Regarding the recording of public domain music, this is actually something long established by the classical music part of the industry, setting precedents the folk world have had to accept. Yes, either the first or the "most famous" (by whose judgement) version of a piece is the one for which most arrangements will be considered based on. It doesn't matter that I may not have heard so-n-so's version; ASCAP will assert that I have and that I'm lying when I say otherwise. ASCAP will win. Their lawyers are too good for my budget. Pony up the cash and don't worry about it.
However, "permission" is not required. As with right of first record, anybody can record something in the public domain. If an artists' publishing company asserts that its a cloned arrangement, they can sue to collect some (small) royalties, but nothing can stop you from making the record in the first place.
Its really more of an issue with songs than with tunes; tunes are usually too small to appear in the ASCAP radar until it comes to something like enforcing a performance space's broadcast license. For example, when Michigan's faire was trying to avoid the ASCAP tax by telling its performers to not play ASCAP protected material, Minstrocity would be restricted from playing Playfords recorded by Bare Necessities. Its not ASCAP leaning on Minstrocity, its ASCAP using both Minstrocity and Bare Necessities' material to lean on the faire management. ASCAP won't make Minstrocity pay BN because its too small to appear on their radar; its not worth the legal fight. Its only a tool to extract the real cash from the site itself. THAT's why ASCAP is an extortion racket.
The line is drawn by ASCAP; they really don't care if one album uses public domain material performed on some other artists' record regardless of the similarities in arrangements; the money they could grab from that is not worth the accounting hassle. They DO care when it comes to the larger moneys collected from sitewide licenses.
Final issue: performance rights. Performance rights are paid by the venue, not by the artist. The Bob's original album release that included Light My Fire required them to pay the Morrison estate and Doors publishers at a minimum; if they chose to credit PDQ Bach, then they paid Shikele's publishers as well. They don't have to pay them again when it comes to public performance. The venue itself already has a licence with ASCAP and BMI (and likely SECAN as well), which allows the venue to "perform" anything and everything without restriction. That's the money that goes into the "general fund" I discussed in another comment here.
MDRF pays the licenses, which is calculated based on attendence predictions and number of performers and stages (and each street section is a "stage" in those terms). Proportionally speaking, Carolyn quite possibly could be paying ASCAP more to have Cat&Fiddle than she pays us directly. Its just part of the overhead, just like an employee in a software company has overhead in the form of benefits, office space, computers, etc.
Re: Hmmm...
Regarding the recording of public domain music, this is actually something long established by the classical music part of the industry, setting precedents the folk world have had to accept. Yes, either the first or the "most famous" (by whose judgement) version of a piece is the one for which most arrangements will be considered based on. It doesn't matter that I may not have heard so-n-so's version; ASCAP will assert that I have and that I'm lying when I say otherwise. ASCAP will win. Their lawyers are too good for my budget. Pony up the cash and don't worry about it.
However, "permission" is not required. As with right of first record, anybody can record something in the public domain. If an artists' publishing company asserts that its a cloned arrangement, they can sue to collect some (small) royalties, but nothing can stop you from making the record in the first place.
Its really more of an issue with songs than with tunes; tunes are usually too small to appear in the ASCAP radar until it comes to something like enforcing a performance space's broadcast license. For example, when Michigan's faire was trying to avoid the ASCAP tax by telling its performers to not play ASCAP protected material, Minstrocity would be restricted from playing Playfords recorded by Bare Necessities. Its not ASCAP leaning on Minstrocity, its ASCAP using both Minstrocity and Bare Necessities' material to lean on the faire management. ASCAP won't make Minstrocity pay BN because its too small to appear on their radar; its not worth the legal fight. Its only a tool to extract the real cash from the site itself. THAT's why ASCAP is an extortion racket.
The line is drawn by ASCAP; they really don't care if one album uses public domain material performed on some other artists' record regardless of the similarities in arrangements; the money they could grab from that is not worth the accounting hassle. They DO care when it comes to the larger moneys collected from sitewide licenses.
Final issue: performance rights. Performance rights are paid by the venue, not by the artist. The Bob's original album release that included Light My Fire required them to pay the Morrison estate and Doors publishers at a minimum; if they chose to credit PDQ Bach, then they paid Shikele's publishers as well. They don't have to pay them again when it comes to public performance. The venue itself already has a licence with ASCAP and BMI (and likely SECAN as well), which allows the venue to "perform" anything and everything without restriction. That's the money that goes into the "general fund" I discussed in another comment here.
MDRF pays the licenses, which is calculated based on attendence predictions and number of performers and stages (and each street section is a "stage" in those terms). Proportionally speaking, Carolyn quite possibly could be paying ASCAP more to have Cat&Fiddle than she pays us directly. Its just part of the overhead, just like an employee in a software company has overhead in the form of benefits, office space, computers, etc.