How a cappella groups address issues of copyright infringement University a cappella groups are breaking the law. It's that simple -- when singing groups record songs written by someone else, they must pay royalties to the owner of the songs' copyrights or be in violation of Title 17 of the U.S. Code. This complicated set of laws governing the use of copyrighted songs applies directly to the groups when they perform or record their own versions of copyrighted songs. According to Copyright Basics, an information circular put out by the U.S. Copyright Office, the owner of a copyright has "the exclusive right to do and to authorize others to?prepare derivative works based on the copyrighted work?[and] to perform the copyrighted work publicly, in the case of musical works." Copyrights on songs are held by the person who composes the song. According to Copyright for Sound Recordings, another pamphlet published by the U.S. Copyright Office, "a work is automatically protected by copyright when it is created." If a group wants to perform a song it did not compose, it must pay a royalty fee to the copyright holder. But the vast number of performers singing copyrighted songs makes it nearly impossible for all of the royalty transactions to be conducted personally by the performer and the composer. As a result, several agencies have formed to handle the licensing of copyrighted materials. These organizations contract with composers to ensure the proper royalties are paid. The Harry Fox Agency, the American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers (ASCAP) and Broadcast Music Incorporated (BMI) are devoted solely to this activity. There are, according to the U.S. Copyright Office, two types of licenses that apply to musical works -- mechanical and performing licenses. Mechanical licenses allow the licensee to re-record or use a particular recording of a song. Harry Fox covers most mechanical licenses, and ASCAP and BMI deal with most performing licenses. Before a group can record someone else's song, it must pay a mechanical license to the holder of its copyright. For example, if a campus a cappella group wants to record its own interpretation of Madonna's "Like a Virgin," it needs to contact the agency before doing so. But none of the University's a cappella groups pay this royalty. And, members say, this is not an uncommon practice among collegiate a cappella groups. "We don't call the Harry Fox Agency," said College senior and Pennsylvania 6-5000 president Peter Kim. "Maybe one group in 1,000 does that." Harry Fox Agency Membership Coordinator George Brouillette said the government has set the royalty rate at 6.6 cents per song per unit, usually paid to the agency before the release date of the album. "You can get a 75 percent reduced rate, if you request it from the owners of the songs," he said. Usually, Brouillette said, albums which are a compilation of songs by other artists are granted this discount, because there are so many songs on the album which need to be licensed. But despite these discounts, most a cappella group members said they do not pay the royalty fees because of the high cost involved. Off the Beat treasurer and College junior Sharon Richards said her group recently printed 1,000 copies of their newest album, Flail. Fourteen of the album's 15 songs are adaptations of other works. At current government rates, the cost of getting a license for the songs would be over $900. Richards said Off the Beat simply could not afford to pay the royalties. She added that the group never expects a problem with the copyright laws. "I'm sure we knew about [the copyright violations], but we probably didn't expect any problems," Richards said. "I don't think anyone would ever expect that." Quaker Notes president and College senior Beth Popp also said copyright infringement is not really an issue. "It would be nice [to be licensed], but we're financially not in a good position to be paying for copyrights," she said. Popp added that no one "ever really tends to be prosecuted" when they violate the copyright laws. "I get a feeling it's kind of like the little FBI warnings on videotapes," she said. Popp added that she only knew about the mechanical license laws from reading an Internet newsgroup called rec.music.a-cappella. She said there was a long on-line discussion of copyright laws because people were unsure how these laws are applied to college groups. "I found out over the summer -- post CD," Popp said. Under the law, Quaker Notes already should have paid a licensing fee to the Harry Fox Agency. The Harry Fox Agency has an entire department devoted to finding such violators, Brouillette said. "We have auditors on our staff to collect royalties," he said. "We will send the auditors to look at books. And one guy combs through Billboard magazine and finds things there." Usually, Brouillette said, record labels do not allow their members to violate the laws. "Most labels come to us because they usually find songs belong to our clients," he said. Brouillette said it is in the best interest of record labels to cooperate with the agency because the next violation may be against one of their artists. But in the case of small artists or companies like the University's a cappella groups, albums may be released without going through a record label. "We usually find violators through our clients," Brouillette said. "People say, 'I found my song in a record store.'" Brouillette said while it is within the rights of the holder of an abused copyright to sue a violator, problems are usually settled more amiably. "If there's any kind of liability involved, that goes to court," he said. "But we usually just give them a license and that's the end of it." A cappella group members said they felt that due to the relatively small audience for their albums, the Harry Fox Agency does not bother pursuing licenses with them. "It's like an underground thing," Kim said. "We've sold 800 [Pennsylvania 6-5000] discs out of 1,000. That is one-tenth of [what major artists sell]." A cappella group leaders said they do not think copyright enforcing companies pursue college singing troupes. Therefore, group leaders said this week that they are not overly concerned with copyright laws. "Most of the time people don't really think about it," Kim said. "Either we're protected by the University or we'll worry about it when it comes up." While the University does not protect its groups in any way from mechanical license violations, it does ensure that no campus group will be charged with a copyright violation for performing previously written works. Performance licenses, the second type of copyright waiver, are granted to spaces, not groups through ASCAP or BMI. The University holds a performance license from ASCAP covering all uses of the group members' materials. "Penn's license covers live concerts, dances with live or recorded music, music on hold, music played over speakers in a dorm, in a dining hall, etc.," said Deborah Meth, ASCAP Manager of Educational and Symphonic Licensing. "The license also covers performances by an a cappella group or a similar type of group on campus." The University pays 17 cents per full-time student, and 5.67 cents per part-time student to be licensed, according to ASCAP documentation. This fee is due on Feb. 1, 1995, and must be paid annually to renew the license. Also covered under the license are any performances by a campus group that are sponsored by the University or any University-affiliated body, Meth said. Meth said the license does not cover dramatic performances. A group can perform selected songs from a musical play, for example, but not the whole play, without obtaining the rights to perform it from another agency. The license agreement hits a gray area when groups go off-campus to perform copyrighted materials, Meth said. "Say the University choir went on tour across the United States, and that tour was not underwritten by Penn," she said. "Whoever promotes or produces the concerts needs to hold the license." Only if the University rented the performance space, Meth said, would its license cover the use of the works performed. Under no circumstances, though, would a musical group be liable for copyright infringement in this case. "The law is that the party under whose auspices the performance is presented is responsible," according to an ASCAP information document. The University's license with ASCAP is a form license the agency holds with most other colleges and universities across the nation. The fees the University pays are the same as the ones paid by other schools. "We require that Penn submits printed programs of all performances," said Meth, explaining her organization's needs to keep track of which songs are performed. The University does not pay extra based on how many works are performed throughout the year. In general, most a cappella group members said they do not worry about the copyright laws, whether their activities are within them or not. "It's a sensitive issue when it comes up," Kim said. "But it's also an issue that every group ignores in a sense."
The Daily Pennsylvanian is an independent, student-run newspaper. Please consider making a donation to support the coverage that shapes the University. Your generosity ensures a future of strong journalism at Penn.
DonatePlease note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.
