… The Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada (SOCAN) has been pursuing gymnastics clubs across the country to pay for the music they use …
SOCAN initially tried to get Gymnastics Canada to pay for a national licence. When Gymnastics Canada said no, SOCAN began a telephone and fax campaign at the provincial level. …
read the entire article – Music industry pressuring gymnastics clubs to pay up
I have no sympathies at all for SOCAN’s case. They must find a new model for paying musical artists. This is one tiny piece of a much bigger problem.
Mr. Topp said he doesn’t dispute SOCAN’s legal right to collect the fees, “but to me, that’s similar to asking the parent of a kid at a birthday party for a royalty when playing music for musical chairs.”
9 comments ↓
Don’t you already have to pay a fee when you enter a competition for the music you will use? In Spain you have. I would say you have to pay even if the music is yours or free, because proving it is that way usually involves a lot of paperwork and other fees. :p
So unfair indeed, especially when gymnasts and most clubs in most countries are mainly non-profit de facto…
As far as I’m aware British Gymnastics does pay a licensing fee for the music that their members use. I know that anything by Disney, Madonna, Michael Jackson and Cirque Du Soleil are exempt as BG members are not allowed to use any of their music. From that I would assume that there is some sort of licensing deal otherwise what are they exempt from?
Ridiculous, greedy, and short sighted.
I downloaded a lot of music after the Olympics because I liked so much of the floor music. And if these girls aren’t going to major televised competitions, yeah, that birthday party comparison is pretty spot on.
Shame on SOCAN – go after B’day parties indeed. Jackasses.
I posted this same article on my blog a couple of days ago. This sounds similar to the NRCC tariff that they are trying to pass this April… essentially fitness centers will have to pay 5% of gross sales plus so much extra per group exercise class to pay music (radio, ipods, etc) in the facility. Sounds silly to me if we are already paying XM to listen to their broadcasts or Itunes to purchase a song. We would be paying twice for the same product. There would be alot of unhappy customers if they were charged $30,000 by Toyota for their car (the creator) and another $15,000 to the dealer (distributor).
this is awful. i agree with your b-day party analogy. maybe coaches can learn to play the harmonica on the sides while their kids are doing their floor routines.
What kind of floor music are we talking about here? Expressly-made gym music, or pulling clips off audio CDs or movie soundtracks, etc? The analysis changes a little depending upon the source of the original work.
Assuming we’re talking about expressly-created gymnastics floor music:
Does the choreographer charge each time the gymnast performs? Of course not. That was a one-time upfront fee for the right/license to use her intellectual property (if it even qualifies as intellectual property, which I’m not sure it does).
I don’t know how the music system works in other countries, but in the US, most girls buy their music after listening to free 30 second sample tracks. They pay the fee and have the rights to use that music. In some gyms, I know these then get passed down to younger kids, and after a few years, the gym doesn’t need to buy new music anymore because they keep handing down the old music/choreography, and they have accumulated enough to keep things fresh between levels. Is this subversive? In a way. Is it illegal? To the best of my knowledge, no. The right to use the music has been purchased, and I believe that right is transferable (in the same way you buy a CD and give it as a gift).
Otherwise:
EVEN if the right didn’t transfer, in my opinion there seems to be a fair use issue here. Is the girl or even the meet playing these floor routines for an expressly commercial purpose? God no. Nobody goes to a meet exclusively to hear floor music, and the girl certainly isn’t making money off playing it. If the music is pulled from a movie, does the volume of copied material inhibit the sale of the original work? God no. Nobody who was going to buy “Spiderman” will decide not to buy it because she can listen to 90 seconds worth of the theme song during some meet. At least in the states, I think Fair Use law prevents any claim of some company that use of their music during a floor routine violates their property rights. (So, if that’s true about Disney in the UK, that baffles me.) It’s essentially tantamount to playing a CD in your home, loud enough that your neighbors can hear. All you’re doing is playing something you have a right to hear in the vicinity and range with which others can hear it as well.
Now, the manufacturer/producer might try to claim that passing music along without paying for it again (while not making copies or re-recording it: that’s a different issue) inhibits his ability to make profit off his intellectual property. In this context, to me it seems no different from any other good. If I buy a coat, I may never need another coat for as long as I live, therefore you can’t claim I am hurting your ability to make profit simply because I may choose to give my coat to someone else when I no longer want to use my coat for myself.
Anyway, that’s the extent of my media/property law knowledge. There may be governing statutes/case law that say I’m wrong.
Just Another Opinion makes good points. In fact, as a gymmom, they should pay us not to use the music cos by the end of the season we’re sick of that tune and never want to hear it again, never mind buy more of it – which by implication would mean loss of profit to the artist …
Interesting timing considering the record industry itself is being sued by musicians in Canada for of all things copyright theft.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/12/artists-lawsuit-major-record-labels-are-the-real-pirates.ars
Leave a Comment