposal on extension of term must deliver substantial benefits to all performers. "Whilst we do not believe the current proposal delivers sufficient benefits to performers, the introduction of the clean slate provision is a step in the right direction."
Source
Here are two articles from Billboard Magazine which interested me and I hope will interest those who frequent this site, especially musicians and anyone involved in the music business. The first covers a new Act in Congress which would force radio stations in the US to pay not just songwriters, but performers and musician for works played on the radio.
The second covers webcasting royalty rates.
As expected the Performance Right Act has been reintroduced jointly to Congress today with Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Senators Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Bob Corker (R-TN), and Barbara Boxer (D-CA) submitting it in the Senate, while in the House by Representatives, it was sponsored by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, and Representatives Howard Berman (D-CA), Darrell Issa (R-CA), Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), Jane Harman (D-CA), John Shadegg (R-AZ), and Paul Hodes (D-NH).
While radio already pays songwriters for songs they broadcast over the air, the bill would require royalties to also be paid the artists and musicians performing the songs and master recordings copyright owners, as well.
The latter payment is common in other countries and has already been enacted in the U.S. for Webcasters, satellite radio, cable radio services and all other non-terrestrial broadcasters.
Upon introduction of the Performance Rights Act in the Senate and House of Representatives, music FIRST executive director Jennifer Bendall, said in a statement, "Today marks the beginning of the end for corporate radio's loophole."
"It's unfair, unjustified and un-American that artists and musicians are paid absolutely nothing when their recordings are played on AM and FM radio," she added.
Grammy winner Sam Moore noted, "American broadcasters literally earn billions by playing our records. All we ask is to receive what artists in every other civilized country around the world receive when their recordings are broadcast - fair compensation for the performance of our work."
American Federation of Musicians of the United States and Canada (AFM) urges Congress to pass the Performance Rights Act because "The overwhelming majority of performers are not rich, but hardworking men and women trying to make a living," AFM President Tom Lee said in a statement.
Besides the U.S., only a few countries do not provide a fair performance right on radio, including Iran, North Korea and China. Since the U.S. doesn't have a performance right, foreign stations do not have to pay American artists when their music is played on stations around the globe.
A2IM President Rich Bengloff labeled the bills sponsors "true friends of the music community who understand that creators of music and those that invest in its creation should be compensated for their work. As the manufacturing and service industries have moved offshore, the need to support those in the United States who create intellectual property has never been more important to our economy."
But radio station owners, with the the National Assn. of Broadcasters leading the fight, oppose the bill. "Local radio broadcasters consider this fee a 'performance tax' that will not only harm your local radio stations, but will threaten new artists trying to break into the business as well as your constituents who rely on local radio," NAB president and CEO David Rehr, said in a statment. "Although the proponents of H.R. 848 claim this bill is about compensating artists, in actuality at least half of this fee will go directly into the pockets of the big record labels, funneling billions of dollars to companies based overseas." Three of the four largest record label conglomerates -- Universal Music Group, Sony Music Entertainment, and EMI -- are internationally-based. "Although the big record labels have seen their revenues decline over the last decade, local radio broadcasters are not the reason the recording industry is losing money, and it should not be the industry to fix it," he added.
NAB said a measure opposing today's Congressional action is expected to be introduced shortly.
Likewise the Radio Free Alliance said, "Congressman Conyers' re-introduction of a performance tax bill on local radio is disappointing, especially since the bill doesn't reflect the views of the majority of his colleagues. Last year, the more than 226 members of Congress stood with local radio in opposing any measure that would tax local radio to benefit the big, foreign-owned labels. Especially in the dire economic times we all face, any measure which will threaten the family-supporting jobs of more than 125,000 people employed by radio, the more than $6 billion in local community support of non-profit and service organizations, and the ability to introduce more diversity in station ownership is a short-sighted approach and bad public policy."
But the proposed legislation accommodates small broadcasters, public and religious radio stations, according to a musicFirst press release. For example, small commercial stations would pay only $5,000 per year; while noncommercial stations such as NPR and college radio stations would pay only $1,000 per year; stations that make only incidental uses of music, such as "talk radio stations, would not pay for that music; and Religious services that are broadcast on radio would be completely exempt."
The legislation also is written to ensure that a new royalty wouldn't impact songwriters and other copyright owners, the press release said. The legislation provides for the rate to be negotiated between impacted parties, or set by the Copyright Royalty Board, and paid to SoundExchange, which will distribute payments accordingly.
On the latter issue, NMPA president and CEO David Israelite said in a statement, "The National Music Publishers' Association has proposed a concept called, "One Music", urging the entire music community to be supportive of each other regarding the value of music. Therefore, we support the efforts of Chairman Leahy and Chairman Conyers in introducing this bill. We are pleased the bill introduced today includes some protections so songwriters are not harmed in the process of fairly compensating performers and record labels - a must for any such legislation.
"We will continue to work closely with lawmakers and our partners in the music industry as this legislation moves through the process to make sure songwriters are not adversely affected."
SOURCE
SOUNDEXCHANGE ROYALTY RATES
With the Feb. 15 deadline to reach a compromise on webcasting royalty rates approaching, SoundExchange has made a new settlement offer to small webcasters, Billboard.biz has learned.
Under the terms of the deal, different rates are being offered to different webcasters, depending how much revenue the company makes and how much traffic it receives, according to documents obtained by Billboard.
The deal takes a tiered approach to both the minimum per-channel fees and the royalty rates owed for music played on Internet radio. The smallest group of webcasters are defined in the agreement as "microcasters" -- those who make less than $5,000 a year, with expenses of less than $10,000 a year, and with less than 18,067 total aggregate tuning hours.
This group would pay only an annual minimum payment of $500, plus a $100 "proxy fee" in lieu of providing reporting data on which songs they play to cover SoundExchange's costs of administering the payments without such data.
Webcasters with gross revenues less than $50,000 a year are offered a $2,000 minimum payment per year, while those with gross revenues of more than $50,000 would pay $5,000 as a minimum payment. Webcasters with annual transmissions totaling less than 5 million aggregate tuning hours a month would pay either 10% of their first $250,000 in gross revenues and 12% of any revenues over that, or 7% of all expenses for the year -- whichever is greater.
Webcasters with transmissions that exceed 5 million aggregate tuning hours a month, or with annual revenues of more than $1.25 million a year, would no longer be considered a small webcaster and as such would have to pay the statutory commercial webcasting rates.
What's more, the deal is being offered through 2015, and retroactive from 2006. That would resolve both the dispute over the current rate structure handed down by the Copyright Royalty Board in March of 2007, as well as avoid renegotiating those rates for the next rate period, which begins in 2011. Webcasters agreeing to the deal would not be able to participate in any proceedings to determine rates for the next rate period or petition Congress to overturn the existing CRB decision.
The offer resembles that made in 2007 to small webcasters, which was based on the small webcaster settlement act of 2002. While SoundExchange says more than 40 small webcasters accepted the deal, many others didn't because the terms applied only to music by SoundExchange members. Although SoundExchange represents about 95% of music copyright owners, webcasters who refused the plan were concerned that it didn't cover the remaining 5%.
This new deal is being offered under last year's Webcaster Settlement Act, which makes it binding on all copyright owners.
A SoundExchange spokesperson confirmed the offer, saying, "SoundExchange is firing on all cylinders trying to get as much accomplished by the Feb. 15 deadline."
But representatives from the webcasting community are less enthused with the offer. Several pointed out that under the deal, smaller webcasters who sell their company to a larger one that does not qualify for the discounted rates would suddenly owe the full statutory rate retroactively to 2006. The buying company would have to pay those rates, which would represent a serious obstacle to any potential acquisition.
Also singled out for scorn is the 5 million cap on aggregate tuning hours a month. Several small webcasters who meet the $1.25 million revenue exemption find themselves awfully close to that traffic limit, which would make them ineligible for the deal. They would prefer a limit of closer to 10 million aggregate tuning hours a month, or none at all.
"We're disappointed with the offer," says Rusty Hodge, founder of SomaFM. "It effectively is worse that the previous [one]. Basically SoundExchange has done nothing to comprise with webcasters at all."
SOURCE
75-year-old Manu Dibango of Cameroon is suing Michael Jackson for use of a part of his 1972 song "Soul Makossa" as the riff on "Wanna Be Startin' Something" one of many hot, hot, hot tracks off his 1983 Thriller album. So how does Rihanna get in the picture???
She licensed the same hook from Jackson for "Don't Stop the Music" ( remember this:Mama se, mma sa ma makossa???????)but they did not go as far back as the original source, namely Mr Dibango.
Makossa means dance in the Cameroonian language Duala ...Take a listen to the original....to be fair he sings (mama ko mama sa ma makossa....
So here is a live version of the song...Im sure you want to know what Manu Dibango looks like although this footage was shot several decades ago....
Now Michael's version, written by Quincy Jones, sings Ma Ma Se, Ma Ma Sa, Ma Ma Coo Sa (swahili???) So I guess that will be their defense. Yes the song was influenced by Dibango's song but the lyrics are not exact.
Jay-Z sampled the beat of the song "Sould Makossa" for his song "Face Off" off the In My Lifetime Vol. 1 album. But that shit is seriously xxxxxx rated so I'm not gonna post here....Anyways, he's not facing a lawsuit so I guess he handled his handle!!!!!!!!
So a Paris court will on Feb. 17 make a decision on wether the case will move forward. Mr Dibango stands to win $600,000.
Singers, Songwriters, Promoters, DJs, the list goes on and on...if you can attend this summit and get educated about the Business of music!!!! Im sure it will be worth your while.
Shirley Maynier Burke, mother of politician Paul Burke, won a landmark ruling when the lyrical copyright of the song "Hoolignas" was transferred from Bob Marley and Studio One to her. The song was recorded by JamRec in the 60s.
As for the beginnings of the song, Ms. Burke told the Jamaica Observer:
"Somewhere in the '60s there was a rude boy phenomena and I was then a member of the Jamaica Federation of Women and they wanted me to do a television discussion on the subject," . But I told them that they were preaching to the converted. We really needed to get a voice that the masses would hear, so I said 'why don't I write a song for Marley and the Wailers'. They didn't all approve. Anyhow, I wrote the lyrics, took it to Steven Dodd. The song was recorded, I got six copies of the record...,"
The ruling was done "by Consent" meaning that there was an agreement among the parties. The Marley estate did not contest.
On October 4th AMP held a workshop at the Fort Young Hotel to brief musicias, entertainers, lawyers, the police force and anyone who had an interest in the industry about copyright and the structure of the music industry. The guest speaker was Lloyd Stanbury, an entertainment lawyer from Jamaica who can count people like Cecile as clients, he helped to create the Reggae Academy organizers of the Reggae Awards.
The info given by him and Mark Marie of AMP was extremely informative. Artists at the event included, King Dice, Hunter, Daddy Chess, De Bobb, Cornell Phillip, Ophelia Marie (Dominica's Lady of Song and wife of Mark Marie), Maxine Alleyne, Triple Kay band. Promoters like Maggz, and More Sewo guys were there too, Pat Aron incredible writer to many a calypsonian was also present, and the police and media were in attendance too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
