Complaints
This profile includes complaints for ASCAP's headquarters and its corporate-owned locations. To view all corporate locations, see
Customer Complaints Summary
- 20 total complaints in the last 3 years.
- 7 complaints closed in the last 12 months.
If you've experienced an issue
Submit a ComplaintThe complaint text that is displayed might not represent all complaints filed with BBB. Some consumers may elect to not publish the details of their complaints, some complaints may not meet BBB's standards for publication, or BBB may display a portion of complaints when a high volume is received for a particular business.
Initial Complaint
Date:09/22/2023
Type:Status:AnsweredMore info
Complaint statuses
- Resolved:
- The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.
- Unresolved:
- The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.
- Answered:
- The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.
- Unanswered:
- The business failed to respond to the dispute.
- Unpursuable:
- BBB is unable to locate the business.
They keep telling me I cannot end my membership with them. I paid for one year and we are no longer doing any live music and all of our background music is through a licensed jukebox vendor. They are trying to say that we need their license to do trivia nights, which is me standing with a microphone and asking what the capital of ********* is. Im severely disgusted that they think I need to pay an outrageous fee to ask public knowledge questions and play a game with our customers. Who receives the royalties on that?? ************************ descendants?? I have repeatedly told them I am not renewing and yes! They do too threaten & harass people as Ive seen mentioned in other complaints!! They do, and they wont take no for an answer. I just want them to leave me alone!!!
Business Response
Date: 09/29/2023
This is ASCAPs response to the Customer Complaint filed with the ********************** by ***********************, (Customer), the owner of Rouxs Roadhouse ********************************** At its core, the Customers Complaint is that ASCAP is wrongfully insisting that the Customer abide by the terms and conditions of her ASCAP license agreement. For the reasons set forth below, there is no basis for the Customer Complaint.
As background, ASCAP -- the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers -- is a voluntary membership association of more than ******* composers, songwriters and music publishers. ASCAP's members have authorized ASCAP to license public performances of literally millions of their copyrighted musical works in accordance with a federal statute, the ****Copyright Law. Under that statute,Congress has granted certain rights to those who create and own copyrighted musical works, including the right to be compensated for public performances of such works. The statute is not self-enforcing, however, and so organizations like ASCAP exist to ensure that their members and affiliates are properly compensated for the use of their music by licensing hundreds of thousands of businesses and venues where musical entertainment is presented for the entertainment of the general public. Operating on a not-for-profit basis, ASCAP distributes to its members as royalties better than *************************************** license fees.
Turning to the Customer Complaint, the Customer and ********************** entered into a license agreement for Rouxs for a term beginning July 1, 2022, and the Customer paid a license fee for the initial twelve-month license term. By its express terms, Rouxs license renewed automatically for the succeeding twelve months beginning July 1, 2023 and, accordingly, the Customer was billed for license fees for the first renewal term as provided by the terms of the license agreement. Because the Customer failed to pay the license fees billed for the renewal license term, an ********************** representative sent the Customer an email on September 13, 2023, requesting payment of the overdue license fees.
The Customer responded to *********************** email request for payment the next day, writing that: We are no longer hiring bands and wont be anymore so we are not getting the license again. I have one thing scheduled for the rest of this year that I may yet cancel. It is not cost effective for us, as we lose money on having any live music. Thx!!
In reply to the Customers email, ASCAPs representative sent the Customer an email on September 18, 2023, pointing out that the Customers ASCAP license covered musical entertainment other than live music, such as DJ, karaoke,trivia/music bingo and TV broadcasts. The ASCAP representatives email also included (i) a revised invoice for license fees reflecting a significant reduction in the annual fee to account for the Customers stated intention to discontinue live music at Rouxs; and (ii) a Statement of Operating Policy so that the Customer could note any other changes that might affect the license fee for the renewal term. The Customer responded the same day, writing I am not renewing because I dont have the money, so I will not be sending you anything so thats the end of it.
Under the express terms of the Customers ASCAP license, to effect termination of the license,the licensee is required to give written notice of termination at least 30 days prior to the expiration of the Initial Term (or any Renewal Term, as applicable . . . Accordingly, the Customers email advising that she is not renewing is effectively a notice of termination of Rouxs ASCAP license as of June 30, ****.
Notwithstanding the June 30, **** termination date for Rouxs ASCAP license, if the Customer certifies in writing that she is ceasing all musical entertainment (other than that provided by a commercial background/foreground music service licensed by ASCAP), then, after 30 days ASCAP will cease billing the Customer for prospective license fees for the period ending June 30, ****, as specifically provided for by the Licensees Operating Policy provision of the ASCAP license agreement (Section 6.3). The Customer would still owe license fees for the period July1, 2023 through the end billing date, however. But this is appropriate, both in accordance with the terms of Rouxs ASCAP license, and as a practical matter. According to Rouxs postings on ******** (since deleted), there was live music played there on September 7 and 9,2023, and DJs and/or ********************* was advertised for September 3, 16,22 and 24, 2023. Notably, had Rouxs not been licensed by ASCAP for these performances, and had any unlicensed performances of ASCAPs members music been performed, the Customer would have been at risk of being held liable for copyright infringement and exposed to potential monetary damages in an amount many times greater than Rouxs ASCAP license fees.
Finally, there is no basis for the Customers disparaging comments about ASCAP. The current annual ASCAP license fee for Rouxs is less than a dollar a day hardly an outrageous amount. Certainly, if none of the questions posed during the Customers trivia nights involve the playing of copyrighted music,no performing rights licenses would be required. Nor can ASCAPs efforts to ensure compliance with a lawful contract in order that its members be properly compensated for the use of their music be considered in any way threatening or harassing. For all of the reasons set forth above, ASCAP believes there is no basis for the Complaint.Initial Complaint
Date:09/06/2023
Type:Status:AnsweredMore info
Complaint statuses
- Resolved:
- The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.
- Unresolved:
- The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.
- Answered:
- The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.
- Unanswered:
- The business failed to respond to the dispute.
- Unpursuable:
- BBB is unable to locate the business.
ON 9/6/2023 COMPANY ************************* **** I AM THE MONEY (DBA) AS SELF-SUBSISTENT-PUBLISHING, CALLED ABOUT ARTIST JOEDOWELL1029 AND OUR PUBLISHING AND SERVICE WE PAID FOR. THEY COULD NOT GIVE **************** ABOUT THEIR WEBSITE NOR THE SERVICE FOR WRITER ********************************* AND OUR PUBLISHING SELF-SUBSISTENT-PUBLISHING. THEY (****, ******) DENIED US THE INFORMATION ABOUT OUR PURCHASES. AND ASKED ME TO DO THE WORK FOR THEM. ALSO WE SUSPECT MONEY LAUNDRY USING OUR ACCOUNTBusiness Response
Date: 09/26/2023
This is ASCAPs response to the complaint filed with the Better Business Bureau by ********************************** The complainant is a writer and publisher member of ASCAP the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers and has granted ASCAP the right to license public performances of the complainants copyrighted musical compositions. As a result, the complainant is *********** be paid royalties for public performances of his music licensed by ASCAP. Although the complainant asserts that he called ASCAP and ASCAP failed to give correct services about their website, it is evident that the essence of the complaint is that ASCAP has not properly paid the complainant royalties attributable to performances of his music licensed by ASCAP. There is no basis for this complaint, for the reasons set forth below.
ASCAP determines royalties to be paid to its members by conducting scientifically designed surveys of public performances of music in a myriad of settings, including radio and television broadcasts; in venues like bars and restaurants, hotels, concert halls and retail stores; and over the Internet via digital music services. These surveys encompass literally trillions of performances annually. Employing publicly available rules and formulas, ASCAP converts the performance data into royalties payable to the members for the performances of their music detected by the surveys.
According to ASCAPs records, beginning on August 25, 2023, the complainant submitted a series of inquiries to ASCAP concerning royalties for his song entitled On It. In response to the complainants inquiries, ASCAP staff informed him that ASCAP had no record of performances of the song. They also explained to him the information ASCAP needed in order to research its records to confirm that there had indeed been no surveyed performances of On It, including whatever information the complaint had as to actual performances of the song, such as where the song had been performed and when the performances first occurred. In his response received on September 6, 2023, the complainant wrote that we have over ******* plus streams on Soundcloud . . ., but he did not say when the Soundcloud performances had first occurred. Nevertheless, ASCAP has reviewed its survey data received from Soundcloud and has not seen any reported performances of On It. Moreover, a search of the Soundcloud website for recordings of the complainants songs discloses that On It is not among the more than 40 songs listed, and none of the 40 songs has had as many as 250 streams.
Notwithstanding the facts as stated above, if the complainant is able to demonstrate that there have been performances of On Iton Soundcloud or anywhere else -- ASCAP will conduct further research to determine whether the complainant is *********** receive royalties for such performances.Initial Complaint
Date:08/02/2023
Type:Status:AnsweredMore info
Complaint statuses
- Resolved:
- The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.
- Unresolved:
- The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.
- Answered:
- The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.
- Unanswered:
- The business failed to respond to the dispute.
- Unpursuable:
- BBB is unable to locate the business.
First off they are extremely rude, threatening, and unprofessional. I am trying to close my account with them as I no longer need their license. I have called and emailed and they are still sending bills for this year. I do not intend to pay as I have stated to them multiple times that we are no longer needing their service.Business Response
Date: 08/15/2023
This is ASCAPs response to the Complaint filed with the Better Business Bureau by ***************************, the operator of ************* in ***********, ********.
As noted in the Complaint, ************* has been licensed by ASCAP to perform publicly copyrighted musical works created and owned by ASCAPs more than ******* composer, songwriter and music publisher members. Initially, the Complaint alleges that ASCAPs staff is extremely rude, threatening and unprofessional. However, the Complaint provides no details as to when the Complainant experienced such conduct, or the identity of the ASCAP representative(s) involved. Without such details, it is impossible for ASCAP to respond to the allegation. Moreover, according to ASCAPs records, there has been only one recent telephone call between the Complainant and an ASCAP representative, on March 1, 2023, during which the ASCAP representative answered a number of the Complainants questions concerning his ASCAP license, following which the Complainant paid past-due license fees. It should also be noted that ASCAP holds its licensing representatives to a very high standard of professionalism in their contacts with ASCAP licensees as set forth in a written Code of Conduct that is strictly enforced.
The Complaint also refers to the Complainants efforts to close his ASCAP account as I no longer need their license. The Complainant sent ********************** an email on July 14, 2023, advising of his desire to terminate his ASCAP license. However, the notice of termination was untimely. This is because Alley On Mains ASCAP license agreement requires that a notice of termination be sent at least thirty days before the licenses anniversary date. As the Alley On Mains license was for an initial term of one year commencing July 15, 2021, which renewed automatically for another year each subsequent July 15, a notice of termination would have had to have been dated on or before June 15, 2023, in order to terminate Alley On Mains ASCAP license effective July 15, 2023.
Despite the foregoing, because the Complainant also indicated in his July 14, 2023, email that he would no longer be using live music and was closing the business, ASCAP is treating the Complainants July 14 email as notice of discontinuance of use of music under Paragraph 4(d) of the ASCAP license agreement. Accordingly, ********************** is noting its records that Alley On Mains license is terminated effective August 15, 2023, and ASCAP also will not seek payment of license fees for the period July 15 August 14, 2023. This should resolve this matter to the Complainants satisfaction. The Complainant should be aware, however, that if he does not close ************* and resumes the use of live music, any performances of ASCAPs members music without permission obtained either by license from ********************** or directly from the members may expose the Complainant to claims of copyright infringement.
Initial Complaint
Date:04/14/2023
Type:Status:ResolvedMore info
Complaint statuses
- Resolved:
- The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.
- Unresolved:
- The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.
- Answered:
- The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.
- Unanswered:
- The business failed to respond to the dispute.
- Unpursuable:
- BBB is unable to locate the business.
Better Business Bureau:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me and the matter has been resolved.
Sincerely,
*********************
Business Response
Date: 04/25/2023
This is ASCAP's response to the complaint filed with the ******** Better Business Bureau by a member of ASCAP, ********************* ("Complainant"). The principal aspect of the complaint is that ASCAP will not agree to "close" the Complainant's account. In fact, ASCAP staff have indicated to the Complainant that he cannot resign from ASCAP membership while certain issues remain unresolved. The matter has been referred to senior management for review and a senior staff member will very shortly be addressing the unresolved issues directly with the member.
Initial Complaint
Date:04/12/2023
Type:Status:ResolvedMore info
Complaint statuses
- Resolved:
- The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.
- Unresolved:
- The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.
- Answered:
- The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.
- Unanswered:
- The business failed to respond to the dispute.
- Unpursuable:
- BBB is unable to locate the business.
Better Business Bureau:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me and the matter has been resolved.
Sincerely,
****** *******
Business Response
Date: 04/18/2023
This is ASCAPs response to the complaint submitted to the Better Business Bureau by ****** ******* (Complainant) on behalf of his church, ****** *********** ** ******* ** ***** located in *********** *********.
The complaint is based on the following facts: Complainant applied to ASCAP online for a license for his churchs website to enable the church to perform lawfully copyrighted music in the ASCAP repertory via the website. As a result of a system error, although ASCAP accepted payment of the Complainants payment of the annual license fee for the license, the Complainant did not receive timely confirmation of receipt of his payment or an electronic copy of the license.
********************** has reached out to the Complainant to apologize for the error in processing his license application, to acknowledge receipt of his license fee payment, and to ask him if he wants ASCAP to complete the licensing process. The Complainant responded that he wanted ASCAP to do so, and this has now been done. Accordingly, this matter is resolved to the Complainants full satisfaction with the result that the ******************* may now make available via its website any of the millions of copyrighted musical works licensed by ASCAP for public performance in the U.S. and its territories, including ***********.Initial Complaint
Date:03/16/2023
Type:Status:AnsweredMore info
Complaint statuses
- Resolved:
- The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.
- Unresolved:
- The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.
- Answered:
- The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.
- Unanswered:
- The business failed to respond to the dispute.
- Unpursuable:
- BBB is unable to locate the business.
I represent Glow Civilian Publishing a company that has been a member of A.S.C.A.P since April 23, 2021. A.S.C.A.P is not paying the correct amount of funds owed to publishers and writers which may be the prime reason they are receiving multiple complaints. I received a deposit in the amount of $46.68 from A.S.C.A.P meaning they are not paying me for my registered titles. This would make the lowest statement I have received on my catalogue and it makes no sense at all because my last distribution was $164.46 and I have had new works that were added. I seen my works were surveyed for 2023Q1 but I didn't receive my payment for those surveyed works meaning either A.S.C.A.P has over looked my payment or they are illegally stealing royalties from their members. I never received my payment for Work ID#********* and would like for them to update their system with my correct registrations because I was due more than $46.48 for this March distrubution.Business Response
Date: 03/30/2023
This is ASCAPs response to the Customer Complaint submitted to the ********************** by ********************************* on behalf of **** Civilian Publishing (****), a publisher member of ASCAP, on March 16, 2023. The Complainant asserts that **** has not received appropriate royalties from ASCAP for performances of musical works in which **** claims to have a publishing interest. For the reasons set forth below, ASCAP believes that there is no basis for the Complaint.
With respect to the disparity in the amount of royalties the Complainant received between the December 2022 ASCAP domestic royalty distribution and the March 2023 ASCAP domestic royalty distribution, there are two reasons:
First, **** received royalties in December 2022 for prior performances of a work entitled Better Days. Subsequently, ASCAP discovered that, in fact, ***** claim to an interest in that work was in conflict with that of another publisher member of ASCAP. **** was asked to provide documentation to support its claim to an interest in Better Days, but failed to do so. Accordingly, if there had been additional performances of the work, **** was not entitled to receive royalties for such performances of the work in the March 2023 ASCAP royalty distribution.
Second, in recent years, more funds have been available for distribution to all ASCAP members for the December publishers and January writers royalty distributions than for the distributions in the following March and April distributions (and perhaps for the June and July distributions as well). As a result, if, for example, a publisher member receives royalties for approximately the same number and type of performances for a particular work in the December and following March distributions, the amounts of royalties will be greater in the December distribution than in the following March distribution.
As for the Complainants assertion that **** is entitled to royalties for performances of a work entitled Silent ***** **** submitted an inquiry to ASCAP regarding the matter on March 17, 2023. An ASCAP representative acknowledged receipt of the inquiry on March 21, advising that ***** claim was being reviewed and that **** would be informed once ASCAP has completed its analysis. ASCAP's review is still ongoing, but should be completed within the next ten days. If ASCAPs review confirms that **** is entitled to receive royalties for past performances of the work, **** will receive those royalties.
Initial Complaint
Date:01/05/2023
Type:Status:AnsweredMore info
Complaint statuses
- Resolved:
- The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.
- Unresolved:
- The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.
- Answered:
- The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.
- Unanswered:
- The business failed to respond to the dispute.
- Unpursuable:
- BBB is unable to locate the business.
Better Business Bureau:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID# ********, and have determined that my complaint has NOT been resolved because:[Your Answer Here]
Hello, ASCAP sent this dishonest response directly to our email, and then we responded to them with an email that was c.c. to BBB, so please refer to this email for more
details. The email also decried ASCAP public safety inference, which continues presently, causing more loss of work damages/public safety interference. So, in brief, the highlights of our response.
a. ASCAP keeps trying to cloud the payment matter in mystery, or confusion, when in reality it is simple. Each song has a writer/and publisher payment due. Despite months
on this simple matter, ASCAP keeps trying to dishonestly confuse it, ASCAP has only sent one of the two checks, both valued at same pay to the correct address that remains
correct. They simply need to send the other check, and it does not matter if it is the writer or the publisher check, it just remains the one that has not been sent! DUH! and
WOW!
Now BBB is witness to all of the ASCAP dishonestly and even Villainy trying to interfere with public safety and steal money from an NPO, so like "the boy that cried wolf," who.
should believe them about the missing $90 in each account, that we saw, and their own reps explained over the phone. If ASCAP wants to keep lying about this, they may need to be reported to ** AG and or IRS for record falsification.
LA ** MUSIC is now requesting $5,000 for loss of work damages caused by the ASCAP malfeasance that the BBB has witnessed for months! Please update us asap. Thank you.
In order for the BBB to appropriately process your response, you MUST answer the question above.
Sincerely,
*****************
s (now traveling/the writer also established the publisher and both accounts are under the email ******************* so we should be privy to this info) login info, as the writer after hearing about this ASCAP atrocity wants to resign, but can not do this without the original ASCAP sign up date and window for resignation. We request that ASCAP email this information to the writer's email of record, *******************. So again this is a new complaint, not from ASF but from ** ** MUSIC requesting a. the writer check to be sent once (we have power of attorney for the writer and share the official ASCAP sign-up email)) b. ALL information needed for the writer to resign from ASCAP be sent by email c. an investigation into record falsification concerning the two missing $90 in each account,.Business Response
Date: 01/12/2023
This is ASCAPs response to the Customer Complaint submitted to the ********************** by ***************** and received by ASCAP on January 5, 2023. The Complainant is apparently connected in some way with ASCAP publisher member ** ** Music. The Complaint relates primarily to matters that are the subject of an earlier complaint filed with the Better Business Bureau on or about October 5, 2022, and addressed by ASCAP both in its response filed with the Bureau on October 18, 2022 and in subsequent direct correspondence with ** ** Music. Both complaints pertain to claims regarding payment of royalties for performances licensed by ASCAP of a musical work entitled, Eyes On The Road Hands On The Wheel.
As ** ** Music had just days before raised directly with ASCAP the same issues as are set forth in the latest Complaint, ASCAP has now responded directly to ** ** Music in substance as follows:
In view of the fact that ASCAP was earlier advised by ** ** Music that ASCAP writer member *************************** had received ASCAP's check for $73.00, ****************** needs to send a letter to ASCAP, via email or facsimile copier, confirming that he did not receive that check. Upon receipt of ********************** letter, ASCAP will cancel that check and issue a replacement check for $73.00 payable to ******************* As the earlier check was sent to the address ASCAP has on file for ******************, he also needs to confirm that ASCAP has his correct address, or provide a corrected address.
With respect to the repeated claims that ** ** Music and ****************** are each entitled to additional royalties "of around $90.00," as ASCAP has repeatedly advised previously, ASCAP has reviewed its records and has no performance data that would support any such claims. And, ASCAP categorically rejects as entirely without merit all of the repeated accusations of misconduct on the part of ASCAP and its staff.
Finally, in response to ** ** Musics request for information as to how it and ****************** can resign from ASCAP membership, ASCAP has provided the necessary information.
Accordingly, ASCAP believes that its latest response to its members complaints should be at least partially satisfactory.Initial Complaint
Date:10/13/2022
Type:Status:AnsweredMore info
Complaint statuses
- Resolved:
- The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.
- Unresolved:
- The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.
- Answered:
- The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.
- Unanswered:
- The business failed to respond to the dispute.
- Unpursuable:
- BBB is unable to locate the business.
Better Business Bureau:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID# ********, and have determined that my complaint has NOT been resolved because:[Your Answer Here]
I have sent screen shots of the streaks I am able to see song for the songs in question. Fuego (Spanish Version) in Spotify at the time of opening my case had 90 million streams. Its counts has grown since then. Is ASCAP suggesting that Spotify is allowed to lie about its data that is public? Furthermore, I shared a screen shot of multiple ******* videos, the highest one having 2 million views, is that a lie also, or should I use the term misleading. Ill continue with another song I reported Gitana which had 10 million views on Spotify upon my inquiry, which theyve yet to follow up on that song. Is that data also misleading Or how about the two songs I have in the lifetime TV hit *************************** the Movie? One of my songs is the opening song for the movie and the other plays for about a minute in the movies climax scene. This was released in January 2021. Producers and equal shareholders started receiving their pay long before me, and all Ive gotten to date from ASCAP was under ****** while equal share holders saw over ******** on their first payout. Is ASCAP REALLY following the dollar here? When I filed a complaint about that particular film projec, i was told they would address it in the following quarter payout and in the following payout I received under ****** and the corrections to add the second song were not made. The payments Im referring to are only for one song in the movie. I hope you can see now why I have cause for complaint and desired to resign. This is not an efficient way of collecting royalties. Their answer to everything is Im not allowed to share that information or the data is misleading Im calling for ASCAP to be more transparent about its practices and where exactly my money is.
Ill continue, I have one song on multiple hit TV shows that Ive also only seen ********.00 for. How is that possible that I have a song in 90 Day Fianc The Single Life Season 2, Despierta **************** ***** ********************* etc and my royalty checks per quarter are $******?
In order for the BBB to appropriately process your response, you MUST answer the question above.
Sincerely,
*****************************
Business Response
Date: 10/26/2022
This is ASCAPs response to the Customer Complaint submitted to the ********************** by ***************************** (Complainant). As stated in the Complaint, the Complainant is a former ASCAP writer and publisher member. The Complaint is that the Complainant has multiple high streaming songs songs for which the Complainant has not received appropriate royalty payments, and no one is helping to resolve the matter. ASCAP acknowledges the Complainant's concerns but, for the reasons set forth below, ASCAP believes that there is no basis for the complaint.
ASCAPs records show that the Complainant submitted several inquiries concerning royalties for performances of four separate songs. In each instance, ASCAP staff members conducted research in accordance with ASCAP rules and procedures to attempt to respond to the Complainants questions. That research revealed several reasons why the Complainant has not received royalties commensurate with the Complainant's expectations:
First, it is a simple fact that often, high numbers of streamed performances of music do not result in significant royalty payments to ASCAP members. This is because ASCAP applies a follow-the-dollar principle in calculating members royalty distributions i.e., the value of performances in a particular medium reflects the amount of revenues generated by that medium. As the license fees ********************** collects from digital streaming services are significantly less than the license fees ********************** collects from radio broadcasters, for example, the royalties for performances via streaming media are significantly less than performances on radio.
ASCAP distributes royalties based on performance data ASCAP receives from a variety of sources. ********* is not generally available to the public, and often the data that is publicly available is misleading. That is apparently the situation with respect to at least some of the performance data available to the Complainant.
Next, several of the Complainants inquiries concerned possible performances of two of the works in territories outside of the U.S., for which royalties presumably would be sent to ASCAP to be passed on to the Complainant. Thus, in May 2022, ASCAP staff sent written requests to 26 affiliated performing rights licensing organizations throughout the world for any information each organization had with respect performances of the two songs. Thus far, five foreign licensing organizations have responded, each with the same information: They have no record of the Complainant having an interest in the English version of one song that has received performances in their territories; they have not logged performances of the Spanish version of the same song in which the Complainant does have an interest; and they have not logged performances of the other song about which the Complainant inquired. ASCAP will follow up as appropriate with the foreign licensing organizations that have not yet responded to the earlier request for information.
It should also be noted that as the Complainant has resigned as an ASCAP member effective July 1, 2022, the Complainant should ensure that the new licensor of the Complainants works has properly informed other performing rights organizations throughout the world of the change in affiliation as of that date so that royalties for future foreign performances of works in the Complainants catalog are properly directed to the correct licensing organization.
The Complainant also inquired on two occasions as to whether there were performances of two songs that were used in a particular film. ASCAPs research is ongoing, and it does appear that royalties will be paid for performances of both works in upcoming distributions.
The Complainant inquired as to what steps have to be taken to ensure that her works are properly registered with her new licensing organization. An ASCAP staff member has written to the Complainant to address this issue, and ASCAPs online searchable database correctly reflects that the Complainant is no longer an ASCAP member.
To conclude, ASCAP has certainly not ignored the Complainants inquiries. On the contrary, ASCAP staff has diligently addressed each inquiry. As but one example, in May 2022, an ASCAP staff member spoke with the Complainant and followed up with a message explaining the process for addressing the inquiries regarding performances outside of the U.S. To the extent that research into the Complainants inquiries is ongoing, an ASCAP staff member will shortly be providing the Complainant with updates. In addition, the Complainant will be provided with additional details as to why ASCAP believes that the Complainants expectation of substantial royalties for past performances is unwarranted. And finally, ASCAP regrets that the Complainants experience as an ASCAP member was not satisfactory and hopes that she will enjoy success in her future endeavors as a music creator.Business Response
Date: 12/16/2022
This is ASCAPs response to the complainants "rejection" of ASCAP's response to her initial complaint.
The complainant is a former member of ASCAP, a preeminent music licensing organization. She submitted a complaint to the Better Business Bureau asserting, among other things, that ASCAP had not properly calculated royalties for performances of her songs licensed by ASCAP while she was a member of ASCAP. In response to that complaint, ASCAP sought to assure the complainant that ASCAP had properly calculated her royalties based on the data that had been provided to ASCAP by its licensees, including Spotify and ******** and that ASCAP had properly applied its survey and distribution rules in making those calculations.
The complainants "rejection" of ASCAP's response essentially restates her earlier complaint. Nevertheless, ASCAP has reviewed its records and reconfirmed that the complainants royalties were properly calculated. In addition, and in direct response to communications ASCAP has received from the complainant, ASCAP has explained to her that publicly available data with respect to plays of her music on digital services such as Spotify and ******* is not the same data that those services provide to ASCAP for the purpose of calculating music royalties. It is, of course, the latter that ASCAP must rely upon in calculating royalties to be paid for the reported performances.
ASCAP has also explained to the complainant that it is inappropriate to compare royalties she has received from ASCAP with royalties paid to co-writers of her songs that are affiliated with other performing rights licensing organizations. This is because each such organization has its own survey and distribution rules and regulations. Consequently, there will be disparities between the royalties calculated by those organizations for the same performances, and not infrequently the disparities may be quite substantial.
Lastly, with respect to the complainants assertion that ASCAP lacks transparency, the survey and distribution rules by which ASCAP calculates royalties for its members are available on the ASCAP website, www.ascap.com, together with detailed information as to how those rules are applied to calculate royalties for performances of songs like the complainants. In response to the complainant's initial complaint and direct communications received from the complainant, ASCAP provided the complainant with additional information as to performances of her works.
For all of these reasons, it remains ASCAPs view that it has properly calculated and paid royalties to the complainant for performances of her works licensed by ASCAP and, therefore, there is no basis for either the complaint or rejection of ASCAP's response to the complaint.Customer Answer
Date: 01/11/2023
Better Business Bureau:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID# ********, and have determined that my complaint has NOT been resolved because:[Your Answer Here]
I reiterate my point that ASCAP lacks transparency and viable information for its current and former members to rely upon regarding royalty calculations. I have reviewed several documents on their website to try and get a better understanding of how they arrived at the extremely low dollar amounts for my songs.
Specifically, ASCAP claims that it calculates royalties based on the following methodology:
Use Weight X Licensee Weight X "Follow the Dollar" Factor X Time of Day Weight + Premium Credits = Credits
Royalty Dollars = Credits X Share X Credit Value
None of the information that is available (or has been provided by ASCAP) to me allows me to attribute any hard numbers to any of these variables other than my "share." ASCAP has not given me any better assurance that I am not be taken advantage of simply by saying that it has "reviewed its records and reconfirmed" that my royalties were "properly calculated." On multiple occasions, they reference the source "data" they are bound to rely on, yet I have never seen it. This is why I have had to rely on publicly available data and make comparisons with artists from other more transparent, reputable Performance Rights Organizations.
The information they relied upon (whether internal or external) and the weight they have given to each factor should be provided. The survey and distribution rules are so complicated and include so much legal jargon that I feel delusional after reading them. This is not how business should be conducted. I worked extremely hard to get my music exposed, and I find it very offensive how little information I am being provided to address my legitimate concerns. I understand that BMI & ASCAP have different reporting methods but a $1,000.00 difference is outrageous. We’re not talking about a 10 or 20 dollar difference, though to an independent musician every penny counts.In order for the BBB to appropriately process your response, you MUST answer the question above.
Sincerely,
************ ******
Initial Complaint
Date:08/10/2022
Type:Status:ResolvedMore info
Complaint statuses
- Resolved:
- The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.
- Unresolved:
- The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.
- Answered:
- The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.
- Unanswered:
- The business failed to respond to the dispute.
- Unpursuable:
- BBB is unable to locate the business.
Better Business Bureau:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me and the matter has been resolved.
Sincerely,
*************************
he other music companies. Also, the ASCAP person that I have been dealing with twice knowingly spelled my name in an email wrong. Once calling me a Ms. and then the next email spelling my last name wrong which both were offensive. This person had emailed me previously several times correctly. We are a small town business with very limited growth opportunities and are a business who is just trying to survive, but these music companies feel as though they want their cut of a very small slice of a pie that barely is able to pay the bills. All the while, we are promoting their music and giving their artists a free audience to hear their music. When a customer likes a song so much that they hear at our bar and purchases that song, where is our cut? Don't give me, "it is not your song". They would not have heard it if it wasn't on at our bar. How about a thank you card? No? Bottom line is I would like this matter solved and the harassment to stop. I have the proper licensing.Business Response
Date: 08/16/2022
This is ASCAPs response to the complaint submitted to the Better Business Bureau by *************************, the owner of a business known as **************************** (*****) in ********, *********.
ASCAP -- the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers -- is a voluntary membership association of more than ******* composers, songwriters and music publishers. ASCAP's members have authorized ASCAP to license public performances of literally millions of their copyrighted musical works as permitted by a federal statute, the **** Copyright Law. Under that statute, Congress has granted certain rights to those who create and own copyrighted musical works,including the right to be compensated for public performances of such works. The statute is not self-enforcing, however, and so organizations like ASCAP exist to ensure that their members and affiliates are properly compensated for the use of their music. Performing rights licensing organizations perform this vital role by contacting the operators of businesses that employ music to entertain their customers and patrons to advise them of their obligations under the Copyright Law, and to offer licenses that authorize public performances of the organizations members and affiliates copyrighted music for a modest annual fee.
Turning to ********* complaint, ASCAP licensing representatives began contacting him for the purposes described above when ASCAP learned through social media that ***** provided musical entertainment for its patrons by means of karaoke and television programs containing musical elements. Undoubtedly, such music use included performances of at least some musical works written and owned by ASCAP members. Therefore, it was appropriate for ASCAP to contact **************.
Contrary to what ************** has asserted in his complaint, ASCAP has not sought to license ***** performances by means of its jukebox or the service provided by ************* for SiriusXM. However, as ASCAP has attempted to explain to **************, his cable television provider, HBC, cannot authorize public performances of copyrighted music in television programs that are transmitted by television networks and then further transmitted by HBC to its commercial subscribers like *****. For those performances whether they occur during movies, episodes of television series or sports events permission must be obtained directly from the copyright owners, or from performing rights organizations like ASCAP. ************** apparently understands the obligations imposed on businesses like ***** because he previously advised an ASCAP representative that he had obtained a license from another performing rights licensing organization, Broadcast Music,Inc.
************** also complains that the license fee for an ********************** license for ***** is too much for a small business to pay. Actually, the applicable ASCAP license fee for ***** is quite modest, less than $2 per day. Notably, the vast majority of ASCAP songwriter members are themselves small businessmen and women, many of whom rely on their ASCAP royalties to meet the same daily needs as **************. And, the license fee for ***** would be the same as for any bar, restaurant or grill of the same size providing musical entertainment in the same manner as *****.
Notwithstanding ASCAPs view that it was entirely appropriate to attempt to license ***** based on the information ********************** had previously, based on *** ****** apparent elimination of karaoke as a form of entertainment and the information he has provided regarding ***** limited capacity, the venue appears to qualify for an exemption from copyright liability provided by the federal copyright statute. Therefore, ASCAP will cease its efforts to license *****. ********************** trusts that this resolves *** ****** complaint to his satisfaction. Of course, should he resume use of karaoke or provide other recorded or live musical entertainment for his patrons, he should consider requesting an ASCAP license in order to avoid any potential liability for unauthorized performances of music written and owned by members of ASCAP.
BBB Business Profiles may not be reproduced for sales or promotional purposes.
BBB Business Profiles are provided solely to assist you in exercising your own best judgment. BBB asks third parties who publish complaints, reviews and/or responses on this website to affirm that the information provided is accurate. However, BBB does not verify the accuracy of information provided by third parties, and does not guarantee the accuracy of any information in Business Profiles.
When considering complaint information, please take into account the company's size and volume of transactions, and understand that the nature of complaints and a firm's responses to them are often more important than the number of complaints.
BBB Business Profiles generally cover a three-year reporting period, except for customer reviews. Customer reviews posted prior to July 5, 2024, will no longer be published when they reach three years from their submission date. Customer reviews posted on/after July 5, 2024, will be published indefinitely unless otherwise voluntarily retracted by the user who submitted the content, or BBB no longer believes the review is authentic. BBB Business Profiles are subject to change at any time. If you choose to do business with this company, please let them know that you checked their record with BBB.
As a matter of policy, BBB does not endorse any product, service or business. Businesses are under no obligation to seek BBB accreditation, and some businesses are not accredited because they have not sought BBB accreditation. BBB charges a fee for BBB Accreditation. This fee supports BBB's efforts to fulfill its mission of advancing marketplace trust.