Are you legally singing gospel music in your church?

[diverse379]

many not for profit organizations bring in money from donations in fact most of them
green peace gets huge corporate donations

march of dimes etc
they are all covered by not for profit laws
even concerning music

why should the church be any different

it si a not for por profit organization
whether you think they are making too much money or not

[KurzLand]

Ok POP,

How will the CCLI know that we are displaying lyrics?

You guys should know that most people learn more by seeing or reading something. And if we can't do that then those people will have a hard time learning a new song.

My opinion about the CCLI is that what they want is dumb. We already buy the CD, DVD, Sheet Music, Song Book, and take time to learn the song. Now they want money for displaying words God inspired someone to write. That's dumb.

The CCLI give out good reasons but there not good enough.

Sorry guys but I'm not happy with this CCLI, I am just seeing a big dumb excuse to get more money.

If this CCLI is so important then how come Fred H. or Israel H. or Juanita B. haven't made it a big deal?

[princessofpraise]

Ok POP,

How will the CCLI know that we are displaying lyrics?

My opinion about the CCLI is that what they want is dumb. We already buy the CD, DVD, Sheet Music, Song Book, and take time to learn the song. Now they want money for displaying words God inspired someone to write. That's dumb.

If this CCLI is so important then how come Fred H. or Israel H. or Juanita B. haven't made it a big deal?

First of all, how will they know? They are like the IRS... they audit churches on a regular basis.

I don't think you understand.... we are talking about law. I think it is dumb for us folk in south carolina to pay property taxes on cars every year and to have state taxes come out of our check -- but the law is the law.  And Jesus speaks of rendering to Ceasar what belongs to Ceasar and to God what belongs to God.

There are many of Israel's songs under CCLI. Really it is a loss to the artist if they do not register their music. Those guys make so much money off of their concerts and cd's and sheet music, they may not be concerned with the money they could get from CCLI. They are not required to register their music, but you are required to register with CCLI if you display their lyrics or copy their music.

It really doesn't matter if we agree with it. It is the law and it is the right thing to do. And that's all I am going to say about this subject. 

[dingster1]

My MOM gets his notification(?) regularly.

Romans 13
Titus 3:1-2

[Long Fingers]

Also let's not forget about the ASCAP ...

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT LICENSING

1. Why should I pay for playing music in public?

We often use the expression "they're playing my song," not always remembering that while we may have emotionally adopted the song, it still legally belongs to the songwriter who created it, and the music publisher who markets it. When you use other people's property, you need to ask permission.

2. What is a public performance?

A public performance is one that occurs either in a public place or any place where people gather (other than a small circle of a family or its social acquaintances.) A public performance is also one that is transmitted to the public; for example, radio or television broadcasts, music-on-hold, cable television, and by the internet. Generally, those who publicly perform music obtain permission from the owner of the music or his representative. However, there are a few limited exceptions, (called "exemptions") to this rule. Permission is not required for music played or sung as part of a worship service unless that service is transmitted beyond where it takes place (for example, a radio or television broadcast). Performances as part of face to face teaching activity at a non-profit educational institutions are also exempt.

(for more : http://www.ascap.com/licensing/licensingfaq.html )


 So if you're gonna sing the song in a concert setting, you'll need permission to sing it in public or risk getting sued like the Girls Scouts did a while back.

[Long Fingers]

Later the song "Happy Birthday to you" will have copyrights.

Well, it does... check ASCAP's site ...

[MrSparrow]

many not for profit organizations bring in money from donations in fact most of them
green peace gets huge corporate donations

march of dimes etc
they are all covered by not for profit laws
even concerning music

why should the church be any different

it si a not for por profit organization
whether you think they are making too much money or not

I know the church is a non profit organization but when you really look at the direction of the church in the last few years don't a FEW questions arise? Everything is going MEGA MEGA MEGA... I'm not saying there's anything wrong with a huge church but... I'm just saying... the church CAN afford to do what's right...

MrSparrow

[KurzLand]

First of all, how will they know? They are like the IRS... they audit churches on a regular basis.

I don't think I would like that. It's rude, don't you think?

Also let's not forget about the ASCAP ...

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT LICENSING

1. Why should I pay for playing music in public?

We often use the expression "they're playing my song," not always remembering that while we may have emotionally adopted the song, it still legally belongs to the songwriter who created it, and the music publisher who markets it. When you use other people's property, you need to ask permission.

We don't mean "that's my song", what we really mean is "that's my favorite song".

[Wash]

Many CDs that you buy also display the lyrics to the songs that are on the CD also. 

[diverse379]

I know the church is a non profit organization but when you really look at the direction of the church in the last few years don't a FEW questions arise? Everything is going MEGA MEGA MEGA... I'm not saying there's anything wrong with a huge church but... I'm just saying... the church CAN afford to do what's right...

MrSparrow

I feel you but what is right legally or morally
i mean lets face it if a church pulled in a million plus a month it is still a not for profit organization protectded and covered by not for profit laws

people dont keep money by giving it away
morally i dont think it right to force a church to pay for the music that they use

tithers give money
if the money is used to build  community centers and medical facilities or whateve as long as they do not violate not for profit laws they are still not for profit
if there is a law allowing the use of music for not for profit events then the church is covered

the church already pays a hefty portion of the offering for music equipment
and musicians now you want them to pay for music like a radio station would

the fact of the matter the radio station has advertisers
the church has tithers

so in reality you want the people to pay for the music they hear at service twice

I think if a church chooses to support in that way fine
but you shouldnt look at a church and say you are exploiting the artist because it is because of the very ministry tat the artist is fed

new believers and old believers alike buy cd's and up here in the north where we dont hae full time gospel stations the only time we will hear this music is in church

the south have full time staitions so many artists get revenue from that venue

if the church is protected by a not for profiit clause then they are not wrong from utilizing the clause to avoid paying a fee

again you dont keep money by giving it away

you say they are paying the artist

but how do you know that that isnt part of the compromise in pursuing a misnistry instead of an entertainment career

part of ministry is tithing

well i am getting lost in my argument

but the essence is
dont be concerned by how much a church makes
not for profit is not for profit
no matter how much they make
it is the structure of the organization that makes it not for profit not the success of the organization 

now if the church wants to sell cd's with the music on it that now becomes a different matter altoghether and now they do need to cough up some dough

but for the service itself

what about when the minister of music is led to do fred hammond in the middle of the service does the church become obligated to pay royalties

what about during devotion when mother smalls stands up and starts singing a shirley ceasar song and the rest of the congregation joins in

come on really

the hymn book is put out for church people to use
there is nothign on the book that says hey when you sing total praise please send royalties to such and such address

I feel the intent but it is highly uncessasary and not even legally sound

[sjonathan02]

I feel you but what is right legally or morally
i mean lets face it if a church pulled in a million plus a month it is still a not for profit organization protectded and covered by not for profit laws

people dont keep money by giving it away
morally i dont think it right to force a church to pay for the music that they use

tithers give money
if the money is used to build  community centers and medical facilities or whateve as long as they do not violate not for profit laws they are still not for profit
if there is a law allowing the use of music for not for profit events then the church is covered

the church already pays a hefty portion of the offering for music equipment
and musicians now you want them to pay for music like a radio station would

the fact of the matter the radio station has advertisers
the church has tithers

so in reality you want the people to pay for the music they hear at service twice

I think if a church chooses to support in that way fine
but you shouldnt look at a church and say you are exploiting the artist because it is because of the very ministry tat the artist is fed

new believers and old believers alike buy cd's and up here in the north where we dont hae full time gospel stations the only time we will hear this music is in church

the south have full time staitions so many artists get revenue from that venue

if the church is protected by a not for profiit clause then they are not wrong from utilizing the clause to avoid paying a fee

again you dont keep money by giving it away

you say they are paying the artist

but how do you know that that isnt part of the compromise in pursuing a misnistry instead of an entertainment career

part of ministry is tithing

well i am getting lost in my argument

but the essence is
dont be concerned by how much a church makes
not for profit is not for profit
no matter how much they make
it is the structure of the organization that makes it not for profit not the success of the organization 

now if the church wants to sell cd's with the music on it that now becomes a different matter altoghether and now they do need to cough up some dough

but for the service itself

what about when the minister of music is led to do fred hammond in the middle of the service does the church become obligated to pay royalties

what about during devotion when mother smalls stands up and starts singing a shirley ceasar song and the rest of the congregation joins in

come on really

the hymn book is put out for church people to use
there is nothign on the book that says hey when you sing total praise please send royalties to such and such address

I feel the intent but it is highly uncessasary and not even legally sound

As long as it's not posted, it's all good; be blessed in the city and in the fields, when you come and go, while somebody holds your mule, bruh!! 

What CHURCH hymn book has 'Total Praise' in it?????? 

[KurzLand]

Case closed! Diverse and I won on this debate!

[princessofpraise]

Just because a church is non-profit, doesn't make them exempt from having to have CCLI license! You aren't getting the point. You can sing a song live without worrying about copyright laws.

Opinions do not change the law. If you don't have a CCLI license, you ARE BREAKING THE LAW! It doesn't matter what your oppinion is about it. It is the law. For churches and anyone else.

You can try to justify it all you want, it doesn't change the facts.

[jlewis]

Just because a church is non-profit, doesn't make them exempt from having to have CCLI license! You aren't getting the point. You can sing a song live without worrying about copyright laws.

Opinions do not change the law. If you don't have a CCLI license, you ARE BREAKING THE LAW! It doesn't matter what your oppinion is about it. It is the law. For churches and anyone else.

You can try to justify it all you want, it doesn't change the facts.

If what you are saying is true, then does that mean that web sites such as this need to pay for ccli licenses? Are web sites such as this even eligible because they are not neccessarily  501C3.   But we are certainly doing a lot of posting of chords AND LYRICS to a lot of popular music. Is the internet domain not considered a "public performance". 

Also,  what is the difference between the ASCAP public performance license, and the CCLI license. Seem to me like one applies to a church setting, but if you go out and do a concert at the park, then that is another set of rules altogether.


Just trying to understand  completely.  My church does have a ccli license, but honestly, when we do songs, we don't check to see if the artist is covered  under the agreement. We just get to singing.  Are you saying that you guys have a process set up to double check if the lyrics that yall are posting are actually covered under CCLI?


Jlewis

[Long Fingers]

What CHURCH hymn book has 'Total Praise' in it?????? 

Umm...the African American Heritage Hymnal does...

 

[sjonathan02]

If what you are saying is true, then does that mean that web sites such as this need to pay for ccli licenses? Are web sites such as this even eligible because they are not neccessarily  501C3.   But we are certainly doing a lot of posting of chords AND LYRICS to a lot of popular music. Is the internet domain not considered a "public performance". 

Also,  what is the difference between the ASCAP public performance license, and the CCLI license. Seem to me like one applies to a church setting, but if you go out and do a concert at the park, then that is another set of rules altogether.


Just trying to understand  completely.  My church does have a ccli license, but honestly, when we do songs, we don't check to see if the artist is covered  under the agreement. We just get to singing.  Are you saying that you guys have a process set up to double check if the lyrics that yall are posting are actually covered under CCLI?
Jlewis

I was speaking with my MOM at church yesterday and he said that within the Black churches most DON'T concern themselves with the CCLI License or anything else of that vain. They, too, just get to singing. So, like Diverse stated, if the law is being broken, then someone will be liable, but if not, then I don't think God is going to be so concerned about it. Again, just my humble opinion.

Umm...the African American Heritage Hymnal does...

Um, I know that the AAHH has contemporary songs in it. What I wasn't aware of is the fact that CHURCHES were using it an actually hymnal. I thought it was just a reference tool for rehearsals and such. 

[jlewis]

I was speaking with my MOM at church yesterday and he said that within the Black churches most DON'T concern themselves with the CCLI License or anything else of that vain. They, too, just get to singing. So, like Diverse stated, if the law is being broken, then someone will be liable, but if not, then I don't think God is going to be so concerned about it. Again, just my humble opinion.




Um, I know that the AAHH has contemporary songs in it. What I wasn't aware of is the fact that CHURCHES were using it an actually hymnal. I thought it was just a reference tool for rehearsals and such. 

See, that's my basic point.   I view the CCLI license kind of like insurance,  you hope you never need to use it, but you have to have it "just in case".

But like most insurance policies, you probably aren't covered  for EVERY situation, and you probably won't find out your coverage is lacking until you actually NEED the insurance.

Now on the AAHH, if a church started using that as one of their hymnals, would they still need a CCLI?   I mean if you buy 2 copies for every pew holder, would  you be in violation of lyric sharing. I assume that you would still not be able to"project" lyrics.  But instead of passing them out, you have everyone reading out of the  hymnal.  I kind of agree with Diverse on this one.  If its in the hymnal, why do you need a license?

Anyway, what got me thinking on this whole thing was when 4HG stated that most "Black Gospel" atrists were not covered under CCLi.  My church bought the license for the exact reasons that POP stated.  But it disturbd me to find that most of the artists we use aren't even covered. To me that was money wasted.

Off my soapbox

Jlewis

[sjonathan02]

See, that's my basic point.   I view the CCLI license kind of like insurance,  you hope you never need to use it, but you have to have it "just in case".

But like most insurance policies, you probably aren't covered  for EVERY situation, and you probably won't find out your coverage is lacking until you actually NEED the insurance.

Now on the AAHH, if a church started using that as one of their hymnals, would they still need a CCLI?   I mean if you buy 2 copies for every pew holder, would  you be in violation of lyric sharing. I assume that you would still not be able to"project" lyrics.  But instead of passing them out, you have everyone reading out of the  hymnal.  I kind of agree with Diverse on this one.  If its in the hymnal, why do you need a license?

Anyway, what got me thinking on this whole thing was when 4HG stated that most "Black Gospel" atrists were not covered under CCLi.  My church bought the license for the exact reasons that POP stated.  But it disturbd me to find that most of the artists we use aren't even covered. To me that was money wasted.

Off my soapbox

Jlewis

Again, we were talking about the posting of lyrics NOT in hymnals. 

Your last part in bold basically says what my MOM said to me, yesterday. I mean it does make sense to me. 

[MrSparrow]

Guys our opinion has nothing to do with the LAW.

I don't like to pay taxes but I do... Why? BECAUSE IT'S THE LAW!

It's not a law that you have to have CCLI... The law does say that we have to have the author's permission to print up, store etc... songs that the author has copyrights for.

So you have two LEGAL choices...

1. Contact each and every songwriter and get their permission to pass out their lyrics and show their lyrics and sing their songs in concerts...

or

2. Get CCLI which is the best system going to protect yourself and your church from breaking copyright laws...

It's really that simple.

I don't think it's illegal to post lyrics on the internet because if that was the case all of those lyrics websites would be shut down and those website owners would be facing lawsuits...


MrSparrow

[sjonathan02]

Guys our opinion has nothing to do with the LAW.

I don't like to pay taxes but I do... Why? BECAUSE IT'S THE LAW!

It's not a law that you have to have CCLI... The law does say that we have to have the author's permission to print up, store etc... songs that the author has copyrights for.

So you have two LEGAL choices...

1. Contact each and every songwriter and get their permission to pass out their lyrics and show their lyrics and sing their songs in concerts...

or

2. Get CCLI which is the best system going to protect yourself and your church from breaking copyright laws...

It's really that simple.

I don't think it's illegal to post lyrics on the internet because if that was the case all of those lyrics websites would be shut down and those website owners would be facing lawsuits...


MrSparrow

I think if it was that big of a deal, then something would have been done a long time ago. But, that's just me.