Jump to content


Photo

Exam-room ambush


  • Please log in to reply
17 replies to this topic

#16 elemimele

elemimele

    Prodigy

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1710 posts
  • Member: 895612
    Joined: 17-July 16

Posted 05 August 2020 - 18:20

.... since we've strayed off from the original subject, anyone know what the situation is with online performances? There must be oodles of parents who've uploaded their kid's favourite grade 3 piano piece, but who certainly haven't paid PRS for the right to hold public performances in their sitting room.

I must admit I have little patience with this area of law, because it seems to me that law should be about making life fairer and simpler. This seems an area where law is more about placing man-traps and waiting to see who will fall in them. The Happy Birthday fiasco is a perfect condemnation; that it took 80 years of a right being enforced before someone questioned it, and found that it should never have existed in the first place.


  • 3

#17 Hildegard

Hildegard

    Prodigy

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1444 posts
  • Member: 887389
    Joined: 26-October 13

Posted 06 August 2020 - 06:14

.... since we've strayed off from the original subject, anyone know what the situation is with online performances? There must be oodles of parents who've uploaded their kid's favourite grade 3 piano piece, but who certainly haven't paid PRS for the right to hold public performances in their sitting room.

As I understand it (and I could be wrong), YouTube has a PRS licence, or rather a deal with the PRS, to cover payment for recordings on their platform.


  • 0

#18 windman66

windman66

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 76 posts
  • Member: 900215
    Joined: 15-May 20

Posted 06 August 2020 - 08:05


.... since we've strayed off from the original subject, anyone know what the situation is with online performances? There must be oodles of parents who've uploaded their kid's favourite grade 3 piano piece, but who certainly haven't paid PRS for the right to hold public performances in their sitting room.

As I understand it (and I could be wrong), YouTube has a PRS licence, or rather a deal with the PRS, to cover payment for recordings on their platform.
If church services are streamed, as has increasingly been the case in recent months, they require a streaming licence if the music is subject to copyright restrictions.
Performing rights are waived for religious services; this does not apply if the service is streamed.
By the way, the above is an aspect of copyright (or performing rights) that hasn’t come up before in this discussion; it can be waived.
  • 0