LIVE STREAMING SERIES MUSIC RIGHTS AND LICENSING 101

LICENSING AND RIGHTS OWNERSHIP - IT’S COMPLEX  Music rights and music licensing is really complex stuff. We’d need a full day to cover the entire spectrum, so this guide is focussed on the context of the EMC Connect Live Streaming Series part 1: The Licensing System is Broken, So How Do We Fix It?

CMOs

COMPOSER / COMPOSITION 

COPYRIGHT HOLDERS OR RIGHTS OWNERS

DISTRIBUTION POOLS OR DATA POOLS

DISTRIBUTION OR ROYALTIES DISTRIBUTION

MASTER

MECHANICALS

MRT 

MUSIC RIGHTS

ON DEMAND 

PERFORMER 

PHONOGRAPHIC PERFORMANCE 

POINTS

PROs

PUBLIC PERFORMANCE

PUBLISHING RIGHTS

RECORDINGS RIGHTS OR RECORDED MUSIC FOR DANCE USE

REPRODUCTION

RIGHTS HOLDER

SONGWRITER / SONG

SOUND RECORDING

SPLITS

TARIFFS

WORKS

LINGO YOU’RE LIKELY TO HEAR AT TONIGHT’S EMC CONNECT VIRTUAL ROUNDTABLE

IT ALL STARTS WITH THE MUSICPUBLISHING RIGHT vs RECORDING RIGHT 

COMPOSITION vs MASTER 

SONG vs SOUND RECORDING

In the creation of music rights, there’s two parts to the copyright. These two parts are often referred to as a ‘SIDE’. The first side is the composition. This is often referred to as a WORK, or MUSICAL WORK.

In electronic music, sometimes there is just a composer, and sometimes there is a composer and a songwriter. Sometimes the composer is also the songwriter. Composer is a generic term for someone who writes music or melody either for an instrumental or to be combined with lyrics to form a song. A songwriter focuses on writing songs only (song meaning a piece of music defined by having a vocal part and an accompaniment) A vintage example is that Mozart was a composer because he wrote a lot of different types of music, but John Lennon was mainly a songwriter. The WORK or MUSICAL WORK is represented by the PUBLISHING side of the whole copyright. 

The second ‘side’ of the copyright is the SOUND RECORDING. When the composition is produced, recorded, mixed and mastered, the resulting creation is referred to as SOUND RECORDING or MASTER. Just to make it really confusing, many compositions and sound recordings are created simultaneously. This is especially common in the creation of music by electronic artists. This leads to a common assumption that the musical work and the sound recording are one copyright. Although these creations are often done at the same time by electronic music artists, legally they are treated differently.

This is where it starts to get really complicated. Starting with the publishing side of the copyright, the following determines who owns what percentage of the musical work:

• How many people contributed to the composition? 

• How many people contributed to the song? It’s common to have more than one songwriter. Sometimes there’s more than one person developing the lyrics. Sometimes one songwriter starts the song and additional songwriters can be brought in at a later stage to add to or change the lyrics or melody.

• Of those that contributed to the composition or the song, have they signed a publishing deal? That is, are they PUBLISHED, or are they free of any publishing deal, otherwise known as COPYRIGHT CONTROL?

• All people that contributed to the creation of the MUSICAL WORK (that is, the composition and song) will have what’s known as a SPLIT of the musical work. Split is really just another name for the percentage owned of the whole musical work. 

• Generally, splits are expected to be equal between the number of people in the room at the time of creating the composition or song. But that’s not always the case. It’s very common for additional songwriters to be brought in after the first session. It’s also common to have situations where one songwriter is in the room with other songwriters or composers, but receives a higher split to reflect a more significant contribution to the musical work. 

• On top of the splits between the people that contributed to the creation of the musical work, there’s also the publisher’s split. If any of the composers or songwriters have a publishing deal, the publisher will take a split from the composer or songwriter’s split. There’s often multiple publishers with a split of the one musical work. In any one song, there could be multiple songwriters, with each of those songwriters having a publishing deal with different publishers.

LEGALLY, WHO OWNS THESE RIGHTS?

The ownership of the SOUND RECORDING (or MASTER) is a little simpler, but not by much. The factors that determine who owns what of the sound recording or master are:

• Which artist or artists are featured on the release? The artist that the sound recording is by (in terms of the public perception) is what’s known as the PERFORMER of the sound recording. 

• Is the producer of the record the same as the artist or performer credited on the release of the sound recording? Or was there another producer or a ‘ghost producer’? If so, was the producer paid a flat fee, or was the producer cut into what’s known as POINTS on the record? Essentially, POINTS or PRODUCER POINTS is just another way of saying percentage. For example, one point equals one percent. Points aren’t awarded to all producers, and the number of points can vary a great deal. Anywhere from one point to five points, sometimes even more depending on the profile and experience of the producer. 

• The record label also has a share in the ownership of the sound recording. Unlike the publishing scenario, there’s not multiple labels involved that represent different performers and producers on the one sound recording. But often there are different labels that control the rights to the one sound recording in different territories around the world. It depends on whether the sound recording was signed to one label “for the world” or whether the sound recording was signed to one label in say Australia, another label in North America, another in UK/Europe and so on.

LEGALLY, WHO OWNS THESE RIGHTS?

PUBLISHING RIGHT 

Composer/Songwriter: Dominic Matheson 

Publisher: Sweat It Out (Administered by Kobalt

Publishing)

RECORDING RIGHT

Artist/Performer: Dom Dolla

  Producer: Dom Dolla

Record Label: Sweat It Out

CASE STUDY: DOM DOLLA - SAN FRANDISCO

Let’s break that previous bit of information down with some real life examples. In Dom Dolla’s ‘San Frandisco’, the composer and songwriter was Dominic Matheson. That’s the real name of the artist known as Dom Dolla. The WORK is published by Sweat It Out, administered by Kobalt Publishing. So in terms of the publishing, Dom would receive the majority of the publishing income, with Sweat It Out and Kobalt receiving a percentage as the publisher. 

For the sound recording or master, the record label Sweat It Out would collect the income and Dom would be paid royalties on the income derived from the sound recording or master. 

Although Dom receives the majority share of the publishing income and a share of the sound recording income, both sides of the copyright (publishing and sound recording/master) are controlled by Sweat It Out. This means that any licensing requests for the use of the musical work and sound recording would have to be cleared via Sweat It Out.

PUBLISHING RIGHT 

Composers/Songwriters: Adam Dyment / Hal Ritson / Timucin

Fabian Kwong Wah Aluo / James Norton

Publishers: BMG / Copyright Control / Kobalt / Warner

Chappell

RECORDING RIGHT

Artist/Performer: Duke Dumont

Producers: Adam Dyment / Jax Jones / Hal Ritson Record Label: etcetc

CASE STUDY: DUKE DUMONT - OCEAN DRIVE 

With Duke Dumont’s ‘Ocean Drive’ it’s a little more complex. As you can see, there’s four songwriters involved, and three of these writers have different publishers. So in this case, to license the publishing side of the copyright, clearance requests need to be via three different publishers and one songwriter, who’s Copyright Control. Copyright Control simply means that the songwriter controls hers/his or their own copyright. That is, there’s no publisher involved. 

For the sound recording or master side of the copyright on Ocean Drive, etcetc is the record label and therefore the rights holder for Australia, and there’ll be shares of income for Duke Dumont, (being the performer and one of the producers as Adam Dyment) Jax Jones and Hal Riston. For public performance licences (more on that soon) Duke Dumont and etcetc would share this income. This is because the producers are not PERFORMERS of the sound recording. Licensing requests for use of this sound recording or ‘master use’ would go through etcetc for Australia. For use of the sound recording or master side outside of Australia, licensing would need to be done with the record labels that released Ocean Drive other territories.

TYPE OF MUSIC LICENCES    There’s different types of music licenses needed for

the different ways music is used and consumed commercially. Specific to the context of tonight’s EMC Connect session, we’re going to be talking about the

following licences:

SYNCRONIZATION (SYNC) LICENCE  

MECHANICAL LICENCE 

  

PUBLIC PERFORMANCE LICENCE

BROADCAST LICENCE   

SYNCRONIZATION (SYNC) LICENCEThe licence required for pairing music with visual media including

commercials, films, streaming advertisements, gaming, personal films, internal corporate communications, and more. Sync licences are

required for both sides of the copyright - publishing (composition/song) and master. (sound recording)

The classic scene from Koop’s record store in Trainspotting is a great example of film sync licence for ‘UKTM’ by Trigger Finger and ‘Stalker’ by Aphrodite. WATCH

Google Nest’s advertisement using ‘Better Than Ever’ by Flight Facilities feat. Aloe Blacc is an example of an advertising sync license (in Australia) in the past 6 months. WATCH

The sync licence for ‘Breathe Me’ by SIA for the final scene in Six Feet Under is not only a great example of a television sync licence, it’s also an example of how a sync can significantly propell an artist’s career. WATCH and read about the impact on SIA’s career HERE.

‘Hollywood Swinging’ by Kool & The Gang is an example of a gaming sync for the game Grand Theft Auto. WATCH

MECHANICAL LICENCEA mechanical licence required for any physical reproduction of a musical work. This primarily refers to the manufacturing of vinyl, CDs or the distribution of music in any tangible form, such as Spotify, Apple Music, iTunes) Generally, mechanical

licence terms include payment on a per-copy basis.

BROADCAST LICENCE A licence is also required to broadcast musical works or sound recordings, or music videos on radio, television or online radio. Broadcasters in Australia include:

• Radio broadcasters (commercial radio, ABC, community radio, subscription radio, online radio service providers)

• Free-to-air television broadcasters (commercial television stations, ABC, community television stations)

• Subscription television broadcasters (pay TV, IPTC)

• All other holders of class licences under the Broadcasting Services Act. 

Broadcast licences in Australia are obtained via OneMusic. (More on OneMusic below)

PUBLIC PERFORMANCE LICENCE

For someone outside of the music industry hearing the words ‘public performance’ conjures up an image of an artist or a DJ or band on stage performing to the public. And it is that. But in terms of music licensing the term public performance also refers to any time music is played to a public audience. This performance can involve a person performing live or DJing live, or not. So think about all the places you hear music being played: Hairdressing salons, retail stores, supermarkets, radio, bars, cafes. These different types of businesses are often referred to as music users. 

ONEMUSIC RECORDED MUSIC FOR DANCE

LICENCE (PUBLIC PERFORMANCE LICENCE

FOR NIGHTCLUBS)

A public performance license is an agreement between a music user and the owner of a copyrighted composition (song), and the owner of a sound recording that grants permission to have the musical work and the sound recording played in public.  This permission is also called public performance rights, performance rights, and performing rights. Public Performance licences are applied for and administered through what is known as a Public Rights Organisation (PRO) or a Collective Management Organisation. (CMO)

ONEMUSIC EVENT LICENSE (PUBLIC

PERFORMANCE LICENCE FOR EVENTS,

FESTIVALS, DANCE PARTIES, ONE OFF

PROMOTED EVENTS) 

ONEMUSIC DINING LICENCE (PUBLIC

PERFORMANCE LICENSE FOR CAFES,

RESTAURANTS, BISTROS, DINERS)

ONEMUSIC RETAIL AND SERVICE PROVIDERS

LICENCE (PUBLIC PERFORMANCE LICENSE FOR

GOODS AND SERVICES BUSINESSES SUCH AS

HAIR AND BEAUTY SALONS, RETAIL STORES,

NEWSAGENTS, HOMEWARES STORES, MOTOR

DEALERSHIPS, OPTOMETRISTS)

HOTELS, PUBS, TAVERNS, BARS AND CASINOS

LICENSE (PUBLIC PERFORMANCE LICENCE FOR

THESE BUSINESSES)

CMOs vs PROs

A PRO focuses on managing the public performance licenses for music users. (Music users being those types of businesses outlined on the previous slide) The PRO charges and collects public performance licence fees, or ‘performance royalties’ - royalties earned whenever a musical work or sound recording is publicly performed or streamed. In Australia, PPCA (Phonographic Performance Co of Australia) is the PRO representing the public performance of Sound Recordings. PPCA members include record labels, (major and independent) and the performers of sound recordings. (Recording artists) PPCA is run from the same offices as ARIA. PPCA is governed by a slightly different board to ARIA, but the CEO and the General Manager of ARIA are the same for both organisations, and a number of the PPCA board members are also ARIA board members. 

PROs do not license and collect mechanical royalties, or royalties earned when the musical work is reproduced. (Vinyl, CDs, streamed on services such as Spotify and Apple Music) A Collective Management Organisation (CMO) is a collection society that administers and manages licences that generate royalties for many types of use. In other words, a collection society that issues mechanical licences and collects mechanical royalties as well as issuing the public performance licences and royalties that a PRO would. 

In Australia, APRA AMCOS is the CMO representing the public performance and mechanical rights of musical works. APRA stands for Australasian Performing Right Association and represents the public performance of musical works. AMCOS stands for Australasian Mechanical Copyright Owners Society and represents the owners of the mechanical copyright.  APRA AMCOS members include publishers, (major and independent) composers and songwriters. APRA is governed by the APRA board, and AMCOS is governed by the AMCOS board. Similar to the ARIA and PPCA board, some board members sit on both boards. 

On July 1, 2019 APRA AMCOS and PPCA launched a joint initiative called ONEMUSIC. Formed to simplify the licensing process for businesses (music users) around Australia, it enables public performance licensing to be handled by one body to cover both the publishing and sound recording rights, rather than dealing with two different organisations.

ONEMUSIC LICENCES AND ELECTRONIC / DANCE MUSICSome in-real-life context: for nightclubs playing electronic or dance music,

the required licence in Australia is the OneMusic ‘Recorded Music For Dance

Use’ licence. Currently, there is a pause on this licence due to the closure of

nightclubs during the COVID-19 pandemic, and with nightclubs likely to

reopen with limited capacity, revisions to this licence fee structure is

speculative. For the purpose of understanding the economics behind the

current public performance licensing framework for nightclubs or venues

dedicated to dancing, below is a couple of hypotheticals to explain how the

licensing structure worked before COVID-19. The below OneMusic Recorded

Music For Dance licence fee structure was obtained from the OneMusic

website.

$2.266 multiplied by the “Recorded Music For Dance Area Capacity” for

each day of the nightclub’s operation. 

This $2.266 is made up of:

• PPCA fee for sound recording of $1.354 multiplied by the Recorded Music

For Dance area “capacity” for each day of the nightclub’s operation.

• APRA AMCOS fee for musical works of $0.912 per person “admitted” to

the Recorded Music For Dance Area for each day of the nightclub’s

operation.

CONT…Sound confusing? What is the ‘Recorded Music For Dance Area Capacity’? Here’s a

hypothetical to best explain it. Let’s say a 500 capacity venue has two rooms - one is a

band room of 250 capacity and the other room is a club style room where DJs play. That

club room also has a 250 capacity and operates every Friday, Saturday and Sunday night.

And let’s say during Spring/Summer months (26 weeks between September - February) it

operates at 80% of it’s capacity on average, and in Autumn/Winter months (26 weeks

between March - August) it operates at 60% of its capacity. The Recorded Music For

Dance Use licensing framework applied to the above hypothetical nightclub would

translate as follows:

Spring/Summer months PPCA fees of $1.354 x 250 (capacity) x 78 days of operation (3 nights/week x 26 weeks

between September - February) = $26,403

APRA AMCOS fees of $0.912 x 200 (80% of capacity in attendance) x 78 days of

operation (3 nights/week x 26 weeks between September - February) = $14,227.20 

Autumn/Winter months PPCA fees of $1.354 x 250 (capacity) x 78 days of operation (3 nights/week x 26 weeks

between March - August) = $26,403

APRA AMCOS fees of $0.912 x 150 (60% of capacity in attendance) x 78 days of

operation (3 nights/week x 26 weeks between March - August) = $10,670.40

Total annual OneMusic Recorded Music For Dance licence fee $77,703.60  (PPCA annual total $52,806; APRA AMCOS annual total $24,897.60)

CONT…

Another hypothetical is a larger nightclub with two rooms, with both rooms

featuring DJs programmed to play different styles of electronic music. Let’s say

the total club capacity is 1,000. In the Autumn/Winter months the club attracts

60% of its capacity and in the Spring/Summer months the club has a solid

seasonal program which sees it full at 100% capacity every night of  operation.

Let’s say this club operates on Friday and Saturday nights only. 

Spring/Summer months PPCA fees of $1.354 x 1,000 (capacity) x 52 days of operation (2 nights/week x

26 weeks between September - February) = $70,408

APRA AMCOS fees of $0.912 x 1,000 (100% of capacity in attendance) x 52

days of operation (2 nights/week x 26 weeks between September - February) =

$47,424

Autumn/Winter months PPCA fees of $1.354 x 1,000 (capacity) x 52 days of operation (2 nights/week x

26 weeks between March - August) = $70,408

APRA AMCOS fees of $0.912 x 600 (60% of capacity in attendance) x 52 days

of operation (2 nights/week x 26 weeks between March - August) = $28,454.40

Total annual OneMusic Recorded Music For Dance licence fee $216,694.40  (PPCA annual total $140,816; APRA AMCOS annual total $75,878.40) 

HOW MUCH MONEY IS COLLECTED VIA THE RECORDED MUSIC FOR DANCE USE LICENCES EACH YEAR? Clearly, Recorded Music For Dance Use licences are quite expensive and a lot of royalties are collected for the owners of the musical works and sound recordings (copyright) played in nightclubs. We couldn’t obtain the total amounts collected from nightclubs around the country in the last financial year. And OneMusic only launched on July 1, 2019, so a lot of nightclubs are yet to apply and confirm their OneMusic licence. So again, we’re going to roll with some hypotheticals. 

According to the January 2020 market research report on nightclubs in Australia by Ibis World there’s 471 nightclubs in Australia. If we consider the earlier outlined hypotheticals of a smaller nightclub paying an annual OneMusic Recorded Music For Dance licence fee of $77,703.60 and a large nightclub paying an annual OneMusic Recorded Music For Dance licence fee of $216,694.40, that gives an average annual Recorded Music For Dance Use licence fee of $147,199. For the purpose of a hypothetical calculation of the total royalties collected from 

Total royalties collected from OneMusic Recorded Music For Dance licences for nightclubs in Australia:  $147,199 (average annual licence fee) x 471 (number nightclubs in Australia) = $69,330,729

The PPCA average based on this hypothetical would be $96,811 x 471 nightclubs = $45,597,981 total annual collection.

The APRA AMCOS average based on this hypothetical would be $50,388 x 471 nightclubs = $23,732,748 total annual collection.

HOW DOES THE TOTAL OF THE ROYALTIES COLLECTED FROM NIGHTCLUBS GET PAID TO THE COPYRIGHT OWNERS?Whilst the licence fees will be charged to the nightclub and collected by OneMusic, from there the royalties will be divided into PPCA’s share and APRA AMCOS’s share. Each of these societies will then pay out to their members, according to their respective distribution policies. These are as follows: 

“APRA AMCOS (taken from page 34 of the APRA AMCOS Distribution Practices March 2020) Licence fees received from Nightclubs are distributed using a combination of two extended versions of the ARIA Club chart (one version of the Chart includes DJs’ positions and ARIA’s weightings in respect of the positive audience reaction and one does not), Music Recognition Technology (MRT), Pioneer’s DJ ‘KUVO’ devices and playlists of selected radio stations and music video TV programmes.

The following allocations apply after a variable amount is first deducted from the Nightclub revenue for allocation to the Live Performance (LPR) pool. This Is to cover DJs’ LPR submissions, with the amount calculated to match their total value as closely as possible: 

• 22.5% is allocated to the ARIA Club Chart data that includes weightings related to the positive audience reaction, 

• 22.5% is allocated to the ARIA Club Chart data that excludes weightings related to the positive audience reaction, 

• 45% is allocated to the works reported by DJ Monitor/KUVO, and  • 10% is allocated to the broadcast logs. The amount allocated to the selected radio and TV logs is

further split, 66.7% to the radio playlists, 16.7% to Music Max and 16.6% to “V Hits”."

The variable amount deducted from the Nightclub revenue for allocation to the Live Performance (LPR) pool will vary year to year, according to how many DJs submit Live Performance Returns to APRA in that year. For the purpose of this hypothetical and after consultation with APRA on this point, you can safely assume that no more than 10% of the total Nightclub revenue collected would be allocated to the LPR pool.

…SHOW ME THE MONEY!

CONT…

Therefore, based on the hypothetical total annual collection of $23,732,748 we will deduct $2,373,274.80 (10% of $23,732,748) leaving a balance of $21,359,473.20. This balance would be distributed to songwriters and publishers in accordance with the following APRA Distribution Practice pools:

*Please note: With Foxtel axing Music Max and V Hits during COVID-19, it is speculated that there will be a

revision of the data pools above utilising data from the Music Max and V Hits broadcast data.

6.67%45.00%

1.66%

22.50%1.67%

22.50%

$9,611.762.94 royalties distributed to

copyright owners detailed in the

following data - 45% is allocated to the

works reported by DJ Monitor/KUVO

$1,424,676.86 royalties distributed to copyright

owners detailed in the following data - 10% is

allocated to the broadcast logs, with 66.7% of this

10% (6.67%) to the radio playlists

$4,805,881.47 royalties distributed to copyright

owners detailed in the following data - 22.5% is

allocated to the ARIA Club Chart data that includes

weightings related to the positive audience reaction

$4,805,881.47 royalties distributed to copyright

owners detailed in the following data - 22.5% is

allocated to the ARIA Club Chart data that excludes

weightings related to the positive audience reaction

$356,703.20 royalties distributed to copyright

owners detailed in the following data -  10% is

allocated to the broadcast logs, with 16.7% of this

10% (1.67%) to Music Max data

$354,567.26 royalties distributed to

copyright owners detailed in the following

data - 10% is allocated to the broadcast

logs, with 16.6% of this 10% (1.66%) to “V

Hits” data

CONT…

PPCA (taken from pages 22 - 25 of the PPCA Distribution Policy 1 July, 2019)

“Third party data: the distribution uses data received from a party other than the actual music user. The most significant third party provider of data is APRA. For many years APRA has, for a fee, collected and consolidated usage data from a range of broadcasters and provided that data to PPCA to use for distribution purposes. This provides cost efficiencies to both organisations, by eliminating what would otherwise be duplicated administration relating to the collection of that data. PPCA also obtains data from ARIA, to aid the distribution of licence fees from sources such as nightclubs and other featured music uses, such as music festivals and events. ARIA collects data on a weekly basis from a panel of approximately 200 DJs active in venues across Australia. While ARIA uses that data to create its weekly ARIA Top 50 ‘Club Tracks Chart’, PPCA utilises aggregated weekly data of the reported in venue use to allocate a portion of the nightclub, featured and music festival / event net licence fees. The use of this aggregated data provides for a deeper analysis of tracks played in venues compared to the published ARIA Top 50 Club Tracks Chart.

Music Recognition Technology (MRT): a digital ‘fingerprint’ of each recording is created when it is used. This fingerprint is then compared to the digital fingerprints of many millions of recordings housed in a third party fingerprint database. The database also contains each recording’s metadata (performers, writers, recording details etc) enabling the matching of resulting usage reports with the PPCA track registration database. “

CONT…

On the final page of PPCA’s Distribution Policy, it details that the following distribution categories are used for Nightclubs and Music Events:

• Broadcast Radio (PPCA purchases aggregated radio broadcast logs from APRA, and APRA represents that the logs are almost a census of commercial radio broadcasting and of ABC metropolitan broadcasting)

• ARIA Club Chart  (ARIA collects data on a weekly basis from a panel of approximately 200 DJs active in venues across Australia. While ARIA uses that data to create its weekly ARIA Top 50 ‘Club Tracks Chart’, PPCA utilises aggregated weekly data of the reported in venue use to allocate a portion of the nightclub, featured and music festival / event net licence fees)

• MRT Data (DJ Monitor, Kuvo) • MRT Specific Events (DJ Monitor data collected from fingerprinting

taken from sets played at music festivals and events) • ‘Specific’ (this refers to direct distributions we do across events where

we receive direct logs of recordings used i.e. not MRT logs)

No percentage allocation to each distribution category is detailed in PPCA’s Distribution Policy. Therefore it is not possible to give a hypothetical example of how the hypothetical total annual royalties collected ($45,597,981) would be distributed to PPCA members.

WHICH TYPE OF LICENCE APPLIES TO LIVE STREAMING DJ OR ELECTRONIC MUSIC PERFORMANCES? Although it would be amazing if there was a one-stop OneMusic licence available for live streaming, unfortunately there’s no such licence available at the current time. 

As of 5 May, 2020, APRA published its STREAMING MUSIC CONCERTS/PERFORMANCES DURING COVID-19 LOCKDOWN license details. In summary: 

• APRA has blanket licences in place with Facebook, Instagram and YouTube platforms that allow you to live stream music in performances provided there is no charge to users.

• If you want to use these platforms and charge a fee to view/access the performance or are otherwise commercialising the stream you will need to contact APRA AMCOS to obtain a licence.

• If you’re using your own platform or a platform that doesn’t have a licence with APRA AMCOS, you will need to get a licence from APRA AMCOS. 

• For events where you are charging a fee to view/access the performance of your music, the licence fee will be the greater of 2.2% of gross revenue or a minimum fee of $82.50 per event (including GST). This is the same fee as APRA’s existing live event rate and part of APRA AMCOS’s response to the pandemic is extending these rates on a temporary basis to online events. However, you should be aware that APRA’s standard rates for streaming concerts online start from 12%. Please note, if you are doing a stream that is raising money, the 2.2% would apply to the revenue raised via donations. 

CONT…

As a hypothetical explanation, if you hosted a stream (up until September 30 currently) which raised $1,000 the APRA licence fee would be $22. (2.2% of $1,000) Following September 30 this year, the above indicates that the APRA license fee will go back up to $120. (12% of $1,000)

In terms of Facebook and YouTube, there’s not a great deal of clarity around the distribution of the royalties collected from Facebook and YouTube. Taken from page 40 of APRA’s Distribution Practices, page 40: 

“YouTube Census for ‘music asset file’ sample for ‘non-music’ file APRA includes in its distributions the music reported by YouTube by means of their electronic ‘Music Asset’ reports. These reports contain approximately 300,000 musical works per quarter. Facebook Sample Analysis APRA AMCOS entered into a licence agreement with Facebook in 2018 to cover the use of APRA- controlled music on Facebook platforms (Facebook, Instagram, Messenger and Oculus). Facebook maintains an extensive Audio Library which is available to users, incorporating over 33 million sound recordings (including from major/independent, digital aggregators and individual content creators) that have been cleared for use on Facebook properties. Facebook provides APRA with quarterly reports containing transactional level detail specifying which individual works were consumed by users through Audio Library functions on Instagram and Facebook (their largest platforms). APRA performs a distribution of Facebook licence fees using these reports. Given the high volume of records reported, in order to achieve a fair and equitable distribution a threshold of 100 uses per work is applied for inclusion in Facebook distributions.”

PPCA are unable to offer a licence to live stream DJ sets online. Due to the way their membership is structured, they do not have the rights to license for live streaming on behalf of PPCA members. Therefore, PPCA will refer you to the owner of the sound recording (generally record labels) to obtain a license from them.

THANK YOU Thank you to the following individuals and organisations

for their assistance with information, resources and content for the creation of this document. 

Amy Donald, APRA  Catherine Giuliano, OneMusic

Dane Hodges, PPCA Derek Cameron, APRA 

Millie Millgate, Sounds Australia Pip Dalton, EMC 

Stuart Watters, Nightlife Music

As you can see, licensing is very complex and as stated in the outset of this document, this is by no means a comprehensive guide to the entire music licensing

framework. It’s also clear that during a moment in history where music artists and businesses are heavily relying on the digital space to keep our culture alive, the licensing framework has a number of barriers for us to overcome. This is precisely why we have brought together some of the best minds in the licensing and streaming space for

the EMC Connect Live Streaming Series. 

We would also like to credit the amazing online resources from Songtrust and Easy Song Licensing. 

electronicmusicconference.com