CCLI? HELP

[JerryPro]

Hey guys. There have been some issues raised at our church about compliance with CCLI. We had a P&W leader that just quit and she was making a big deal out of all of this. She was saying that the songs that we used had to be sent in each week, etc.

I am familair with BMI and ASCAP but not with CCLI. I have done some checking on their website and it appears to be an organization that helps you stay in compliance with copywrite issues for an annual fee.

I have always been under the impression that if you weren't using the material to make money or performing somewhere to attract people to spend money such as a restaurant, coffee shop, etc. that we were fine.

I understand that at church it's a little different because they make transparencies and display them on the overhead, record the services for shut-ins, and so on.

If anyone has experience with this please let me know.

She would not even allow us to make changes to the music because everything was always a violation.

I became so tired of hearing that all of the time. She also said some church in Minnesota was fined $90,000. If this is true this is wrong.

Thanks,

Jerry

[reverbbb]

But, I am still a little unsure of how CCLI works. I really should not lead you to believe that I know what I'm talking about here. These are just some of my thoughts and do not represent facts or legal advise.

I do know that every artist owns the copyright to the music once they have committed into some tangible form. It makes no difference if commerce is involved, they still own the song. Think of the Happy Birthday song. It is now protected by copyrights and is rarely sang (legally) in any public forum any more. Also consider that it has been argued that churches collect donations, donations that can be inspired by the services of the the church (including the music).

Copyrights are especially enforcable if the music is reproduced in any form (staff, chords, recordings, overhead, copy machine, etc.). Many churches have opted to pay the CCLI fees so that they can use the music without the burden of worry if they are breaking the law.

Large churches are easy targets for enforcement. But small churches should be careful as well.

I am an advocate of the artist receiving compensation for their work. But this whole copyright contraversy has really stretched reality. Imagine if EVERY performing band in the world had to pay a fee to the publicist of Lynard Skynard everytime a band honored the "play, Sweet Home Alabama" call. Since many bands play about 40 songs a night by many different artists, this would be a nightmare for every two bit band to keep track of.

CCLI appears to make an attempt to solve this problem by having a blanket license over general uses of Christian songs for a consortium of artist. When I read the information on www.ccli.com, it appears that a simple nominal fee will cover virtually all of the issues involved.

Rearranging a song for the purpose of a new style of presentation woud be very common place. It seems that I read on CCLI, that rearrangements were acceptible if that variation was not already available. I had not heard about submission of the songlist every week. This seems like a very tall order. When someone wants to make a stand on an issue, it is a good idea to have the supporting information to back it up. Then, there is no longer an argument against the proposal.

It is unfortunate that the business side of copyright ownership has crept into even praise for God. But facts are fact, and laws are law. The safe thing to do, would be to investigate CCLI and fully understand its impact on your church services. I would hope that this could have been resolved before someone quit the ministry over the issue. After all, the fees are so small, that it would not be worth all the bickering.

Good luck on your quest. Please feel free to give us any insight that you learn along the way.

[tom grossheider]

I don't know much about it, but only that our church pays the annual fee and is always in compliance for using published music charts. On the other hand, I think you are free to "lift" music and write your own charts which we (the music dept) do once in a while, and I do it also for our band's rhythm charts for special music. I personally believe that it is best to stay above board on everything, and pay the fees for whatever they require to stay in compliance. I'll ask a bit more about it this weekend and report back if I find anything out.

[JDO]

personally, i hate ccli. i beleive an artist should be paid for their work. but i beleive ccli falls into one of those "money changer" catigories. as reverbbb pointed out, LS doesn't get paid every time free bird is played. nor does any other secular band. i think someone somewhere said "hey, we don't make as many cd sales as secular artists. we should get paid for our music. what's another way we can make money? i got an idea. let's come up with this idea to charge churches when they play our songs." personally, i think it's a rip-off. legally, i believe the church should obey. and you are supposed to send in a list of the songs you did. that's how the artists get their money. ccli doesn't just send an equal amount to everyone on their list. they divide the amount amongst those who have had songs turned in.

[Reno Sepulveda]

We pay the fee each year. We're making a good faith effort to comply but don't get too anal about it. I've been involved with other churches that don't even pretend to care about such things and that's just wrong.

Just because a church is non-profit doesn't mean that people aren't making money, in some cases lots of money. Some churches have large staffs that get paid very well and in most cases the music is a big part of their success.

Reno

[Wahwax]

From what I understand just playing the music Sunday Morning is not the big deal. The problem comes when you start making copies of lead sheets, lyric sheets and music sheets. From what our worship leader tells me the fee is actually very nominal compared to the BMI and ASCAP. She wasn't updating them and they sent her a nasty e-mail reminding her. Most choir books are not covered by CCLI so you'll still need to buy enough choir books for the whole choir.

[daweed]

Originally Posted by reverbbb

Imagine if EVERY performing band in the world had to pay a fee to the publicist of Lynard Skynard everytime a band honored the "play, Sweet Home Alabama" call. Since many bands play about 40 songs a night by many different artists, this would be a nightmare for every two bit band to keep track of.

Actually, the bar has to pay the fee, to the ...drat... I can't remember the name of the organization. But yes, bars DO have copyright fees to pay, sorta like churches do.

[daweed]

Here's what you're paying for (from the ccli site) - Provides permission to copy from over 150,000 songs for congregational use. Enables you to make overhead transparencies, songsheets and songbooks, input lyrics on a computer, record worship services, and make arrangements of the music (where no published version exists).

So it's not playing the song - it's all the other stuff associated with playing the song. And CCLI didn't make this stuff up just to make a fast buck - it's FEDERAL COPYRIGHT law. CCLI is just trying to make it easy for churches to comply with the law.

Also - on reporting. There's a "reporting period" every once in awhile when you have to tell CCLI what songs you're doing. It's not every week all year long. Just fyi.

[Wahwax]

Originally Posted by daweed

Actually, the bar has to pay the fee, to the ...drat... I can't remember the name of the organization. But yes, bars DO have copyright fees to pay, sorta like churches do.

The Bar pays BMI or ASCAP

[LesStrat]

Originally Posted by daweed

So it's not playing the song - it's all the other stuff associated with playing the song. And CCLI didn't make this stuff up just to make a fast buck - it's FEDERAL COPYRIGHT law. CCLI is just trying to make it easy for churches to comply with the law.

Also - on reporting. There's a "reporting period" every once in awhile when you have to tell CCLI what songs you're doing. It's not every week all year long. Just fyi.

I haven't been responsible for this in about 3 years, but this is what I used to have to do.

The annual fee is paid by the church based on congregation size. It covers reprinting of the lyrics for the congregation, etc (as someone else posted, check the CCLI link--more detailed info is there). Once per year, CCLI sent me a survey that took a few minutes to complete regarding our use of the songs in their survey sample. That's it. No weekly reporting. It was easy, and royalties are disbursed accordingly. This not only complies with federal copyright statutes, it provides income for those who are composing the wonderful music that we are selecting to use as part of our worship. It's not hard, and we should comply--after all, the apostles Paul and Peter both instructed us to comply with the laws of the land.

[JerryPro]

I think I have a much better understanding as well as what to expect.

You all have once again been very helpful.

[Robert Bell]

A friend of mine has asked me to investigate CCLI for her church.

One of the ladies in the church was convinced they are all going to go to jail or be sued out of existance because they are violating Copyright laws by singing from the hymnals and because the bell choir director made a photocopy of a music sheet. I don't think that is quite the case.

CCLI offers a "church license" for music in their portfolio. Do you need it? That depends on your specific fact situation. Buying a license you don't need makes no sense at all. But some churches might need it. It depends on what kind of music you are performing.

Before you buy a license, make sure you need one. Music in their sheet music portfolio usually has a notice on it with a CCLI license number, or the "worshiptogether.com" notation. If your congregation is making copies of music with these notations on it, a license might not be a bad idea (or buy additional copies in stead of photocopying them).

The license also allows you to download sheet music from their site. If you use a lot of "new music" (as opposed to the old hymnals) this may be a cost-effective and more timely way that buying individual copies of sheet music.

Note that the license agreement does not include instrumental music, apparently - at least from what I can glean from their "user manual" page. It explicitly excludes bell choir music, so it is of no help to my friend.

Their library includes 160,000 songs, but it is not clear to me what these songs are - they appear to be more of the Contemporary Christian variety (that might be played on a guitar). Traditional hymns and the like (over 75 years old) may be in the public domain. You may not need a license to copy traditional hymns like that.

It is important to note that the performance of works in copyright (for example, playing music) as part of an act of worship is specifically exempted from copyright laws. You are not going to get sued because the congregation sang "Kumbaya, My Lord" on Sunday morning. And certainly "Nearer My God, To Thee" and other old-time songs are mostly in the public domain by now, anyway.

The only issue is PHOTOCOPYING sheet music, or projecting copies on an overhead projector or the like.

My friend has a bell choir, and the CCLI license manual explicitly excludes bell choir music. So for her to get a license might be a total waste of money.

The CCLI website sort of puts the "fear of God" (or at least Copyright law) into you, with all sorts of predictions of dire consequences, such as $150,000 lawsuits and jail time. I am not sure this is appropriate for a Christian organization to use such scare tactics. They are scaring these little old ladies to death! They also imply that their license is a panacea for church music copyright issues, when the license is clearly limited, at least according to the "handbook" on the site. (I asked them to send me a copy of the license agreement, as it is not available on the website, only the "handbook").

Christians, being honest people, are easy to take advantage of.

They want $100 a year for a license for my friend's church, which for their tiny congregation is a lot of money. $100 also buys a LOT of sheet music. If you just buy legal copies of the sheet music (as opposed to photocopying it) you are not infringing any copyright on the sheet music, at least from a copying perspective. $100 buys a lot of sheet music.

Performances are another issue entirely, but again, in-church worship performances are exempted by statute. But what about a music night in the church coffee shop? What about a concert in a megachurch where tickets are sold? These are trickier issues. However, in any event, it is not clear that the CCLI "church license" is a performance license, as their "Manual" recites only issues related to copying sheet music and recording live performances. So I do not think this license would cover music performances, for example, in a for-profit cafe or restaruant.

I am not sure if photocopying sheet music for church would be considered "fair use". The fair use doctrine is a defense, not really written law. So it is a grey area. If you are performing for profit, making copies of contemporary Chrisitian music (where the copyright is still valid) then you are probably infringing by copying the sheet music and it may be also be an infringing performance as well.

On the other hand, if you are singing an 18th century hymn than you photocopied out of a 1902 Hymnal, it is highly unlikely you are infringing anyone's copyright.

But then again, it is never definite. The "Happy Birthday to You" song is still copyrighted (the term can be quite long) and that's why commercial chain restraurants don't sing it if you tell them your friend is having a birthday. They sing their own birthday song instead....

But let me commend you-all for being honest and concerned about it. Let's face it, the odds of being "caught" are slim, and I have yet to find an instance of someone suing a church for copyright infringement. Yet.

But make sure their license really does cover your needs or that you really need it. Otherwise, you are buying false security, or just plain wasting money. It seems to me that they are trying to stampede churches into signing up for these licenses, when in fact many may not need them. Their website could be a lot clearer on this point.

Consult an Attorney for fact-specific advice related to your church or organization. Remember that commercial enterprises (restaurants, coffee shops, etc.) are a whole different ballgame. And just because you sign a CCLI license does not mean you are covered for ALL music - only the music covered in their library. You might still get a nice visit from the folks at ASCAP and BMI, who also have libraries of licensed music.

Good Luck!

[jcw]

Originally Posted by Reno Sepulveda

Just because a church is non-profit doesn't mean that people aren't making money, in some cases lots of money. Some churches have large staffs that get paid very well and in most cases the music is a big part of their success.

What about small churches where the staff aren't paid so well?

[refin]

Originally Posted by daweed

Actually, the bar has to pay the fee, to the ...drat... I can't remember the name of the organization. But yes, bars DO have copyright fees to pay, sorta like churches do.

Yes they do.

[aunchaki]

Originally Posted by daweed

There's a "reporting period" every once in awhile when you have to tell CCLI what songs you're doing. It's not every week all year long. Just fyi.

I'm two weeks into our 6-month CCLI reporting period (ends Sept 30). I don't have any real issue with CCLI. They seem to do a good job. A few things to remember:

1) They don't cover EVERY song, just most popular Christian songs (and zillions you've never heard of). If you want to sing (and print lyrics) for Bob Marley's Redemption Song, for example, you're out of luck.

2) Many denominational resources are already "covered." For example, I'm a United Methodist pastor. Every song in the UM Hymnal is pre-cleared with the copyright holders for use in my church. This changes if I do music outside my church or start photocopying pages from the Hymnal (just two examples). There are details in the Hymnal for how it's handled. If ALL I ever did was use Hymnal songs in my church (and had enough Hymnals in stock for everyone), I'd never need CCLI or anyone else. Your denominational music materials may have a similar arrangement. (YMMV, IANAL)

Peace.

[Robert Bell]

Originally Posted by aunchaki

I'm two weeks into our 6-month CCLI reporting period (ends Sept 30). I don't have any real issue with CCLI. They seem to do a good job. A few things to remember:

1) They don't cover EVERY song, just most popular Christian songs (and zillions you've never heard of). If you want to sing (and print lyrics) for Bob Marley's Redemption Song, for example, you're out of luck.

2) Many denominational resources are already "covered." For example, I'm a United Methodist pastor. Every song in the UM Hymnal is pre-cleared with the copyright holders for use in my church. This changes if I do music outside my church or start photocopying pages from the Hymnal (just two examples). There are details in the Hymnal for how it's handled. If ALL I ever did was use Hymnal songs in my church (and had enough Hymnals in stock for everyone), I'd never need CCLI or anyone else. Your denominational music materials may have a similar arrangement. (YMMV, IANAL)

Peace.

Relax! There is no law against singing in Church. Copyright law explicitly EXEMPTS worship services from the "performance" clause. So sing whatever you want - old hymns or modern tunes. SINGING is not an infringement of anyone's copyright, provided it is in church and part of a worship service.

A coffeeshop or restaurant attached to the church - that's a different story. A commercial enterprise is not covered under the performance exception for worship services.

As for photocopying from the hymnals, check with the publisher. The hymnal my church uses allows the pastor to make a reasonable number copies of the hymns for use in services.

The issue is making copies of sheet music and passing them around or printing songs in the church bulletin. If it is PUBLIC DOMAIN this is not an issue. If it is used with PERMISSION (suprisingly easy to get, with a phone call) this is not an issue. If it is NOT IN THE CCLI catalog, a CCLI license is not a protection.

The CCLI materials and website are somewhat misleading, in my opinion, and tend to panic honest God-fearing Christians. The pamphlet I received says "if you can answer YES to any of these questions, you need a CCLI license!" NOT QUITE THE CASE!

One of the questions was "do you photocopy sheet music or print music in your programs?" My church answered "yes" and assumed they needed a CCLI license.

However, there are some CAVEATS that the CCLI pamphlet glosses over:

(a) you do not need a CCLI license to copy public domain pieces (generally anything over 75 years)

(b) you do not need a CCLI license if you have permission to copy

(c) you do not need a CCLI license to copy materials not in their library (but you may need someone else's license)

(d) CCLI is not the only licensing agency out there, they are just the most convenient and the most aggressively marketed.

(e) CCCL covers only limited categories of music - for example, bell choir sheet music is not covered.

In our church's case (25 members) there is a song reprinted on each Sunday's program. I called the copyright owner directly and they were thrilled we were using it and granted permission, asking us only to attribute the song and add a copyright notice and "used with permission".

The only other item they copy is an old (1880) hymn out of an old (1900) hymnal, so that is public domain. You can copy that until the cows come home.

The rest of the music they use is out of the hymnals and they have more than one copy for each parishioner. The Hymnal copyright page authorizes the church to make copies for use in services (e.g., for sheet music for the piano). So that is covered, too.

They have part-time bell choir, but two bell choir organizations that the director belongs to handle licensing for their sheet music, and much of it is sold with the caveat "Choir director may make up to 4 copies". So we are covered there as well. CCLI does not license Bell Choir music, anyway.

So, for our church, no, we do not need a license from CCLI at the present time. If things change, then maybe we should look into it.

I searched on the Internet and found some information critical of CCLI. Some folks wonder where all the money goes as they do not appear to publish annual statements, etc. Who is profiting from these licenses? It is a question worth asking.

Also, as a Christian organization, I am more than a little disappointed that their literature suggests that people get licenses without explaining the need fully (but listing lots of scary, but unlikely consequences if they don't). Is this truly a Christian way to act?

I have not been able to find any example of any SMALL church being sued for copying muscial scores. There was one BIG case, as explained to me by the people at CCLI:

"CCLI has never sued anyone over copyright infringements. The authors and publishers would be the only ones with the right to do that. We actually were started by a local church's music director (Howard Rachinski) when the Catholic publishers sued their churches for copyright infringements. Howard did not believe that Christian authors and publishers should sue churches (ironically, one of the songs in the suit was "They'll Know We are Christians by Our Love"), and he figured out a way to make obtaining copyright clearance easy and affordable for the church, while still making sure that authors and publishers would receive their due royalties. So, CCLI was and still is ministry driven to serve the church.

The case that started this was in the 1980's, when the Arch-Diocese of Chicago was sued by a Catholic publishing house for copying words into their programs. I don't have the case name. They ended up settling out of court for $190,000.00, but by then, the story had made it into the national spotlight. Most people agree that copyright law is fair, but it is not practical for a church to have to contact each publisher and author for permission to copy songs (especially before the internet and email were around). CCLI was started in part to help avoid this from happening again."

The Catholic church is a "deep pocket" which makes such a suit worthwhile. But then again, $190,000 is chump change in a Copyright lawsuit, which can cost anywhere from $10,000 to $100,000 a MONTH in legal expenses. These folks did not "win" much in their lawsuit, after expenses. Do you think an individual copyright owner is going to spend $50,000 to $100,000 suing your church? Do you really think a jury will return a verdict in their favor?

Why is this "suddenly" an issue today? Well, more and more people have photocopiers and it is much easier to make copies. Also, we are much more aware of IP issues in the last two decades, with the boom in the IP business. Perhaps we are TOO aware of IP these days. Some would say things have gone too far...

But, it is true that nearly every time you photocopy a page from a book or magazine, you are illegally copying something (unless it is 75 years old or you have permission). Yes, you might allege "fair use" as a defense, but that is only a defense to a charge of infringement. We all committ de minimis acts of infringement every day without thinking about it.

But let's face it, hardly anyone gets caught for sending Aunt Hattie a magazine article photocopied (please don't say "Xeroxed", OK?) out of Retirement Living magazine. That does not mean it is legal, only that it is nearly impossible to get caught.

I drove by a cop yesterday, doing 50 mph in a 45 zone. He did not pull me over. That does NOT mean the speed limit has been raised to 50 now. Same thing for Copyrights. Don't confuse not getting caught with something being legal.

But, on the other hand, no one is going to bother going after a small congregation for making a few copies here and there. Illegal? Yes. So is speeding in the church bus. But I've been passed by a few church busses in my day.

If you are a pastor of a MegaChurch and are making 3,000 photocopies every Sunday for services, well, that is another thing entirely. You are a big target, and all it takes is one disgruntled member to call the copyright owner and turn you in.

So, do what you think is best. Obeying the law is a good idea. CCLI is one approach, but not the only approach. Make sure what they offer is what you need, or you are just buying a false sense of security.

This is a fascinating issue, and I plan on writing an article about it.

[Wanker]

from the CCLI website

it's CCLI (dot) com

What You Can Do

* Print songs, hymns and lyrics in bulletins, programs, liturgies and songsheets for use in congregational singing.
* Create your own customized songbooks or hymnals for use in congregational singing.
* Create overhead transparencies, slides or use any other format whereby song lyrics are visually projected (such as computer graphics and projection) for use in congregational singing.
* Arrange, print and copy your own arrangements (vocal and instrumental) of songs used for congregational singing, where no published version is available.
* Record your worship services (audio or video) provided you only record live music. Accompaniment tracks cannot be reproduced. You may charge up to $4 each for audiocassette tapes and CDs, and $12 each for videotapes and DVDs.

What You Cannot Do

* Photocopy or duplicate octavos, cantatas, musicals, handbell music, keyboard arrangements, vocal scores, orchestrations or other instrumental works.
* Translate songs into another language. This can only be done with the approval of the respective publisher.
* Rent, sell or lend copies made under the license to groups outside the church or to other churches. (It is OK to distribute recordings to shut-ins, missionaries or others outside the church.)
* Assign or transfer the license to another church or group without CCLI's approval.

[Wanker]

As far as reporting songs played, you are supposed to. That is how they can track what songs are most popular in churches.

[ravindave_3600]

Originally Posted by Wanker

As far as reporting songs played, you are supposed to. That is how they can track what songs are most popular in churches.

I handled this at my church for quite a while. Every two years or so (maybe three) we were required to track all the CCLI-licensed tunes we used in one quarter (3 months). Old hymns were exempt; anything published in the last several decades was to be listed. If we just sang, but didn't print or display copyrighted words, or use copyrighted arrangements, we didn't have to report.