Hey folks,
Have been tinkering with a Part 15 AM station at home, and having a blast — currently self-hosting an Azuracast instance on a Raspberry Pi, and experimenting with broadcasting the stream on a Talking House. Planning on upgrading to a Rangemaster or Procaster sometime later this year.
Curious what the regulations are for royalties on a Part 15 station? In doing research, I've seen some places saying you are still required to log and pay royalties according to licensing agreements, and other places saying that since Part 15 is unlicensed, you don't have to worry about it. (of course, still others saying that technically you should, but the chances of getting noticed are slim, especially on AM).
Thoughts? How do y'all handle this? Seems like many of the stations around here tend toward public domain so as to not worry?
Streaming yes. On air depends. Canada no. USA?, may be different. If you are in the USA best is to look up the licensing organizations....ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, Sound Exchange, talk to someone and tell them you have a part 15 unlicensed over the air station and if they don't know what part 15 is and you have to explain it to them or they ask you some questions about it that don't apply to you you can assume no royalties need to be paid.
Note who you spoke to.
..Curious what the regulations are for royalties on a Part 15 station? In doing research, I've seen .... technically you should, but the chances of getting noticed are slim, ....
You said it yourself.. Your quote right there above is probally the best answer.
But...
ANY public performance of copyright material requires royalties to be paid. Public performances include not only live cover bands, but department stores restaurants and bars that play music over their sound system, it definately includes jukeboxes and any other form of public copyrighted music delivery, such as streaming and yes, even unlicensed Part 15 AM and FM public broadcasting.
Do most part 15 broadcasters pay royalties? I know several that do, but in general I suspect most do not and it's highly doubtful that you'll ever get cited if you don't.
But to answer your question on what the regulations are for royalties on a Part 15 station.. It's irrelevant if your station is licensed or Part 15. Music royaties apply regardless of what method is used to deliver the material.
By the way, I doubt that most part 15 broadcasters go the royalty-free route. In fact, its probally the minority.
@richpowers You said "ANY public performance of copyright material requires royalties to be paid...and yes, even unlicensed Part 15 AM and FM public broadcasting."
In Canada no. Not for over the air. The licensing agents that collect the fees like Socan, Resound, etc, there are a couple more but I forget now, maybe Sound Exchange is here but I don't know now, don't know what BETS-1 is and have no provision for collecting fees from unlicensed broadcasters. I called them all(Artisan told me who they were) and after trying to explain BETS to them and being asked a few questions by Socan which didn't apply to me I was told by return email that we do not have any provision for collecting fees for your application. They didn't want my money! So you are inaccurate in stating that any music delivered any way requires fees to be paid.
The people responsible for collecting the fees would know what BETS is or Part 15 is and would have that category if it's required. So I ask, who do I pay fees to, if what you say is true?
@richpowers You said "ANY public performance of copyright material requires royalties to be paid...and yes, even unlicensed Part 15 AM and FM public broadcasting."
In Canada no. Not for over the air. ....
What I should have said was ANY public performance of copyright material in the U.S. requires royalties to be paid.
However the question did specify "Part 15" which implies the U.S. laws and it was in that respect that I replied.
Copyright rules and licensing is totally dependent on the country you reside in.
They also differ depending on what is copyrighted, i.e., music, films, books, etc.
For example, in Canada, for music, there are the actual music rights (the musical composition) and performance rights (a specific recording) - there are others as well, but those two, for what we do, are the most important.
Canada has licensing bodies for each of these rights, although to make matters interesting, they can overlap.
The fees and rules depend on what you're doing with the music. If you're playing music for your business, as an example, you negotiate with the licensing bodies to pay a flat sum per month that covers everything.
For radio, which is the topic at hand, and operating under unlicensed rules (BETS-1 or RSS), they don't care about over-the-air fees, as Mark has indicated. I suppose the thinking is that there will be virtually no listeners, as there is virtually no range. They do care about internet streaming. I've licensed my station (Artisan Radio) in the past as non commercial (which was an interesting experience explaining what exactly I did) and paid a small flat yearly fee as a result.
Licensed stations pay for everything (the music, performance, streaming, etc.).
I now broadcast public domain (in Canada) material only, which requires no fees. Copyright rules in Canada up until recently were much different than those in the U.S., and there is a great deal of music that falls into this category (musical composition + performance). In the U.S., up until the Music Freedom Act, there were no musical performances in the public domain - this act placed a copyright limitation of 100 years on both music and performances, which means that the only music fully in the public domain is that recorded and released in 1924 and earlier (basically, the acoustic era).
What I just stated for the U.S. is the general rule. In practice, copyright in the U.S. is extremely complicated, as it had to be registered (for an initial 28 years) with the Library of Congress, and then potentially renewed (after that period), and the copyright notice displayed in certain format (at least until the 1970s). A lot of research is required before absolutely declaring that anything is in the public domain after 1924 (including searching court case results). Films and music are only copyrighted for 95 years, so replace 1924 with 1929 for them (which is why Disney's Steamboat Mickey is now in the public domain in the U.S.).
Fees and licensing in the U.S. are also much different, and I don't claim to be an expert there. I do know that if you stream, you have to deal with Sound Exchange (or, at least, the company you're streaming through has to if they pay the licensing fees). BMI used to have a Part 15 license for over-the-air use, but don't know if it still does. The other licensing bodies don't seem to care about Part 15, or at least, haven't in the past.
While I know that it's unlikely you'll be caught if you play copyrighted music without permission, I don't think that's a good thing. I want to keep my Internet stream, and it's why I go out of my way in an attempt to ensure that I follow the copyright rules for Canada.
I find it ironic that some elsewhere who are always on the lookout for radio transmitter piracy don't seem to have the same issues about either music or software piracy.
Way back in 2010 this reoccurring topic (all these topics are reoccurring aren't they?) came up here, not for the first time, and there are several interesting. These comments concerning the matter were the best:
https://www.part15.org/community/temp/music-licensing-on-part-15/
"...I think the royalty collectors assume that Part 15 stations might have listeners, which makes it a public performance in need of a license, from their point of view."
"..Now for the Part 15 broadcaster: music licensing has become more defined over the past couple of years. The test issue: Is the music played over the Part 15 transmitter for personal use on ones own property or domicile? If the answer is yes, then no licensing fee. If however, the signal can and is to be heard and consumed by listeners other than the person transmitting, then a licensing fee is in order..."
"And now for the Canadian perspective. About the exact opposite of the U.S.
If you broadcast over the air, you MUST pay royalty fees to an organization called SOCAN..... The good thing - the fees aren't onerous - for non-commercial use, 1.9% of gross operating costs. Given the low operating cost of a Part 15-like station, generally around $100 or less per year.
Absolutely no licensing fees are required (at least for now - they've been talking about changing this for a while) for music streamed over the Internet. That's why some U.S. streaming servers located close to the border have been moved to Canada.
Interesting, ehh?"
"..The rules are the rules, whether they apply in the U.S., Canada or elsewhere. I personally find these discussions interesting, and find it difficult to understand why some people's passions are invoked over a simple discussion.. ..Or you can ignore the rules, if you are so inclined, and want to accept the inherent risk contained therein."
"...and if i were everyone i would leave SESAC, and ASCAP alone. let those sleeping dragons lie before you get your wish there as well. basically if you are doing something like ken in stayton then you need a music license. if you are doing like most of us do out of our homes with a single site then i would not bother."
"..Mention has been made of music that's free of licensing problems, such as public domain and Creative Commons, and there's also a type called "Open Source," a lot of which has been posted on Archive.org and other places. And recently Archive.org changed the name "open source" to "Community Audio."..."
Five years later in 2005 Radio World reports BMI has created a Part 15 licence: https://www.radioworld.com/news-and-business/bmi-adds-part-15-radio-license
"..The licensing organization for the first time has established such a license. BMI Senior Vice President of Licensing John Shaker said the organization had received numerous requests for a license to cover public performance of music on these stations. A spokesman told RW that most of the stations it will contact first are Part 15 AMs. “It’s hard to say how many we can anticipate licensing. As you know, it is hard to track these broadcasters since they do not have to be licensed by the FCC.”
At about the same time that we find another interesting discussion about several emails that had been received from BMI "..to introduce BMI's Part 15 public performance license, recently developed for this group of very low power stations. In response to this growing community of radio operators' desire to license their stations for public performances..."
https://radiodiscussions.com/threads/bmi-is-spamming-the-part-15-station-list.453166/
From a post that Rich Powers linked from the past thread....
"Now for the Part 15 broadcaster: music licensing has become more defined over the past couple of years. The test issue: Is the music played over the Part 15 transmitter for personal use on ones own property or domicile? If the answer is yes, then no licensing fee. If however, the signal can and is to be heard and consumed by listeners other than the person transmitting, then a licensing fee is in order".
This may be the case in the USA but I wonder if the poster actually had the facts or is this just assumed as correct. You'd think in Canada it would be similar since BETS-1 is actually for broadcasting for others to listen to, not just for personal use. But I actually contacted the license fee collectors here, most noteably Socan and Resound and explained BETS to them and told them what I do, which is unlicensed broadcasting. They had no category for that after checking and at Resound I was talking to the manager! Socan asked me how many listeners do I have? I answered honestly....2 that I know of and I have no way of knowing if any others are hearing it or not. Then I was asked how much area do you cover and I told them a 500 -600 ft radius give or take around me. Are you making any money and what are your operating expenses? No, no money and no operating expenses except a one time expense for the equipment, e.g. laptop computer, processor, transmitter. Still not knowing what I was talking about the person I was talking to on the phone said we will have to get back to you with an answer....BETS-1 you say? That's right.
I got emails back from Socan, Resound, and another one and was told we have no requirements for license fees for BETS stations. Resound actually called me back personally and I spoke to the manager again and she said I will tune you in to listen but I said you have to be in my area...oh yeah, well happy broadcasting! We actually had a conversation about what I was doing. "I never knew you could do this legally! This from a place and person in the business that collects music license fees!
My suggestion on this subject is to actually contact the people involved, tell them exactly what you are doing and get the facts, not just believe what may be true or not. After all if you have to pay fees you should find out who you have to pay them to! How many part 15 broadcasters have actually done what I did? I don't think many and most of the time any visit you get won't be about music fees. But that's no excuse to not pay them if you have to.
From a post that Rich Powers linked from the past thread....
"Now for the Part 15 broadcaster: music licensing has become more defined over the past couple of years. The test issue: Is the music played over the Part 15 transmitter for personal use on ones own property or domicile? If the answer is yes, then no licensing fee. If however, the signal can and is to be heard and consumed by listeners other than the person transmitting, then a licensing fee is in order".
This may be the case in the USA but I wonder if the poster actually had the facts or is this just assumed as correct. You'd think in Canada it would be similar.. But I actually contacted the license fee collectors here, most noteably Socan and Resound and .... They had no category for that ...Socan asked me how many listeners .. how much area do you cover .. Are you making any money and what are your operating expenses? ...BETS-1 you say? .. we have no requirements for license fees for BETS stations. Resound actually called me back personally.. We actually had a conversation about what I was doing. "I never knew you could do this legally! This from a place and person in the business that collects music license fees!
That's very similar to a story that's been told here some years back by I forget who, but it involved ASCAP and the other one besides BMI and they responded with non-interest... It's here in the archives of this forum somewhere.
My suggestion on this subject is to actually contact the people involved, tell them exactly what you are doing and get the facts, not just believe what may be true or not.
That's excellent advice. Here in the US that would be BMI, ASCAP, and the one I'm forgetting. BMI will provide a yearly licence for a nominal fee. The other two will brush you off.
.. any visit you get won't be about music fees. But that's no excuse to not pay them if you have to.
From what I can tell, the majority, 98%, of those of us who participate in the various part 15 forums generally fall into a hobby station status and need not feel a responsibility to pay music royalties.
Simply because it takes an audience to be deemed a public performance.
And your right, it's unlikely you'll ever get cited, it's not happened before, but if the objective is to legally broadcast music to serve listeners in a given area, then yes by all means you're required by law to pay royalties
..I guess to help BMI increase their profits.
Copyright rules and licensing is totally dependent on the country you reside in..
While I know that it's unlikely you'll be caught if you play copyrighted music without permission, I don't think that's a good thing.
Yeah.
@richpowers It was TiminBovey who contacted the licensing bodies in the U.S., BMI was the only one interested in Part 15. But that was a few years back, things change, so as Mark states, it's always wise to check.
All this, of course, is for over-the-air broadcasting. Internet streaming is another matter, as you potentially have the world to draw listeners from.
Copyright is far more complicated when you consider internet streaming. Logically, you should follow the rules of the country in which your server resides. But who is responsible for the copyright violation if someone outside that country listens in, and the material being listened to is copyrighted in their country?
I hate gray areas, which is why I attempt to geo block the Artisan Radio stream outside of Canada. But it is possible to evade the geo blocking, so who is responsible then?
All this stuff gives me a headache.