Scary NPR Open Mic Agreement

	posted by Igor on Wednesday February 18 2004 @ 03:38PM PST
	The music submission form for NPR's Open Mic is at http://www.npr.org/programs/asc/submissions/index.html I like NPR! In fact, I'm a subscriber with KCRW, and I would love to get some exposure on All Songs Considered. But, the wording of the agreement made me hesitate. It sounds like there is no limit to what they can do once they get the CD. You have to sign this: "In consideration of NPR's review of the Material in connection with its program All Songs Considered (the "Program"), I irrevocably license NPR the right to copy, duplicate, perform, store, archive, retrieve, digitalize, transmit, and distribute the Material, in whole or in part, on a non-exclusive basis, worldwide, in perpetuity, in the Program on the NPR Web site and in other media now or hereafter known. This license is assignable by NPR at its sole discretion." Can anyone say something that would make it sound more comfortable? Especially people who already have some experience with this program? Thank you!

	by Uncle Bergie on Friday February 20 2004 @ 12:00PM PST [ reply | parent ]
	I think that's fine. NPR is unlikely to go on tour with your music, and as long as it doesn't give them the right to sell it or make money directly from it, I think that's an OK agreement. In fact, I'm putting it on my todo list right now. Uncle Bergie

	by SCAREA 61 on Friday February 20 2004 @ 12:52PM PST [ reply | parent ]
	It would seem that "Distributing" the material could be taken to mean "Sell" it.. Depending on what planet you're from. A.J. Russell

	by Pablo Plasencia on Saturday February 21 2004 @ 12:38PM PST [ reply | parent ]
	I really think that the key to the thing is in the word "non-exclusive." NPR's interest is in having access to the music that they solicit. Our interest is in having our music receive exposure. This agreement does not appear to supercede any other agreements that we might make regarding our copyrighted materials, only to give NPR the rights to use it as they see fit. Frankly, I'd love to have my stuff on an NPR released disk of tunes from All Songs Considered or Morning Becomes Ecclectic. I think both of our interests are served by this deal. - Pablo

by Wade Curtis on Sunday February 22 2004 @ 08:36AM PST [ reply | parent ] I have done quite a few license agreements in my time, and though not a lawyer, and by no means an "expert," here are a couple of things to consider: Though the wording in the paragraph does seem to give NPR a broad use license, the key word (besides "non-exclusive") is "Program." You need to look at how that word is defined earlier in the agreement. Hopefully it limits NPR use to specific instance, (e.g. the "All Things Considered" program); second, although "distribute" is quite a broad term, it could be argued that a specific right to "sell" was not intended, other than for use in the "Program." I plan to look into this mysefl, and will go and look at the entire agreement, as without the complete language it's hard to tell, but unlikely that you'll be giving them rights to sell your product other than in their usual business of distributing programs for broadcast. Also, remember that NPR is non-profit, and also, if you do not receive consideration (i.e. a royalty, advance, etc.) it would be hard for NPR to just go out and "sell" CD's with your music, without first licensing the publishing rights, etc. Hope this helps a bit... WC

	by king orba on Monday February 23 2004 @ 03:57PM PST [ reply | parent ]
	No direct experience with NPR's music submissions, YET. But after reviewing their form and fine print, it's in my opinion that you really have no worries. Natural concern, sure. But far from SCARY. NPR is merely protecting itself against unwarranted legalities, and insuring the integrity of it's voice in the world. Remember, that they are an Icon among radio stations. The journalistic nature of their programs result in a vast field open to criticism. You could say they're in the spotlight in that aspect. Especially considering the global attention and forum of awareness. As opposed to your community or rock'n'roll station brodcasting around the corner. We've all seen those submission regulations and they're much more inviting. In other words, you'll never see the word; perpetuity. You are basically giving NPR the rights to create a great opportunity for you. The agreement is standard compared to film studio agreements that license music for use. Except those dealings are far excessive in the fine print. I know from experience. And you want them to have permission for all of this. If you don't, then there's zero opportunity. IF NPR is going to use your music, or if you're fortunate enough to have them select your material for a NPR compilation, they have standard procedures to follow. And during this process, you are made aware. They WILL contact you. They're not in the business of surprising people and taking things for granted. My personal experience with NPR was direct contact with the head of Public Relations as well as immediate staff, concerning permission for the use of NPR's name and likeness to be used in the movie, "The Life of David Gale". Cosidering the delicate nature of the film, I was ready for NPR to decline participation. But expressing the intended use, which was to be a prop of some sort, to give insight to Laura Linney's character, NPR responded with sincere enthusiasm and after expedient review gave permission. Maybe IT WAS the nature of the film. Anything sophmorish or without thought provoking context, would be an absolute waste of their time. However, the graphic department at NPR fabricated 3 different, simple, stylish tote bags, with NPR embroidered on them. One was chosen by Laura, and then aged a bit, stuffed with appropriate paperwork and photographed on film. It became a hero prop. The stitching hardly noticeable, but still attention to detail. I have to thank NPR for making me look good. All this happened according to appropriate proceedures, and I'm sure it's the same when the table is turned. If you are still extremely concerned after all this, my suggestion is take the opportunity anyway, and be very selective about what material you submit. It's clearly worth the time and energy to be considered for this program. Don't be scared of NPR. Be excited about the possibilities. Regards and all the best, king orba http://www.cdbaby.com/kingorba

	by Noah Peterson on Tuesday March 09 2004 @ 10:21AM PST [ reply | parent ]
	I agree with the hesitation - it seems you're signing quite a bit away. But it's NPR - chances are you won't get played. They don't really have the resources, staff to go into music piracy. It's kind of against their mission. And the negative PR that would come about from abusing musicians would be very damagin to their reputation, their government funding and their listening base. I don't think they're that foolish, but you never know. I did send in my CD.

	by Barb on Monday June 28 2004 @ 02:42AM PDT [ reply | parent ]
	I would be hesitant as well... Amazon started out only selling cd's and things then they changed their contract to read the same as you menitoned and now they are alos doing MP3's...when the wording feels too open ended for me olike it does in what you wrote ther, I usualyl wonder about what would happen if they grew into another area?: After all alot of businesses don't end up where they start from..they change over time and if I'm giving that much away , how will they change. I'm finding myself learning more about companies before I sign stuff and to actually alkw ith people and mee them and see if I'm comfy working with them before I sign stuff....just my 2 cents regards BArb

	by Barb on Monday June 28 2004 @ 02:43AM PDT [ reply | parent ]
	oops..sorry for all the typos..

	by TzeMan on Monday January 02 2006 @ 04:18PM PST [ reply | parent ]
	AS LONG AS YOU'VE REGISTERED YOUR COPYRIGHTS... there's nothing to lose. You still own the rights, NPR just gets a non-exclusive license for broadcast/distribution. Like all radio stations, they have to report playlists to ASCAP/BMI, so you'll receive performance royalties. As far as mechnical royalties, I doubt if NPR's opening a music store. Even if they do, you still own the copyright; you're just granting them a free mechanical license to duplicate for internal purposes. Each copy NPR makes is further promotion for your music, so don't worry. Those few cents a copy that you'd be "losing" is well worth the publicity you get back. If users download your music for free from NPR, yes, that's potential profit lost; but nobody goes to NPR to find established artists. In other words, I seriously doubt NPR's gonna be a major revenue drain for your music. By the time these free downloads add up to a major concern, you'd already be writing newer music as an establish artist -- and you WON'T be coming to Open Mic to release those anyway! Approaching NPR Open Mic means you got nothing to protect at this point. Nobody's gonna steal from an unknown artist thinking they'd get rich form it. The big names have a reputation to protect, which is much more important than to risk any kind of copyright infringement. If you should only be so lucky as to get your music stolen, it can actually be a good thing as long as you can easily prove coypright ownership. Let it be stolen, let it make millions, THEN, and ONLY THEN, call in your attorney to cash in. So, let's say you've got a sure hit song but no publicity, and you decide NOT to grant NPR a license for OPen Mic for fear of theft/infringement. Well, you've lost out on the potential millions in profits 'cuz no one would hear it in the first place, let alone steal it! When you're just an upstart, it's actually good news to get your music stolen. Just make sure all your copyrights are registered with LoC, and sign up with ASCAP or BMI ;)

	by DFMICHAEL on Wednesday January 14 2009 @ 06:18AM PST [ reply | parent ]
	I was not able to post my wholte comment here, posted the rest in pieces (or you can see the whole thing here dfmichael-cdprices.blogspot.com): I make a premise here. I'm just an artist and not a music lawyer. I suggest you read "All You Need To Know About the Music Business" by Donald S. Passman (http://www.donpassman.com) to get a through understanding of details about music laws. I also hope Mr. Passman will finally start contributing in these forums in the feature clearing things like this for us. I want to make a premise first: I’m a big fan e regular listener of NPR. However, that does not mean I agree with like they treat music artists (and not just NPR but all the radio industry and other broadcast industries as well) ...

	by on Wednesday January 14 2009 @ 06:19AM PST [ reply | parent ]
	... Well, 2 issues here: Issue 1: First, NPR is protecting itself as much as it can by trying to clear their road as much as they can from future hassles (like paying the artist mechanical rights for reproducing the recording on an "All Song Considered" compilation CD for example) Why this seems fine to many artists puzzles me. It would ok for NPR to not pay you performing rights if they are featuring your record on their program in an editorial way (that means they are playing excerpts and talking about you and your record). That would fall under “fair use” laws and I’m ok with those laws as they make sense. However, any radio station should pay performing rights for the song they broadcast full-length in a non-editorial context (even as background music). This is the rule abroad in many other countries. In those countries radio stations have to regularly submit a cue-sheet like other broadcast industries are required to do. So, the radio really pays for the songs they broadcast. In my native country, Italy, even restaurants, bars, and any other public places that performs music in any way (either through a band or through a CD player) are required to submit cue sheets (and money) to the performing right society. This is just fair and how it should be. Somehow, in the US many laws are not on the music artist/writer side and this causes us to lose a substantial amount of money. As far as NPR putting songs from your record on their compilation CD without paying you any mechanical rights, that could be ok if they were going to promote you in some ways (maybe by sending that CD to other radios like OasisCD, http://www.oasiscd.com, does with their sampler) However, when NPR creates compilations with your songs and songs from other artists and sells those compilations for substantial money (see links below) then NPR "has to" pay machanical rights. I put the words "has to" between quotes because of course NPR does not have to as long as you have agreed with their agreement listed above in the forum. And that’s what mainly wrong with that agreement. It is designed to protect NPR and give NPR all possible advantages in exchange for just hope, hope to be eventually chosen for their program and get a very tiny exposure (yes, tiny, as they will not be definitely doing a program about you every week, but just once). And, sorry, but “hope” does not pay me for my music and neither pays my bills.

	by DFMichael on Wednesday January 14 2009 @ 06:20AM PST [ reply | parent ]
	... Links to NPR "All Songs Considered" compilations sold for $$$ on many web stores and making money just for NPR (and of course the retailers), not the artists/writers: - www.amazon.com/All-Songs-Considered-CD-Collection/dp/B000641ZNG - shopping.msn.com/prices/all-songs-considered-4-cd-collection/itemid1729774/?itemtext=itemname:all-songs-considered-4-cd-collection - www.amazon.com/All-Songs-Considered-Vol-4/dp/B0001ADB6O/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1231941833&sr=8-1 - www.amazon.com/All-Songs-Considered-Vol-2/dp/B00006RAL2/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1231941833&sr=8-2 - www.amazon.com/All-Songs-Considered-Various-Artists/dp/B00005JIUT/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1231941833&sr=8-4 - www.amazon.com/I-Heard-NPR-Home-World/dp/B00009KTX7/ref=pd_sim_m_4 - www.amazon.com/Heard-NPR-Singers-Sessions-Voices/dp/B000BX8QSY/ref=pd_bbs_sr_12?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1231941877&sr=8-12 - 2) Second, NPR is not making clear enough how the artist is protected. I’m probably repeating most of issue 1 here but the point is that the only two words that seem to be on the artist side in their agreement are “non-exclusive”. Guess what, “hope” triumphs again. So we start thinking “Well, I know I’m giving them basically all rights for their program and station and also to produce compilation CDs they are going to sell for big money and I won’t get paid one penny for any of that, but hey, it’s non-exclusive so not bad”. Bullshit. We music artist/writers are so used to live out of hope that we do no longer think straight. We just go for hope. Well, guess what. If we do not ask to be paid for our work, who will? Have you ever experienced something like that with professionals other than music artists/writers? Did you ever go to a dentist and have a crown done and expect to pay nothing and have the dentist agree with a contract that says “I’m the customer and owe you no money and You, the dentist retain the non-exclusive right of your profession in exchange for me to carry your crown around and maybe promote you by telling other people about your work.” It’s sad to hear artists/writers saying that’s ok to agree to something like that because you get “hope”. That means those artists/writers are the first to blame as they are not giving any monetary value to their work. They just hope to “make it big” one day, have a “break”. But you have probably better odds playing the lottery and win a lot of money than have a break in the music industry that would allow you to continue living on your music. That’s the truth. And in all this, the hope for smaller acts to make a living out of their arts becomes day by day harder and harder. Music industry is changing, but it’s getting worse, not better. Notwithstanding the increase in digital downloads the music industry as a whole lost more than 4 billion dollars in the last 5 years, in the US alone. Which brings me to another topic for another day so I’ll stop here: people have to wrong assumption that music should be free and CDs should be priced very little. But I think CDs should be priced even more especially for smaller acts. Mariah Carey can still make millions selling $5 CDs. A smaller act should sell CDs for $40 to be able to just make a living. Other links of mine: http://dfmichael-cdprices.blogspot.com http://www.dfmichael.com

Post a Comment

	NOTE: If you need a reply you should email CD Baby directly instead of posting here. We don't often read old message board postings, and have no way of replying to them! Name: Email: URL   Remember me for next time! + your feedback?: * HTML tags are allowed. * Your email will not be made public. And just to make sure you are a human: