BMI QUESTION

[Dobber]

On 45s most of them say BMI to which I understand is that the song is registered,so what does it mean when the 45 DOESNT have BMI on it?

thanks

lee

[Julianb]

1 hour ago, Dobber said:

On 45s most of them say BMI to which I understand is that the song is registered,so what does it mean when the 45 DOESNT have BMI on it?

thanks

lee

I thought you were concerned about putting weight on ( Body Mass Index)!

[Dobber]

1 hour ago, Julianb said:

I thought you were concerned about putting weight on ( Body Mass Index)!

very good Julian….but I think im 10 stone piss wet through!

[Sutty]

From memory - The song hadn’t been registered with the BMI for copyright purposes. If the artist has a publishing deal the publisher will do it. If not, it’s down to the artist to do it. If it’s not registered the songwriters won’t get any publishing royalties from airplays and performances. The other big copyrighter is ASCAP.

[Roburt]

3 main publishing outfits in the US ... BMI, ASCAP & a n other. Theirs SESAC somewhere else. 

ASCAP was who most black writers registered with. Both BMI & ASCAP were the orgs that the writers royalties were paid via -- so they collect the monies in & then pay them out to the writers on a term basis (every 3 or 6 months I think). ALSO they keep contact info for each publisher they represent, so you can contact the writers via them (if the writers have kept the publishers up to date with regard to their current address / phone numbers). BMI was the biggest org of them all but some of the time, the info they keep isn't 100% correct or fully maintained. 

An old mention on a 60's / 70's 45 (or LP) that it was registered with BMI (or ASCAP) via xxx music publishers, doesn't mean that those orgs still have the details or still post up the info on many songs originally registered with them.

PLUS, many times the wrong info is registered by them (poor old Sidney Barnes wrote many songs that are registered under other folks names -- so they've been getting the royalties on them, not him.     

 

[Dobber]

Great info guys..thanks           
 

so for example…the brooks bros -looking for a woman on Tay DOESNT have bmi on it,yet it was reissued on kingy,what happens in that scenario regarding royalties etc..

 

[Woodbutcher]

1 hour ago, Dobber said:

Great info guys..thanks           
 

so for example…the brooks bros -looking for a woman on Tay DOESNT have bmi on it,yet it was reissued on kingy,what happens in that scenario regarding royalties etc..

 

As with other boots/unofficial presses ... bugger all.

[Dobber]

7 minutes ago, Woodbutcher said:

As with other boots/unofficial presses ... bugger all.

Really? I honestly thought when these reissues appeared with almost looking labels,and almost looking label names that they paid royalties etc…

so for example ‘KINGY’ is this not legitimate?

[Woodbutcher]

29 minutes ago, Dobber said:

Really? I honestly thought when these reissues appeared with almost looking labels,and almost looking label names that they paid royalties etc…

so for example ‘KINGY’ is this not legitimate?

Try looking it up on Discogs.

As a clue , you already said it was originally released on 'Tay' not 'King'... 

[Dobber]

6 minutes ago, Woodbutcher said:

Try looking it up on Discogs.

As a clue , you already said it was originally released on 'Tay' not 'King'... 

yeah Im more curious as to whether these outfits paid the writer/group any dosh to reissue it,and if it ain’t registered with bmi etc then maybe they don’t have to pay any money,and also if they did wanna pay,how would they get the money to them if the song isn’t registered?

[Kenb]

3 hours ago, Dobber said:

Great info guys..thanks           
 

so for example…the brooks bros -looking for a woman on Tay DOESNT have bmi on it,yet it was reissued on kingy,what happens in that scenario regarding royalties etc..

 

Publishers can collect royalties, usually on behalf of the songwriter(s), so Lovenote Pub may have done this ( past, now or future). There may also be a copyright (perhaps a master recording copyright, usually owned by the artist) and there's the composition which may be copyright protected usally by the songwriter or publisher.

Needless to say @Woodbutcher is right, with our 45's royalties or other payments are likely to amount to bugger all.

[Dobber]

Great info from all you guys