I heard on the radio a discussion of theme music for radio shows. One of the participants said the rule is (didn't say who issued the rule) that as long as the extent of the music played at any one time is fifteen seconds or less, the show is allowed to use the music without paying for it - even if the theme music is played at every break in the show.
I'm guessing this is covered by copyright - but maybe not. Anybody know whether the 15-second rule is accurate?
In most countries they have an organisation that protects performing artists copyrights. Part of their work is to collect money from the radio stations, along with a list of the music played during the last month, and they distribute the money to the copyright owners as royalties on some sort of basis. They have rules about how things operate and the person was probably quoting from those rules for the organisation.
However, on the general copyright law most have something similar to the original Berne Convention that allowed for the fair use of less than 10% of the original for almost any purpose - it was 10% of the total and no more than 10% of any chapter of serial part.
In most countries they have an organisation that protects performing artists copyrights. Part of their work is to collect money from the radio stations, along with a list of the music played during the last month, and they distribute the money to the copyright owners as royalties on some sort of basis. They have rules about how things operate and the person was probably quoting from those rules for the organisation.
This is generally referred to as compulsory licensing. The US has a compulsory licensing scheme for audio recordings of music. The radio station is likely paying into this scheme in bulk and the theme music played on breaks is covered.
One of the participants said the rule is (didn't say who issued the rule) that as long as the extent of the music played at any one time is fifteen seconds or less, the show is allowed to use the music without paying for it - even if the theme music is played at every break in the show.
I'm guessing this is covered by copyright - but maybe not. Anybody know whether the 15-second rule is accurate?
It certainly is not accurate as to US copyright law. Under US law there is no hard line in any category of works as to how much of a work can be used under fair use.
A for profit radio station playing even short clips is not likely to be considered fair use.
A for profit radio station playing even short clips is not likely to be considered fair use.
It's called a "Bump" usually less than 10 seconds of music, however, they can play I think as much as 30 seconds without having to pay royalties.
Used coming out of commercial or news/traffic, etc. breaks. They provide a "cushion" because they never want "Dead Air" (silence). In modern times (c.1990's) many radio stations are highly automated (some have no human presence much of the time) local stations insert their own commercials (often automated), and if there is dead air, will often activate a commercial or public service notice.
Many smaller stations rebroadcast regional or national shows; sometimes "tape" delayed. The music "Bump" allows various stations to sync. No royalties are paid; however, the singer/band, or whomever owns the rights, may request their song not be used for "bumps" by a particular show.
An example was the lead singer of the Pretenders didn't like Rush Limbaugh, and through her lawyer requested he stop using one of the Pretenders' songs as his show intro bump. It was a noticeable change, a caller asked why, and Rush explained the request to stop using the song.
Turned out that her father was a big fan of Rush Limbaugh, and he requested that his daughter allow Rush to use the song as an intro. She contacted her lawyer, and also Rush directly, and granted Rush permission to use the bump. He issued a thanks on air.
He would mention it about once a year. As I recall, Rush made special mention when her father passed away. She and Rush had significant political disagreements, yet were civil to each other.
Used coming out of commercial or news/traffic, etc. breaks. They provide a "cushion" because they never want "Dead Air" (silence). In modern times (c.1990's) many radio stations are highly automated (some have no human presence much of the time) local stations insert their own commercials (often automated), and if there is dead air, will often activate a commercial or public service notice.
Many smaller stations rebroadcast regional or national shows; sometimes "tape" delayed. The music "Bump" allows various stations to sync. No royalties are paid; however, the singer/band, or whomever owns the rights, may request their song not be used for "bumps" by a particular show.
An example was the lead singer of the Pretenders didn't like Rush Limbaugh, and through her lawyer requested he stop using one of the Pretenders' songs as his show intro bump. It was a noticeable change, a caller asked why, and Rush explained the request to stop using the song.
Another big reason it is used (especially in call-in shows" to give the time for the "tape delay" (now done via computer) to buffer the amount of time needed. Most use a system from 15-30 seconds, so this allows them to be recording, and in reality you are hearing a delayed airing of around 30 seconds on average.
Alex Bennet was a San Francisco DJ in the early 1990's, and was unique in that he had a lot of vulgar comedians on the air, and a live audience in the studio. And the tape delay was frequently used. To the degree that sometimes they would have to cut to music or news just to give it a time to buffer up more time.
And every few months, they would do a remote show without the delay (or with an engineer in the studio trying to do it). There was a huge deal back in around 1992, when during one Bobby Slayton gut really vulgar, and Alex screamed at him "Bobby, we're live! You can't say that!"
And Slayton responded with "Oh fuck! Fuck, I did not mean to say fuck!"
Needless to say, that was the last live remote they did without the delay. I was listening that morning, and it was a riot to listen to.
Also, an artist can not actually stop a host from using their song as a bumper or anything else. They can ask them to stop, but they are under no obligation to do so, as long as they are paying royalties. No more than an artist can tell Weird Al he can not do a parody of one of their songs. He simply gets permission because that is his choice, he is not required to do so.
And a staple of his "live shows" has long been doing some of those he is refused, as the royalties for a live performance are a fraction of a recording.
Early in his career, Paul McCartney refused "Live and Let Die" as "Chicken Pot Pie", and Billy Joel refused "It's Still Rock and Roll to Me" as "It's Still Billy Joel to Me". And he indeed has never recorded and released them. But I have heard him do both in live performances, and videos of that are not hard to find on Youtube.
Early in his career, Paul McCartney refused "Live and Let Die" as "Chicken Pot Pie", and Billy Joel refused "It's Still Rock and Roll to Me" as "It's Still Billy Joel to Me". And he indeed has never recorded and released them. But I have heard him do both in live performances, and videos of that are not hard to find on Youtube.
Coolio objected to Amish Paradise, but as Weird Al had secured the necessary rights, Coolio couldn't stop it. Yankovic wrote an apology letter, but it was never acknolwedged. And, as Yankovic noted, Coolio didn't complain about the royalties he received.
Coolio, much later, expressed regret for his initial response (objecting) saying that it made him look dumb because Weird Al had parodied Michael Jackson and Prince.
A for profit radio station playing even short clips is not likely to be considered fair use.
Music stations may use short clips of songs in commercials, as part of contests (such as "Name That Song") and such, without having to pay royalties. There are limits to the length of the clips, and total airtime per day.
Music stations may use short clips of songs in commercials, as part of contests (such as "Name That Song") and such, without having to pay royalties. There are limits to the length of the clips, and total airtime per day.
If so, that's part of the compulsory licensing scheme, it's not a fair use issue.
SCOTUS has explicitly refused to establish bright line requirements for use of how much of a work counts as fair use.
The only way the station has a right to play a song for even one second is through licensing with BMI and ASCAP. They pay the PROs (Professional Rights Organizations) based on licensing agreements.
Here is the BMI license agreement.
www.bmi.com/forms/licensing/radio/RMLC17_Blanket_Per_Program_Agreement.pdf
Stations only have to report "feature songs" - music that lasts more than one minute. Play of everything registered with BMI is covered by either a blanket license or based on a per program setup that is used by non-music stations. All radio licensees have to submit logs (cue sheets) on a regular basis of the songs played (over a minute long.)
Soundmouse is an audio detection service. It compares its database with sounds on the radio station and if it detects a match, it then reports it to BMI. This covers the songs that are played for less than a minute and songs not reported on the logs.
Royalties are paid on a combination of the two.
If you are a blanket licensee, it doesn't cost any more to play a song for 4 minutes than it does for 4 seconds.
The only way the station has a right to play a song for even one second is through licensing with BMI and ASCAP.
True, if the song etc is still under copyright.
I forget who it was, but a few years back there was an artist who was upset with their original label for some reason to do with royalties, so they re-recorded a lot of their big numbers under their own label and them released some of them as public domain numbers. Kind of upset the old label when everyone was downloading the new numbers instead of paying for the old versions. That got back at the old label and created a strong interest in the artist's new website where they were selling the rest of their new recordings for a few bucks a number.
Taylor Swift was upset that she didn't have the rights to her early work so, in the last couple of years, she's re-recorded a bunch of it. She's the publisher of the new material and gets paid for the sales that way.
Just to add one more thing: Singers, musical groups, etc., aren't paid for radio play. Only the composer(s) and publishers are paid. That's why when you look at an album singers with high name recognition are almost always listed as a co-writer on almost every song. Some stars demand 50% co-write credit to record songs written by other people. Probably the most famous example of this is when Elvis wanted to record Dolly Parton's " I Will Always Love You. . He demanded 50/50 songwriting split and she refused. It was a smart decision.
Just to add one more thing: Singers, musical groups, etc., aren't paid for radio play. Only the composer(s) and publishers are paid
I'd be double checking that if I were you. Several years ago, maybe more now, I looked into this and found there are three copyrights with recorded music: the lyricist, the songwriter, the performing artist and this copyright is often held by the recording label. When the song is recorded the performing artist pays a royalty fee to use the song to the lyricist and songwriter before they're allowed to record the song. The artist then owns the copyright of the recording, except in most cases released by the big labels the contract has the label owning the performance copyright. It's this control of the royalties that has many performers setting up their own labels when their first contracts end.
Thus, when a radio station plays to different recordings of the same number, as sometimes happens, royalties get paid to two different sets of copyright owners unless both are held by the same person or label company.
that if I were you. Several years ago, maybe more now, I looked into this and found there are three copyrights with recorded music: the lyricist, the songwriter, the performing artist and this copyright is often held by the recording label. When the song is recorded the performing artist pays a royalty fee to use the song to the lyricist and songwriter before they're allowed to record the song. The artist then owns the copyright of the recording, except in most cases released by the big labels the contract has the label owning the performance copyright. It's this control of the royalties that has many performers setting up their own labels when their first contr
This is different in different places, but in the US the artist is not paid for radio play. There is a different regime in other countries that have signed the Rome Convention on this issue. Australia is a signatory, the US is not.
Artists are paid for internet streaming and other mediums. The record can be copyrighted (since the 1980s) but that has no effect on the royalties paid - those are determined by law and the law does not provide for the artist to be paid for airplay. All airplay is paid through the PROs - ASCAP and BMI being the major players in the US. The PROs are for the composers and publishers, not artists.
This is different in different places, but in the US the artist is not paid for radio play. There is a different regime in other countries that have signed the Rome Convention on this issue. Australia is a signatory, the US is not.
In the US the copyright owner is paid for radio play, but rarely is that the artist as most music copyrights in the US have been owned by the labels for many decades. Even the artists who have music out under their own label do not get paid directly as the copyright holder is their record label and it goes through the label.
It's because of the royalties for radio play and re-releases that some copyright collections are worth many millions of dollars. Paul McCartney is in a long process of trying to regain the copyright ownership of the music the Beatles recorded as the original performance copyrights were owned by their manager and ended up being sold as a group to various people at different times. Michael Jackson owned the copyrights at one time and I think Sony is the current owner.
Michael Jackson owned the copyrights at one time
IIRC Michael Jackson owned most of the Beatles catalog up to his (Michael Jackson's) death. Not sure who got them after that.
It's not really the copyright that's at issue. There are different rights to a song. There is the publisher's rights that are separate from the composition rights. The Beatles and their partners sold the publishing rights to ATV in the 1960s. The composition rights were owned by Lennon & McCartney individually and were not sold.
The newest US copyright law allowed cancellation of a copyright assignment after a certain period of time. That's what McCartney tried to do, but he eventually settled with Sony.
Things are getting confusing with what is being said here. So let's go back to basics, then we'll add a twist or two.
1. A song is written, it is usually written by a lyricist who writes the words and a songwriter or composer who writes the music. They are two different copyrights and each owns their part of the song, although it's possible for a single person to own both or multiple people to own one part.
An example is the musical composition 'Eye Level' which later had words written for it and was released as 'And you smiled.'
1.a. The song copyright owners are paid a royalty by performers for the right to record their song.
2. When a song is recorded the artist or artists own the copyright of the recording. This is often called a performance copyright.
2.a. Most performance copyrights are assigned to their manager or the recording label by the artists via their contract with them.
2.b. Different people can record the same song and each has the performance copyright of their recording.
3. When a public broadcaster like a radio etc. plays a song they pay a copyright fee for doing so. In most countries this is collected and distributed by some form or arcane magic and the money is supposedly distributed to the performance copyright owner, less processing fees.
....................
Process example A: Fred and George write a song called 'Mumble.' Then Harry pays Fred and George a royalty fee to be allowed to record himself performing Mumble and sell the record. The record 'Mumble' sung by Harry is played by the radio station Much Music and they pay a royalty fee to the collection agency who later pays a royalty to Harry.
Process example B, which is the more common case: Fred and George write a song called 'Mumble.' Then the recording company 'Songs by Us' pays Fred and George a royalty fee to be allowed to have their contract singer Harry performing Mumble and sell the record. The record 'Mumble' sung by Harry is played by the radio station Much Music and they pay a royalty fee to the collection agency who later pays a royalty to Sings by Us as their contract with Harry has them owning the copyright of all of the recordings he makes for them.
.....................
Now for a few twists.
Twist 1. Songs by Us folds so their assets are sold off. One of those assets is their catalogue of performance copyrights. They can be sold individually or as a group and then someone else owns the performance copyright. - This can happen many times.
Twist 2. Harry makes a second recording of Mumble for the label 'Universal Songs' and that creates a new performance copyright. Thus there are now to performance recordings of Mumble sung by Harry which are owned by two different copyright. owners.
Twist 3. Songs by Us is a UK company and their recording is made in London, while Universal Songs is a US company and their recording is made in New York. That places the two recordings of the same song by the same artist under different copyright laws and different copyright rules.
............
Note: In the above twists Fred and George would be paid a copyright royalty fee to all Harry to record the song Mumble each time Harry makes a new recording of it.
..................................
In regards to the McCartney v Sony case - it's very complicated as some of the copyrights McCartney wanted back were under US copyright laws due to being recorded in the USA and some were under the very different UK copyright laws due to having been recorded in the UK under their copyright laws. The UK copyrights would not have reverted to him after a certain period the way the US copyrights would.
Your description of the process is not what happens in the US. It may well be what happens elsewhere.
Your description of the process is not what happens in the US.
There may be some differences, but the process in the US is not that far off from EB's description.
What part are you saying is wrong, the legal copyright ownership or the money collection and payment process?
The people who write the song have no legal entitlement to the royalties from the playing of the performance recordings on the radio. It's the radio playing royalties that make the sale of the copyrights of them so valuable.
What you are saying is directly opposite the situation in the US. I am not saying that might not be the case in other countries.
Soundcharts
Blog
ALL
MECHANICS
MUSIC MARKETS
INSIDERS
LOG IN
General • 12 min read
Radio Royalties: How Do Radio Stations Pay Artists?
By Soundcharts Team
Published January 21, 2020
Jump to
How do radio royalties work?
1. Radio acquires a blanket license(s) from its local PRO(s)
2. A song is played on a radio, and the airplay is reported to a PRO
3. The PRO distributes royalties and songwriter gets paid
The songwriter is paid the royalties due
Why songwriters are paid instead of artists
Are deceased songwriters still paid radio royalties?
Conclusion
Some might think that radio stations just cut a check to the artists they put on the air, but this is the music industry we're talking about, so it shouldn't come as a surprise — it's much more complicated. There are thousands of radio stations out there, each playing hundreds of songs every single day and at such a scale the direct payment system just doesn't work. So, the PROs (Performing Rights Organizations) act as a middleman of sorts, doing the administrative work of collecting performance royalties and distributing them to proper artists or their representatives (and taking a cut in the process).
Now, the way that the process is set up is very intricate and also market-specific. In some countries, both the recording artists (owners of the master copyright) and the songwriters (owners of the composition copyright) earn royalties when their songs (and composition) are played on the radio. Then, on each respective side of the music copyright, there's local legislation dictating who gets paid what. Those entanglements are way too complex to cover in a single article, so, a disclaimer: in this overview, we will focus primarily on the US context.
By the time the artist receives the royalty, it has often passed through many hands, and if artists (and their representatives) want to maximize their earnings, they need to know precisely how it works and how much they deserve. So, let's outline the typical scenario of how the money flows from the radio and into the artist's pocket.
How do radio royalties work?
Radio royalties payouts system works by first having the radio station purchase a blanket license from the local performance rights organization(s). Then, the radio station reports the songs it has broadcasted back to the PRO, which uses that data to allocate and distribute the royalties due to proper artists and their representatives. This process can take a while — it's not uncommon for artists to get their royalties more than a year after the actual broadcast took place.
As we've mentioned earlier, in most markets, both songwriters and recording artists are typically paid royalties any time their music is played on the radio. In the US, however, that is not the case. So, for the American-based music industry, only songwriters and their publishers (owners of the composition copyright) are paid performance royalties for airplay. Accordingly, since this article focuses on the US context, from here on out, we will only cover the royalties due to songwriters and their publishers. As for the neighbouring rights on the master side, we will get to it in one of the future articles, so stay tuned!
https://soundcharts.com/blog/radio-royalties
Mechanical royalties are handled entirely differently.
Sadly, I can't access that URL as it violates my security settings and wants them turned off - ain't gunna happen.
Yes the PRO acts as a middleman.
Under the US copyright laws the songwriter has no entitlement to royalties from the artist's performance unless that is in the contract they allow the artist to perform the song under. Thus for the PRO to pay the songwriter and not the owner of the performance copyright would be unlawful. Some contract do allow for air play rights, but most don't.
Mind you, for many decades most songs are performed by the people who write them, but that doesn't always mean they own the copyright.
If what you copied from that blog was true then Paul McCartney would not have been so concerned about getting control of the copyrights for the Beatles recordings as he would be getting royalties from the radio air play of the recordings. However, he was not getting the money as it was going to the current copyright owners of the performances and not a cent was going to the songwriters or the artists involved.
About 2 years ago I was involved in resolving a supposed copyright violation because a major US label was chasing a fellow for huge royalty fees for a perceived copyright violation. The incident was a fellow playing a public performance of a recording made of a particular military band playing a number of common military tunes and the relevant PRO was after the fellow. It took some trouble to identify who to communicate with at the PRO and get the matter resolved.
Now to put this in perspective you need to be aware that every tune played was in the public domain, so no songwriter had any current rights. The performers were a military band and the members were serving members, and as per the usual situation with them they had no personal rights to the recording due to the 'work for hire' laws. However, the recording label had a copyright entitlement to the recording of the band made at a particular performance and that was what the PRO was defending. Please note it was the PRO acting for the recording label defending the copyright and wanting the royalties, not the songwriter nor the artists involved. The PRO was doing their duty to protect the recording label's copyright. It was only after I was able to prove to the PRO that there was no copyright violation did they drop the case. The reason for there being no violation was very simple when fully examined. Yes it was the same military band performing the same numbers, but the recording being played was not the one the recording label owned the copyright to as it was a recording made at another public performance and it was being played by the person who had made the recording. The PRO confirmed the details and dropped the case.
.................
BTW: There is a major difference between the US air play laws and the Australian air play laws. There's only the one difference and it relates to the use of a radio in a work place. Under the US law it's legal to have a radio playing at work to entertain the staff and clients with what is being broadcast. Under Australian law you also have to have a PRO licence as playing the radio at work is classed as a public broadcast and needs it's own license.
Sorry - you are completely wrong and would know it if you did the smallest bit of work to investigate.
There are hundreds of sites that will give you the same information. Just search "music performance royalties in US" or "radio airplay royalties in US".
Anyway, l'm out of here.
I looked into this and found there are three copyrights with recorded music: the lyricist, the songwriter, the performing artist
That list looks wrong. The lyricist and the songwriter would be the same person and the same function. I believe that the correct list would be composer (writes the musical score), lyricist (writes the song, puts words to the musical score), the performing artist(s)
In the US there is only one copyright for the song. There is a separate copyright for the physical recording. The composer(s) owns the original copyright for the song. If the composer(s) assigns to a publisher, it is also entitled to a share of the royalties.
In connection with things other than airplay such as physical records, and digital downloads there are a different type of payments due for reproduction called "mechanical royalties." People involved in the original production of the record are entitled to money for use of that. That gets involved in sampling when part of a track is extracted for use in another record.
All of this gets really complicated. I deal with it a lot and it is still hard for me to convey what happens. But, the premise of the initial post is still wrong. Stations do not have a free use time for songs - they have to pay no matter how much of the song is used.
The composer(s) owns the original copyright for the song.
That depends. If the composer who does the musical score and the lyricist are separate people, the musical score has it's own copyright, as soon as it's written down as sheet music.
I accept that I am mistaken.
Most of my information comes from a half dozen guys who have, or had talk radio shows for a dozen to twenty-five years. Multiple times the issue of what songs could be played as "bumps" and for how long have come up. The issue has been brought up by several hosts on air.
Both the "on-air talent" and several producers and/or technicians work for several different stations in the Seattle, Portland, Oregon, and several markets in California; all had the same general opinion.
My supposition is that, as another Post noted, payment is a "Dark Art" to most, so the general guideline to the guys in talk radio is the "KISS" version and mostly keeps them out of trouble. However, it is Not accurate, so, further along the "telephone chain" (as in the game of pass on the story) it becomes even less accurate.
I think what they were saying is they wouldn't get caught, same as bars that have music but no ASCAP/BMI license. Before the advent of Soundmouse there was no accurate way to track the use of songs outside the license.
That type of IP theft is common. Personally I have been involved in a lot of issues where songs are sampled by hip hop performers. Their general attitude is to steal anything they want and hope nobody recognizes the song they stole.
Stations do not have a free use time for songs - they have to pay no matter how much of the song is used.
Unless they have some agreement with whomever owns the rights to the song.
In an earlier post I mentioned the specific instance of Rush Limbaugh and Chrissie Hynde of the Pretenders who owns the rights to "My City Was Gone" that Rush used as his "Bump" from 1984 until his death. In the late 90's there was an issue raised, and in some manner Chrissie Hynde's parents/father requested she allow Rush to continue using the song, and she consented (apparently, according to multiple sources, with no compensation).
Despite significant divergence in political and social views, c.2011 Rush Limbaugh and Chrissie Hynde were mutually opposed to the US Federal Govt's EPA position on animal testing. Rush made a (approximately, sources don't agree) $100,000.00 donation to PETA specifically to oppose that EPA policy.
I couldn't find any reference to an actual legal contract, however, Chrissie Hynde stated that Rush and his EIB network could use "My City Was Gone" until one year after he died (as a transition period).
Over the years Rush made several statements of thanks to Chrissie Hynde and her father. Chrissie Hynde seems to have done this for her parents/father.
While there are multiple sources, they differ based upon the "political (or social) perspectives/agendas of who ever posted there versions of the stories.
My confusion is in part because some radio talk show hosts have obtained permission from the license holders for the use of one or more songs.
This effects some TV shows too. For example CSI has obtained permission for the use of some songs in episodes, including having the performers perform one or more songs in an episode(s). It is possible to watch these episodes in syndication, or on DVD (or whatever). However, the TV show "Tour of Duty" only had the rights for a bunch of music used in the episodes Only for the original airing. They have had to re-dub the episodes for syndication and DVDs.
Unless they have some agreement with whomever owns the rights to the song.
No. No one can prevent you from playing the commercially published song. Limbaugh might have agreed to stop playing it as a courtesy, but there is no way she could have stopped him from doing it.
Now, if it was a podcast instead of a radio broadcast she could stop it under different rights.
Putting a song in a TV show or movie requires completely different rights - sync rights.
No one can stop you playing it for yourself at home. But what you buy when you buy a record is the right for private performance only and any public performance requires another license or special approval. That's what that big hassle was over about using songs on the political campaigns of 2016 and 2020 - the public use of the music.
As long as you have a performance license you can play it. You have to have the performance license.
BTW - the arrangement of a public domain song is registered with BMI or ASCAP. The arranger is considered the songwriter
Few individuals pay for the public performance license, and that does not come with the usual recording you buy in the shops.
The PRO's would only register a public domain number if the performing artists are listed with them as they have no legal right to automatically register a number or performance, nor can they legally collect for the playing of a performance that is not registered with them. Mind you, that doesn't stop BMI and ASCAP from trying to.
Radio stations pay BMI and ASCAP a flat fee based on revenue. If it's not a music station, there's a different formula used.
A breakdown of all of this is on the BMI website.
On the artist side, stations don't have to log and BMI doesn't track airplay for music play of less than 60 seconds. You have register for another service to get BMI to pay you for that.
How can you differentiate between a 10 second sample of 15 seconds of silence and a 10 second sample of two minutes of silence?
AJ
Not to drag the horse out for another beating, but if anyone is interested in learning more about music royalties in the US here is an easily understood guide:
https://www.indiemusicacademy.com/blog/music-royalties-explained
I have no idea if this website is accurate since I'm not an IP attorney, but according to it the 15 second fair use is a myth. https://smallbusiness.chron.com/copyright-laws-30-seconds-music-61149.html
As a business owner or entrepreneur looking for bang-for-your-buck advertising, you know that a short clip of a high-profile hit is a powerful attention-getter. You may have heard of "fair use," a copyright provision that permits you to use 10, 15 or 30 seconds of music without copyright obligation. That is, you understand that you can use a short section of a song without paying a fee. Yet, you're wondering how exactly this works.
The short answer is that it doesn't work. The 30-second fair use rule is a myth, particularly for commercial use, such as with a radio or television ad. Copyright law is complex, and even when your fair use reasoning is valid, there are other circumstances that may still prevent you from using the music you want without obtaining permission.
It's accurate. Even legit review sites get DCMA notices. Anything more than a very short clip will get you into trouble even when the use is for review purposes. For a commercial, you have no defense at all.