Most performing artists are, in essence, independent business owners. Yeah? So what? So are a lot of people.
The strange and harsh thing about performing artists being business owners, is that performers base their livelihoods on their creative capacities. Performing artists are expected to run their business, perfect their craft, and do everything else it takes to get by, all by themselves (at first). Some are lucky enough to have help from family, friends, or others they trust on the business and logistics sides. To say it's difficult to nurture both sides of a creative person's business obligations is a tremendous understatement.
Creative artists have to worry about at least all of the following:
- Inventory
- Distribution
- Advertising/Publicity
- Health Benefits
- Travel expenses/reimbursement
- Payroll
- Taxes (personal and business)
- Unions
- Scheduling
- Wardrobe
and that's just the beginning.
Some who are married and have kids have the additional issues of child care, possible spousal neglect, and a host of other things most of us don't have to worry about—especially when combined with all the other facets of our business and personal lives.
If you own a hardware store, you have to know about hardware before you open up shop, you need to keep up with advancements in the field, you need to have inventory of stuff people need, and you need to be open so people can get stuff from you. It's hard work, but it's steady, and you can count on making a decent living at it if you stay in the same place, and keep providing the stuff people need. Can you imagine how much harder it would be for a hardware store owner to pack his stuff up in an RV and take his "show" on the road? Many hardware store owners can open up shop on the web, and be everywhere at once.
Somehow or other, people who need hardware will find a store. Performing artists have to go to the audience. With the exception of a few hotels in Las Vegas, or performance venues in Nashville, TN, or Branson, MO, performers aren't stationary.There's only so much of an entertainer's act they can convey through a website. That leads us to inventory. If you never thought of songwriters, poets or comedians carrying inventory, try this on for size:
Imagine if a hardware store owner had to build the store, and make every tool, nail, and whatever else in the shop himself. It's not the same gig anymore, is it?
A performer must create himself or herself from the ground up. A comedian or composer of music must write their material. Their music, poetry or comedy (respectively) is their inventory. Most throw away 75 to 90% of their material before they find the "gold". If the hardware store owner threw away 75% of his inventory, do you think he'd survive?
Every two years, the great George Carlin repeated the same cycle of getting new material for an HBO special. (He did fourteen of them, which, in total, represent thirty one years of work.)
In the last fifteen or so years of his life, he'd write a whole show (90 minutes or more of material), take it on the road, work it really hard for two years, and then perform it live on HBO, thus adding it to the canon of recorded comedy, and to his record collection—that is, the collection of records he'd made so that we could enjoy it. After he put a special out on HBO, he'd take a short break, then go back on the road using the previous year's material, and slowly start putting in the new stuff, with the new material eventually becoming a majority of the show.
I saw George live twice. Both times were during the beginning of a cycle. He'd just begun to write some new stuff, and was about 18 to 20 months from an HBO special. During the early performances in a cycle, he would read some of the newest stuff from notes. That's how "hot off the presses" it was. How exciting! I got to see one of the great comic minds of our time create, or at least refine his inventory.
After comedians or composers/performers write material, they have to perform it hundreds of times till they can do it in their sleep. The ones who are somewhat established can "get by" financially while developing new material. The ones who are starting out don't have that cushion. They're working without a net, or with a day job.
Imagine a comedian submitting a business plan to a bank, as part of applying for a small business loan. That's funny enough. Imagine the comedian telling the bank that 75% to 90% of what they create is going to be "tossed", and not "sold".
If you know a bank who would loan money to a comic, please let me know which one it is.
Many entrepreneurs have exploited creative souls' desire to be heard–to have their message brought to the world. The creative souls often look at the short term expression rather than the long term opportunity. That's part of what keeps them going from gig to gig. Little Richard talked about the early days of his career (and some of the later days) as if he had been a slave. His contracts were bought and sold (from one record company to another) for pennies. His last name is Penniman, but..he really shouldn't go living it out that way. He's 76 years old, and shouldn't have to be working quite so hard as he is now.
He could only be sold/traded that way because he cost the record labels so little in the first place. It's not a wonder that the great Little Richard–to whom both Lennon and McCartney owed much of their careers–is scrounging around playing dinner theater venues.
Don't get me wrong! I'm happy to have seen him live. But he looked like he was in pain. He's old. And being Little Richard up on the stage, even for an hour, looks like some hard work. To have to do that at age 76? That can't be fun.
So, why does this horrible tradition of exploitation and "gypsy"-style wandering continue? Are musicians and performing artists stupid? Are they gluttons for punishment; maybe just so attention-starved that they'd rather be on the stage and make no money than be a quiet conformist, average member of polite society?
No, I don't think that's it. I think it's in the "DNA" of creative people. Musicians, actors, authors, comedians have a holy mission. Their mission is to change their audience–to move them the way nothing but a great work of art could.
Billy Joel said it better in his 1993 Commencement Address to the graduates of Berklee College of Music—my alma mater, than I've ever heard/read anyone else say it:
And I hope you don't make music for some vast, unseen audience or market or ratings share or even for something as tangible as money. For though it's crucial to make a living, that shouldn't be your inspiration or your aspiration. Do it for yourself, your highest self, for your own pride, joy, ego, gratification, expression, love, fulfillment, happiness—whatever you want to call it. Do it because it's what you have to do. And if you make this music for the human needs you have within yourself, then you do it for all humans who need the same things. Ultimately, you enrich humanity with the profound expression of these feelings.
Once an artist has done that, their job—as far as that night's audience is concerned—is done. Performers of all types are holy people, in that they actively seek out audiences in order to help the audience grow.
That may not be how it appears on the surface. Dustin Hoffman, during his appearance on Inside The Actors Studio recounts how Sir Laurence Olivier answered the question "Why do we [actors] do what we do?"...Olivier's answer consisted of going nose-to-nose with Dustin, and saying, practically chanting "look-at-me, look-at-me, look-at-me, look-at-me..".
Okay, so actors (and comedians and musicians, and authors) want an audience. Without an audience their art wouldn't be very meaningful (, and they couldn't get paid). If one of their trees was to fall in the forest and nobody was there to hear it, the tree would have made a sound, but the artist wouldn't care as much about the tree if there had been no one there to have heard it fall.
But creative people's desire is to change the world with their contributions to it. The contribution couldn't be anywhere near as significant if you, an audience member, saw it every night. If you saw the New York Philharmonic every night for 20 years, you'd start falling asleep during performances pretty regularly—unless you were in the orchestra.
To me it's sad and ironic that standup comedians don't laugh very often. It's a pretty big no-no to tell jokes to comedians. The last thing they want to hear while they're cleaning house is "Hey, I'll bet you've never heard this one..."–especially if it starts with "Two Jews walk into a bar". I once told Judy Gold a joke of my own, but I did so in the context of conversation. She found it funny. And I know she found it funny because she said "That's funny.". Had she not found it funny, she'd mostly likely have made a face and a sarcastic remark.
Comedians don't laugh as easily as the rest of us because their whole job is to make us laugh. To them, hearing a joke (even a really good joke) is not unlike "talking shop". Their "resistance", if you will, to having a really hearty laugh, is higher than that of most people. That's sad and ironic, isn't it? I've been around some great comedians while they were just having casual conversation. They would talk about everyday stuff (taking their kid to school, or whatever), be really funny in recounting a story, but neither participant in the conversation was laughing at the other's remarks. I, as the guest of one of the comics tried not to be rude, but I'm not immune to the laughter—yet.
Dick Cavett said of my favorite comedian of all time—Groucho Marx—that it was sad that Groucho didn't have a Groucho to make him laugh.
Sturgeon's Law correctly states that "ninety percent of everything is crap." The "hacks" are 90%—the comic, or writer, or whatever, whose work doesn't make him or her grow, and whose work clearly doesn't strive to change or challenge the audience. It's the standup equivalent of According to Jim, or of most Adam Sandler movies.
Good comedians talk with contempt about "hack premises"—bases (for jokes) that are so overdone, tired, and clearly don't come from the soul, but rather from formulaic repackaging of common, everyday things that'll make a certain type of audience laugh. When the really good and great comedians work hard at their craft by baring their souls to an audience, they generally talk about something unique to them. They hope that you or I, as audience members, will be able to relate, or at least take something away—something that'll stay with you after the liquor from the club will have worn off.
Much of Steven Wright's humor's a little bit "out there". But it comes from inside him. One of his signature jokes is about his rented apartment, and how the landlord allows pets. Steven said "I have a pony". The great Emo Philips has a joke about suicide, religion, and the differences that separate us. Everyone can take something away from that joke. Me? I took away that the minute differences in people's beliefs can create chasms so wide, that two people may only get to know each other to the extent that they know the other's beliefs are different from their own. As a result, they may never get to serious dialogue. I'm guilty of it myself, and Emo made me even more aware of it. He taught an important lesson, but framed it in a funny context.
Jodie Wasserman talks about being broke. That's not easy, going on stage and talking about being broke. She was doing it before the economy tanked! It's one thing to tell your best friend something like that. Jodie says that in her act, to hundreds of strangers a day. She bares her soul on the stage, and hopes we will grow from it. That's an artist at work.
George Carlin said in 1977 (in "A Place for My Stuff") "That's my job: thinking up goofy shit...; coming around every once in a while, telling you what it is...".
Artists can't stagnate. They can't stay in the same place all the time. Even the great David Brenner and George Wallace who have indefinite engagements at Vegas hotels don't see the same audiences every night.
I have a sense that most Vegas audiences see standup comedy as something to do between bouts of addictive gambling, or sessions at the hotel's tanning salon. That's disgusting. That comedy clubs serve alcohol is not wonderful either. But hey, that's commerce, not art. If selling drinks gives the comedians a venue, it's a compromise that comics are willing to live with.
The truly great comics come around to where we live, and take us with them for a little while. Enjoy the ride. Take a snapshot in your mind. Don't take for granted the effort it took the musician/comedian/poet to get to the club/venue at which you're seeing them. They're doing what they do to help us grow. Thank them for the "ride", and for the opportunity to grow, and wish them well as they move on to help another little piece of the world.
Showing posts with label George Carlin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label George Carlin. Show all posts
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Stand Up for Spoken Word Performance Rights!
The U.S. isn't doing so great economically. That's bad. Right? Maybe it's not all bad. Historically, entertainment has always done well during "lean" times. Vaudeville thrived during the Depression; "talking pictures" were only two years old; and people were lining up around the block to see Mary Pickford, Charlie Chaplin, The Marx Brothers, and all the other film greats of that era. In the 1980s, when Ronald Reagan was President, comedy clubs opened all over the country.
This time around it's not much different. People want escapism. But there is one huge difference between the '80s and today. We have exponentially more mass-media now than we had in the '80s. Many entertainers and performing artists are getting paid right and left because mass-media are using their intellectual property. But one important group of artists is getting shafted.
Some opinions may differ. BUT, we should all be able to agree on a few points:
Anyone who creates works of art must be compensated when those works are bought, sold, or otherwise used for the benefit of the general public.
One of the intended uses of commercial recorded works is broadcast—performance over mass-media.
One of the rules of commerce has always been (and will continue forever to be) that the greater the number of people who benefit from something, the greater the compensation to its creator/owner should be. Sound about right so far? Good.
Let's apply that to the arts and entertainment industry. Paul McCartney has been selling records for forty six years. He has probably sold more records than any popular music artist. He should be, and has been compensated accordingly.
Lucky for Paul he's also a music publisher (song pimp). He owns a lot of music. (If you want to find out just how much, go to that last link, and under "Browse All Titles", choose "All", then click the "Search" button). Every time a work he owns is played on the radio, or on TV he gets paid. He is a genius of music publishing. There was a time during which Sir Paul bought every college "fight song" he could get his hands on. Seem like a dumb move? Remember, college football is often televised. When Notre Dame plays football on TV, their "fight song" is played in the background at least once during every game. (Cha-ching!!) If Notre Dame plays a college whose "fight song" McCartney owns, he gets paid for use of both teams' songs. (Cha-Ching, Cha-Ching!!). Even if the game isn't televised, Paul still gets a smaller check (Cha!)
Funnily, and ironically, Paul doesn't own the music that made him most famous. He wrote it, but he doesn't own it. Michael Jackson does. Michael's been pimping out Paul's Beatle songs for use in TV commercials, stage shows, and LOTS of other stuff. Hello Goodbye has been used in at least four major national ad campaigns in the past two years.
When a song gets broadcast to millions of listeners, the listeners benefit, and so does the broadcaster. Accordingly, the creator /owner of the song should be paid. The U.S. Copyright Act as amended in 1909 says so. Although broadcasting as we know it didn't exist in 1909, those who amended the Copyright Act were looking out for the long-term interests of intellectual property owners. Yay! Well, it's time to look "long range" again.
(SPOKEN-WORD ARTISTS: We're comin' to the good part now. We've established the premise, now we're goin' for the setup.)
You might want to know who sees to getting copyright owners paid. Well...
In the USA, there are three Performance Rights Organizations (or PROs)—BMI, ASCAP , and SESAC. (SESAC is commonly pronounced "sea sack", by the way.) Their mission is to license the rights to b
roadcast music over mass-media and other public forums. They collect money from license fees, and disburse a large percentage of it to the composers and publishers whose work is broadcast/used in public forums. A composer or music publisher can sign up with any one of these three agencies. The agencies' respective payment and collection schemes/schedules vary from one another, and of course, change for those whose music is broadcast or played in public more.
If you look carefully as you walk into a club, bar, or performance venue, you'll likely see stickers with th
e logos of ASCAP, BMI, and/or SESAC around the front door somewhere. The sticker's an indication that the establishment/venue had been assessed a blanket fee f
or the year (to play music licensed by ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC). It's like the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval for composers. Those stickers tell the venue's patrons that composers/publishers of the music they're hearing are being paid for the public use of their work. But the mass media pays a nice chunk too. Every radio station, TV station, or cable network pays the PROs. When the agencies start monitoring internet media for use of copyrighted material, the pie will get even more huge. Gazillionaire Google hasn't been asked to chip in yet. And Google owns YouTube. Nice, huh?
Well, it's nice if you're a composer of music. What if you are a professional public speaker? What if you've recorded audiobooks and hundreds of speeches that are broadcast on mass media or performed in public? Don't you deserve to get paid for the broadcasts and public performances of your work? We established earlier that anyone who creates works of art must be compensated when those works are bought, sold, or otherwise used for the benefit of the general public.
That should be the beginning and the end of it.
Can you think of a group of public speakers whose copyrighted work is regularly broadcast over mass-media for the entertainment of the general public? I'd like to name a few of my favorites, if I may:
George Carlin
Chris Rock
Judy Gold
Jeffrey Ross
Greg Giraldo
Lewis Black
Lisa Lampanelli
Eugene Mirman
Jonathan Katz
Demetri Martin
Laurie Kilmartin (pictured below)
Yup, standup come
dians! They don't write music, but they do compose. (Actually, Demetri Martin does compose music, but it's a very small part of his act. That makes him an interesting case. More about him later. Maybe.) Their works are copyrighted, performed and broadcast just like any other creative work. The public benefits from hearing the works, and many radio stations, internet streaming sites, and television networks benefit from the public performance of standup comedy. And the comedians don't see a dime of performance royalties! Why the hell not?
I asked this question of representatives from all three USA-based Performance Rights Organizations. Two of the three (ASCAP and BMI) gave me the exact same response. They said they are set up to collect money for musical works only. They added that if there were musical accompaniment behind a spoken word performance, the composer/owner of the music, and only the music can be paid by a Performance Rights Organization.
How about an example that has nothing to do with standup comedy? Okay.
A few people over the years have performed /recorded Allan Ginsberg's Howl with musical accompaniment. Howl is perhaps the most famous poem of the past 50-75 years, and Ginsberg's estate doesn't see a nickel of performance royalties when those recordings are played on the radio, or used in a movie. (He probably gets a license fee for use of the poem, but his estate deserves every consideration that musicians get.) Were it not for Ginsberg's poem, there'd have been no foreground to which the musical accompaniment had been a background!
BACK TO COMEDY! George Carlin performed his written work Braindroppings as an audiobook. When the audiobook (which runs about two hours) gets broadcast over satellite radio, the radio station is filling its airtime with George's copyrighted material. Subscribers pay to hear it (on the ALL-COMEDY satellite radio stations); XM Radio or Sirius keep their subscribers happy. If George had done a straight reading of the book (no background sounds of any kind—just his voice), he wouldn't get paid for the broadcasting of his work. If a musician composed (for the audiobook recording) a little 6 note interlude to aurally indicate that George is moving on to the next chapter of the book, "Mr. Six-note" gets paid, and Mr. Conductor (that's George...See the link) gets zilch. That's horribly unfair, and it gets worse. (By the way, a lot of Braindroppings is repurposed excerpts of George's wonderful standup material. )
Demetri Martin is a wonderful standup comedian. He incorporates music into his act, which makes him eligible for performance rights royalties today. He may be able to open an interesting door toward income streams for standup comics. But that'll come later.
Venues from the size of Madison Square Garden, down to small clubs all over the country, pay ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC for annual blanket licenses to play music represented by those agencies. Any time a represented work is performed live, the composer/publisher gets paid a tiny bit. Billy Joel playing 25 songs at 30,000+ seat arenas for a year will get a bigger "taste" than the punk band playing at a 50 seat club on the Lower East Side. Billy and the punk rockers get paid twice (once for their performance, and a second time by the Performance Rights Agency), and the standup comic gets paid once—by the club/promoter, but not by a PRO.
George Carlin did 14 HBO specials, Billy Joel did two. George and Billy both got paid by HBO. Both George and Billy composed copyrighted works that were performed on television. Billy got paid twice by BMI. Once for the live performance of the works, and a second time for their broadcast on HBO. George didn't get paid at all by a PRO.
You're not a multi-million seller? That's okay. This can still make a small difference to you if you compose (and/or perform) spoken-word pieces for a living. Some comedians perform 10 minutes of copyrighted (and possibly published) material three or four times a night. Why can't a PRO represent the comics too? The comedy clubs are already paying blanket license fees to ASCAP, BMI and SESAC (for the radio and other music they play over loudspeakers/between shows). Why would 100% of the fees collected from a comedy club by PROs go exclusively toward music? 90% of what's performed or played at a comedy club is COMEDY—spoken word comedy.
Wouldn't it be in everyone's best interest to let spoken word performers in on the action? Most comedians get paid bubkes for their work in the clubs. Performance Rights money won't pay for a house in the Hamptons, but it might help a comic make the rent one month in a tight year.
But it's not about need. It's about what's right!
That the PROs aren't factoring in the spoken word artists' contributions to a given venue is just dumb—especially when that venue is a COMEDY CLUB. The ASCAP, BMI, or SESAC license fees for a comedy club are based only on the music that's played there. By not factoring in spoken word as the lion's share of the Performance Rights assessment for a comedy venue, BMI and the other PROs are saying that comedy is insignificant to a comedy club. BMI charges several thousand dollars a year to the average comedy club, based only on the music. That's crazy!
ASCAP is an acronym for the American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers. Aren't standup comics authors? (Actually, ASCAP meant to say lyricists, but the word Lyricist doesn't sound as good as Author; nor does the resulting acronym—ASCLP). Makes you want to put a CAP in their AS, doesn't it?
If you're read this far, I'll bet you have a few questions:
So how much more money do spoken-word artists/performers stand to make?
It's a good question, and I don't have the answer. The PROs use statistical sampling as the basis for how any of their members gets paid. There are technologies available that allow for a more accurate count of what's played where, and how often. But that's not in place yet.
Is it really that simple? Just get the PROs to factor in spoken word, and get a check?
Nope. It's not even close to that simple. It's a system, and ya gotta work the system to make something from it. Musicians have been working the system for decades. Spoken-word artists and their representatives should be in on this, and I'd like to help beyond simply writing a blog post.
Are you saying it's right to squeeze small businesses harder just to pay the standup comics?
Absolutely not. A restaurant that has a video jukebox full of Tammy Wynette, The Judds, and reruns of Hee Haw should not have to pay one penny toward a standup comic's performance royalties. But what if the jukebox has a little "Git 'R Done" or "You Might Be a Redneck"? Shouldn't Larry The Cable Guy and Jeff Foxworthy (respectively) have a tiny taste?
I don't even think that restaurant should be charged any more than they're being charged now. I think the BMI pie (mmm) should be carved just a little bit differently to give the standups their fair share. Who deserves more performance rights money from a comedy club, Jeffrey Ross or Britney Spears?
Isn't this a little pie-in-the-sky? Aren't you just dreaming?
Nope. History's on our side in this fight, folks. ASCAP was founded in 1914 by, among others, Irving Berlin—the Jewish guy who wrote White Christmas. Irving was a prolific songwriter, and wanted a central agency to monitor (and collect money for) public performance of his many works. Other songwriters were in the same boat, and wanted in.
ASCAP was considered "elitist", as it didn't acknowledge the legitimacy of country and folk music, it didn't allow membership to black composers, and excluded lots of other people, for reasons passing understanding. BMI was formed to meet the needs of those whom ASCAP didn't see fit to represent. SESAC was founded in 1936, BMI in 1939. Over the years, PROs have ventured into many new territories to see that their memberships expand, that more musicians are getting a taste, and that they all make more money. Inclusion is within our reach. But we haven't made our case yet.
How do we get started?
I have some of the broad strokes. It has to start with one PRO. Which one?
ASCAP is still snotty, and BMI is still a lot better for big-timers. SESAC is the smallest of the three, the most open minded, and therefore may hold the most potential for spoken-word performance rights. I don't know yet. It's still early in the game. I believe that if they're approached the right way, all the PROs will want the spoken-word creators in eventually.
Conclusions:
It's way too early in this game to determine with any accuracy what the real performance royalties numbers could be for spoken-word artists/writers. I asked some knowledgeable people to help me "do the math". If we took all the comedy being performed live in clubs and theaters all over the United States, added to that all the comedy broadcast over terrestrial radio and satellite radio, added to that all the standup comedy and other published, copyrighted spoken word that's broadcast on cable TV (that's BET, HBO, Showtime, Comedy Central, and on and on and on), the comedians stand to bring in tens of millions of dollars a year (collectively).
And the "Wild West" of the Web is hardly regulated right now. BMI has plans to turn the internet into a serious source of performance rights revenue. But execution is a lot more difficult than making a plan. The spoken-word people's time is now—while the PROs are still figuring out how to collect and fairly distribute all that internet money. Statistical sampling may not even be necessary anymore, because it's so easy to track how many times a copyrighted/published work has been streamed on the web.
Let's get in the door now, before the internet media get really monitored, so that we can be counted. When Google starts kicking in as they should; when Apple becomes one of the world's largest media "casters", there will be more money for everyone. All you authors have to do is claim your fair share.
Comedians, please weigh in. Could you use a tiny slice of the millions of dollars the PROs stand to collect from registered spoken-word works? Are you ready to work for it (or set your people to work for it)? Will you join me in helping you (and other spoken word artists) get paid for the broadcasts and public performances of your material? This will be a herculean effort, is likely to take a decade, and may not result in big money to the average spoken-word performer. But it opens the door to greater possibilities where there is now nothing. That door's going to close pretty soon. Google hasn't really been told to pay up yet. Neither have most of the website owners exploiting intellectual property without paying for it.
Let's talk to the WGA. Maybe they can help in this battle. Let's talk to all the people we know with the connections to make things happen. I'm your sister-in-arms, and will do whatever I can to help. If you've found this helpful, have a question, or just want to insult me, leave a comment, or drop me a note. If you really liked it, forward it to a friend who might benefit from it. Thanks for your attention.
This time around it's not much different. People want escapism. But there is one huge difference between the '80s and today. We have exponentially more mass-media now than we had in the '80s. Many entertainers and performing artists are getting paid right and left because mass-media are using their intellectual property. But one important group of artists is getting shafted.
Some opinions may differ. BUT, we should all be able to agree on a few points:
Anyone who creates works of art must be compensated when those works are bought, sold, or otherwise used for the benefit of the general public.
One of the intended uses of commercial recorded works is broadcast—performance over mass-media.
One of the rules of commerce has always been (and will continue forever to be) that the greater the number of people who benefit from something, the greater the compensation to its creator/owner should be. Sound about right so far? Good.
Let's apply that to the arts and entertainment industry. Paul McCartney has been selling records for forty six years. He has probably sold more records than any popular music artist. He should be, and has been compensated accordingly.
Lucky for Paul he's also a music publisher (song pimp). He owns a lot of music. (If you want to find out just how much, go to that last link, and under "Browse All Titles", choose "All", then click the "Search" button). Every time a work he owns is played on the radio, or on TV he gets paid. He is a genius of music publishing. There was a time during which Sir Paul bought every college "fight song" he could get his hands on. Seem like a dumb move? Remember, college football is often televised. When Notre Dame plays football on TV, their "fight song" is played in the background at least once during every game. (Cha-ching!!) If Notre Dame plays a college whose "fight song" McCartney owns, he gets paid for use of both teams' songs. (Cha-Ching, Cha-Ching!!). Even if the game isn't televised, Paul still gets a smaller check (Cha!)
Funnily, and ironically, Paul doesn't own the music that made him most famous. He wrote it, but he doesn't own it. Michael Jackson does. Michael's been pimping out Paul's Beatle songs for use in TV commercials, stage shows, and LOTS of other stuff. Hello Goodbye has been used in at least four major national ad campaigns in the past two years.
When a song gets broadcast to millions of listeners, the listeners benefit, and so does the broadcaster. Accordingly, the creator /owner of the song should be paid. The U.S. Copyright Act as amended in 1909 says so. Although broadcasting as we know it didn't exist in 1909, those who amended the Copyright Act were looking out for the long-term interests of intellectual property owners. Yay! Well, it's time to look "long range" again.
(SPOKEN-WORD ARTISTS: We're comin' to the good part now. We've established the premise, now we're goin' for the setup.)
You might want to know who sees to getting copyright owners paid. Well...
In the USA, there are three Performance Rights Organizations (or PROs)—BMI, ASCAP , and SESAC. (SESAC is commonly pronounced "sea sack", by the way.) Their mission is to license the rights to b
roadcast music over mass-media and other public forums. They collect money from license fees, and disburse a large percentage of it to the composers and publishers whose work is broadcast/used in public forums. A composer or music publisher can sign up with any one of these three agencies. The agencies' respective payment and collection schemes/schedules vary from one another, and of course, change for those whose music is broadcast or played in public more.If you look carefully as you walk into a club, bar, or performance venue, you'll likely see stickers with th
e logos of ASCAP, BMI, and/or SESAC around the front door somewhere. The sticker's an indication that the establishment/venue had been assessed a blanket fee f
or the year (to play music licensed by ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC). It's like the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval for composers. Those stickers tell the venue's patrons that composers/publishers of the music they're hearing are being paid for the public use of their work. But the mass media pays a nice chunk too. Every radio station, TV station, or cable network pays the PROs. When the agencies start monitoring internet media for use of copyrighted material, the pie will get even more huge. Gazillionaire Google hasn't been asked to chip in yet. And Google owns YouTube. Nice, huh?Well, it's nice if you're a composer of music. What if you are a professional public speaker? What if you've recorded audiobooks and hundreds of speeches that are broadcast on mass media or performed in public? Don't you deserve to get paid for the broadcasts and public performances of your work? We established earlier that anyone who creates works of art must be compensated when those works are bought, sold, or otherwise used for the benefit of the general public.
That should be the beginning and the end of it.
Can you think of a group of public speakers whose copyrighted work is regularly broadcast over mass-media for the entertainment of the general public? I'd like to name a few of my favorites, if I may:
George Carlin
Chris Rock
Judy Gold
Jeffrey Ross
Greg Giraldo
Lewis Black
Lisa Lampanelli
Eugene Mirman
Jonathan Katz
Demetri Martin
Laurie Kilmartin (pictured below)
Yup, standup come
dians! They don't write music, but they do compose. (Actually, Demetri Martin does compose music, but it's a very small part of his act. That makes him an interesting case. More about him later. Maybe.) Their works are copyrighted, performed and broadcast just like any other creative work. The public benefits from hearing the works, and many radio stations, internet streaming sites, and television networks benefit from the public performance of standup comedy. And the comedians don't see a dime of performance royalties! Why the hell not?I asked this question of representatives from all three USA-based Performance Rights Organizations. Two of the three (ASCAP and BMI) gave me the exact same response. They said they are set up to collect money for musical works only. They added that if there were musical accompaniment behind a spoken word performance, the composer/owner of the music, and only the music can be paid by a Performance Rights Organization.
How about an example that has nothing to do with standup comedy? Okay.
A few people over the years have performed /recorded Allan Ginsberg's Howl with musical accompaniment. Howl is perhaps the most famous poem of the past 50-75 years, and Ginsberg's estate doesn't see a nickel of performance royalties when those recordings are played on the radio, or used in a movie. (He probably gets a license fee for use of the poem, but his estate deserves every consideration that musicians get.) Were it not for Ginsberg's poem, there'd have been no foreground to which the musical accompaniment had been a background!
BACK TO COMEDY! George Carlin performed his written work Braindroppings as an audiobook. When the audiobook (which runs about two hours) gets broadcast over satellite radio, the radio station is filling its airtime with George's copyrighted material. Subscribers pay to hear it (on the ALL-COMEDY satellite radio stations); XM Radio or Sirius keep their subscribers happy. If George had done a straight reading of the book (no background sounds of any kind—just his voice), he wouldn't get paid for the broadcasting of his work. If a musician composed (for the audiobook recording) a little 6 note interlude to aurally indicate that George is moving on to the next chapter of the book, "Mr. Six-note" gets paid, and Mr. Conductor (that's George...See the link) gets zilch. That's horribly unfair, and it gets worse. (By the way, a lot of Braindroppings is repurposed excerpts of George's wonderful standup material. )
Demetri Martin is a wonderful standup comedian. He incorporates music into his act, which makes him eligible for performance rights royalties today. He may be able to open an interesting door toward income streams for standup comics. But that'll come later.
Venues from the size of Madison Square Garden, down to small clubs all over the country, pay ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC for annual blanket licenses to play music represented by those agencies. Any time a represented work is performed live, the composer/publisher gets paid a tiny bit. Billy Joel playing 25 songs at 30,000+ seat arenas for a year will get a bigger "taste" than the punk band playing at a 50 seat club on the Lower East Side. Billy and the punk rockers get paid twice (once for their performance, and a second time by the Performance Rights Agency), and the standup comic gets paid once—by the club/promoter, but not by a PRO.
George Carlin did 14 HBO specials, Billy Joel did two. George and Billy both got paid by HBO. Both George and Billy composed copyrighted works that were performed on television. Billy got paid twice by BMI. Once for the live performance of the works, and a second time for their broadcast on HBO. George didn't get paid at all by a PRO.
You're not a multi-million seller? That's okay. This can still make a small difference to you if you compose (and/or perform) spoken-word pieces for a living. Some comedians perform 10 minutes of copyrighted (and possibly published) material three or four times a night. Why can't a PRO represent the comics too? The comedy clubs are already paying blanket license fees to ASCAP, BMI and SESAC (for the radio and other music they play over loudspeakers/between shows). Why would 100% of the fees collected from a comedy club by PROs go exclusively toward music? 90% of what's performed or played at a comedy club is COMEDY—spoken word comedy.
Wouldn't it be in everyone's best interest to let spoken word performers in on the action? Most comedians get paid bubkes for their work in the clubs. Performance Rights money won't pay for a house in the Hamptons, but it might help a comic make the rent one month in a tight year.
But it's not about need. It's about what's right!
That the PROs aren't factoring in the spoken word artists' contributions to a given venue is just dumb—especially when that venue is a COMEDY CLUB. The ASCAP, BMI, or SESAC license fees for a comedy club are based only on the music that's played there. By not factoring in spoken word as the lion's share of the Performance Rights assessment for a comedy venue, BMI and the other PROs are saying that comedy is insignificant to a comedy club. BMI charges several thousand dollars a year to the average comedy club, based only on the music. That's crazy!
ASCAP is an acronym for the American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers. Aren't standup comics authors? (Actually, ASCAP meant to say lyricists, but the word Lyricist doesn't sound as good as Author; nor does the resulting acronym—ASCLP). Makes you want to put a CAP in their AS, doesn't it?
If you're read this far, I'll bet you have a few questions:
So how much more money do spoken-word artists/performers stand to make?
It's a good question, and I don't have the answer. The PROs use statistical sampling as the basis for how any of their members gets paid. There are technologies available that allow for a more accurate count of what's played where, and how often. But that's not in place yet.
Is it really that simple? Just get the PROs to factor in spoken word, and get a check?
Nope. It's not even close to that simple. It's a system, and ya gotta work the system to make something from it. Musicians have been working the system for decades. Spoken-word artists and their representatives should be in on this, and I'd like to help beyond simply writing a blog post.
Are you saying it's right to squeeze small businesses harder just to pay the standup comics?
Absolutely not. A restaurant that has a video jukebox full of Tammy Wynette, The Judds, and reruns of Hee Haw should not have to pay one penny toward a standup comic's performance royalties. But what if the jukebox has a little "Git 'R Done" or "You Might Be a Redneck"? Shouldn't Larry The Cable Guy and Jeff Foxworthy (respectively) have a tiny taste?
I don't even think that restaurant should be charged any more than they're being charged now. I think the BMI pie (mmm) should be carved just a little bit differently to give the standups their fair share. Who deserves more performance rights money from a comedy club, Jeffrey Ross or Britney Spears?
Isn't this a little pie-in-the-sky? Aren't you just dreaming?
Nope. History's on our side in this fight, folks. ASCAP was founded in 1914 by, among others, Irving Berlin—the Jewish guy who wrote White Christmas. Irving was a prolific songwriter, and wanted a central agency to monitor (and collect money for) public performance of his many works. Other songwriters were in the same boat, and wanted in.
ASCAP was considered "elitist", as it didn't acknowledge the legitimacy of country and folk music, it didn't allow membership to black composers, and excluded lots of other people, for reasons passing understanding. BMI was formed to meet the needs of those whom ASCAP didn't see fit to represent. SESAC was founded in 1936, BMI in 1939. Over the years, PROs have ventured into many new territories to see that their memberships expand, that more musicians are getting a taste, and that they all make more money. Inclusion is within our reach. But we haven't made our case yet.
How do we get started?
I have some of the broad strokes. It has to start with one PRO. Which one?
ASCAP is still snotty, and BMI is still a lot better for big-timers. SESAC is the smallest of the three, the most open minded, and therefore may hold the most potential for spoken-word performance rights. I don't know yet. It's still early in the game. I believe that if they're approached the right way, all the PROs will want the spoken-word creators in eventually.
Conclusions:
It's way too early in this game to determine with any accuracy what the real performance royalties numbers could be for spoken-word artists/writers. I asked some knowledgeable people to help me "do the math". If we took all the comedy being performed live in clubs and theaters all over the United States, added to that all the comedy broadcast over terrestrial radio and satellite radio, added to that all the standup comedy and other published, copyrighted spoken word that's broadcast on cable TV (that's BET, HBO, Showtime, Comedy Central, and on and on and on), the comedians stand to bring in tens of millions of dollars a year (collectively).
And the "Wild West" of the Web is hardly regulated right now. BMI has plans to turn the internet into a serious source of performance rights revenue. But execution is a lot more difficult than making a plan. The spoken-word people's time is now—while the PROs are still figuring out how to collect and fairly distribute all that internet money. Statistical sampling may not even be necessary anymore, because it's so easy to track how many times a copyrighted/published work has been streamed on the web.
Let's get in the door now, before the internet media get really monitored, so that we can be counted. When Google starts kicking in as they should; when Apple becomes one of the world's largest media "casters", there will be more money for everyone. All you authors have to do is claim your fair share.
Comedians, please weigh in. Could you use a tiny slice of the millions of dollars the PROs stand to collect from registered spoken-word works? Are you ready to work for it (or set your people to work for it)? Will you join me in helping you (and other spoken word artists) get paid for the broadcasts and public performances of your material? This will be a herculean effort, is likely to take a decade, and may not result in big money to the average spoken-word performer. But it opens the door to greater possibilities where there is now nothing. That door's going to close pretty soon. Google hasn't really been told to pay up yet. Neither have most of the website owners exploiting intellectual property without paying for it.
Let's talk to the WGA. Maybe they can help in this battle. Let's talk to all the people we know with the connections to make things happen. I'm your sister-in-arms, and will do whatever I can to help. If you've found this helpful, have a question, or just want to insult me, leave a comment, or drop me a note. If you really liked it, forward it to a friend who might benefit from it. Thanks for your attention.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Repurposing—Annuities for creative people.
Those of you who put food on the table by doing what you
love are, for the most part either underemployed
or underpaid. Those whose souls you nourish
value your work. Most of those who feel revitalized
after hearing your music, seeing your movie,
reading your book, or even just cruising your blog,
wouldn't mind paying for the privilege. But, for
most of you, getting paid for that work is a one shot deal.
Whoever is employing you wants to get rid of you
quickly. They want to make a profit, and be done
with paying off the talent. That accounts for
why advertising agencies are pretty well done
with paying residuals for musicians who write,
produce, and perform on radio and television
commercials. Those at the top of the showbusiness heap can
demand compliance to union regulations about residuals, or can
work only with those for whom compliance to union regulations is
par for the course. This isn't a rant about union organizing, though.
That one will come later.
For now, let's discuss finding a way to make money off your stuff once the initial purchaser of your talents/works has taken their slice. Did you sign away your copyrights? Your publishing rights? Let's hope not.
Could you, as George Harrison and Bob Dylan have, put out a book of the lyrics to your songs, with the special added value of commentary by the composer? Maybe. If you're famous, people will buy it. If you're a screenwriter, can you adapt your movie for the stage? If you're an author, can you serialize your novel on the web? Or, maybe you can work the other way around. Maybe you can, as Tracy Quan did, serialize your novel on the web first, gain a following and/or a buzz, and score a book. From the book, Tracy scored two more books, and a TV show based on the book/series of books. Pretty good, ay?
How about all the comedy talk shows on TV? Jay Leno did a book of dumb headlines (and ads, and other stuff that appears in print). Some were featured on the "Headlines" segment he does on The Tonight Show, others were "added value"—headlines that hadn't been on the show. David Letterman has had several books of "Top Ten Lists". During the recent WGA Strike, "lateshowwritersonstrike.com" published some original Top 10 Lists, but they weren't all that funny (on purpose).
Bill Maher's HBO show—Real Time with Bill Maher—has a segment called "New Rules". There's a "New Rules" book. George Carlin took some of his most famous routines, and put them in his Braindroppings books. Those books were big sellers too.
Most of these examples contain original content along with the repurposed content. Added value is what sells them. Various licensees of The Beatles recordings have found some really silly ways to capitalize on The Beatles' music. Someone found recordings of them before they sounded very polished, and put that out. Others put out "Greatest Hits" compilations. Many people have done "cover" albums—interpretations of The Beatles' music. My favorite of these was the title track of a Bing Crosby album: Hey Jude, Hey Bing.
Of course, one of my favorites, Jonathan Katz has found a great way to repurpose content. He has used bits of his standup act, and bits from projects that may or may not have launched in his current (internet radio) series "HEY, WE'RE BACK". He used pieces of his standup in his hit animated series Dr. Katz, Professional Therapist. Just as significantly, he gave dozens of standup comedians the opportunity to repurpose their material, bringing it to a television audience who may never have seen the comics' faces before.
Bill Cosby had one of the most popular TV series of all time, based on his 1982 movie Bill Cosby, Himself.
Mildred and Patty S. Hill wrote Good Morning, Dear Teacher in 1890. You're not familiar with the song? Maybe you've heard of it in its repurposed form—Happy Birthday To You. Millie and Patty changed four words in 1935, copyrighted it with the new name, and their estates are still taking in millions of dollars from a song that's 117 years old.
But, the moral of the story is that good work can take many forms, and sell in more than one. And if not, maybe the first form in which your work is distributed is not the one that will "hit".
My best friend Lisa Liel—a historian—repurposed in an extraordinary way. She took a long out-of-print interpretation of the Book of Esther, and added some commentary to it. Her work was second edition of the book. The estate of the original author's work is pleased as punch, even though the original's in the Public Domain now.
How many forms has your work taken? Can you think of other forms into which your work will translate easily? Have you done something out of the norm with your musical composition, screenplay, poem, blog, or other intellectual property? I'd love to know about it.
Drop me a line.
love are, for the most part either underemployed
or underpaid. Those whose souls you nourish
value your work. Most of those who feel revitalized
after hearing your music, seeing your movie,
reading your book, or even just cruising your blog,
wouldn't mind paying for the privilege. But, for
most of you, getting paid for that work is a one shot deal.
Whoever is employing you wants to get rid of you
quickly. They want to make a profit, and be done
with paying off the talent. That accounts for
why advertising agencies are pretty well done
with paying residuals for musicians who write,
produce, and perform on radio and television
commercials. Those at the top of the showbusiness heap can
demand compliance to union regulations about residuals, or can
work only with those for whom compliance to union regulations is
par for the course. This isn't a rant about union organizing, though.
That one will come later.
For now, let's discuss finding a way to make money off your stuff once the initial purchaser of your talents/works has taken their slice. Did you sign away your copyrights? Your publishing rights? Let's hope not.
Could you, as George Harrison and Bob Dylan have, put out a book of the lyrics to your songs, with the special added value of commentary by the composer? Maybe. If you're famous, people will buy it. If you're a screenwriter, can you adapt your movie for the stage? If you're an author, can you serialize your novel on the web? Or, maybe you can work the other way around. Maybe you can, as Tracy Quan did, serialize your novel on the web first, gain a following and/or a buzz, and score a book. From the book, Tracy scored two more books, and a TV show based on the book/series of books. Pretty good, ay?
How about all the comedy talk shows on TV? Jay Leno did a book of dumb headlines (and ads, and other stuff that appears in print). Some were featured on the "Headlines" segment he does on The Tonight Show, others were "added value"—headlines that hadn't been on the show. David Letterman has had several books of "Top Ten Lists". During the recent WGA Strike, "lateshowwritersonstrike.com" published some original Top 10 Lists, but they weren't all that funny (on purpose).
Bill Maher's HBO show—Real Time with Bill Maher—has a segment called "New Rules". There's a "New Rules" book. George Carlin took some of his most famous routines, and put them in his Braindroppings books. Those books were big sellers too.
Most of these examples contain original content along with the repurposed content. Added value is what sells them. Various licensees of The Beatles recordings have found some really silly ways to capitalize on The Beatles' music. Someone found recordings of them before they sounded very polished, and put that out. Others put out "Greatest Hits" compilations. Many people have done "cover" albums—interpretations of The Beatles' music. My favorite of these was the title track of a Bing Crosby album: Hey Jude, Hey Bing.
Of course, one of my favorites, Jonathan Katz has found a great way to repurpose content. He has used bits of his standup act, and bits from projects that may or may not have launched in his current (internet radio) series "HEY, WE'RE BACK". He used pieces of his standup in his hit animated series Dr. Katz, Professional Therapist. Just as significantly, he gave dozens of standup comedians the opportunity to repurpose their material, bringing it to a television audience who may never have seen the comics' faces before.
Bill Cosby had one of the most popular TV series of all time, based on his 1982 movie Bill Cosby, Himself.
Mildred and Patty S. Hill wrote Good Morning, Dear Teacher in 1890. You're not familiar with the song? Maybe you've heard of it in its repurposed form—Happy Birthday To You. Millie and Patty changed four words in 1935, copyrighted it with the new name, and their estates are still taking in millions of dollars from a song that's 117 years old.
But, the moral of the story is that good work can take many forms, and sell in more than one. And if not, maybe the first form in which your work is distributed is not the one that will "hit".
My best friend Lisa Liel—a historian—repurposed in an extraordinary way. She took a long out-of-print interpretation of the Book of Esther, and added some commentary to it. Her work was second edition of the book. The estate of the original author's work is pleased as punch, even though the original's in the Public Domain now.
How many forms has your work taken? Can you think of other forms into which your work will translate easily? Have you done something out of the norm with your musical composition, screenplay, poem, blog, or other intellectual property? I'd love to know about it.
Drop me a line.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
