[Richard Crowley]

"Carey Carlan" wrote ...
(Scott Dorsey) wrote :
This is not pre-recorded music. The church uses
copyighted sheet music for their live-performance
anthems and service music.

Do they pay fees for the performance? Wherever that
money goes is where the money for podcasting rights go.

No. I'd assume the live performance rights are included
in the purchase price of the music.

Unless explicitly stated in writing you can safely assume
that this is never the case. Performance rights depend on
many factors and are not covered by any kind of blanket
fee included in the price of the sheet music or score.

I've never seen a church pay performance fees for
ordinary service music

Right. Because educational institutions and houses of
worship are exempt from performance fees, at least
here in the USA. Some public venues (such as a
municipal concert hall/auditorium) may build-in the
public performance fees into the cost of renting the
hall. But some don't. You must check each case
independently.

except when broadcast or recorded.

Right. Because those are different uses and are not
exempt, even if performed by a school or church, etc.

Perhaps I'm asking the wrong question. If a church
podcasts its services, do they owe anyone anything?

Yes. They owe "broadcasting" fees to the copyright
owners. Note that this applies not only to the music
that your choir/organist performs, but also to the
pastor's sermon. I have heard of issues related to
the copyright status of recorded sermons (believe it
or not). If you had a lawyer working on this, they
might very well have you get a legal release from
your pastor for the sermon content, etc.

There are no revenues generated (the usual
measure for ASCAP and BMI payments).

Revenues play no role whatsoever in setting fees for
(for example "mechanical" rights) the right to distribute
audio recordings, i.e. CDs or cassettes. Mechanical
fees are set by law and you can buy mechanical licenses
online at Harry Fox for most popular music.

Revenues play *some* role in setting fees for public
performance, but fees are due even when tickets are
free.

Potential revenues play a large role in some other kinds
of fees like those charged by production music distributors,
(where the fee for using the same music in a national ad
campaign is maybe 10x as much as for a local radio spot)
or the negotiated price people get for using their music in
a major motion picture, etc ("synchronization" rights).

I believe that "podcasting" is no different than any other method
of distributing audio recordings (at least as far as the law is
concerned.) But they consider live streaming more like
traditional "broadcasting". Likely because the law seems
to always lag many years behind modern technology.

Note that IANAL (I am not a lawyer) and you would be
stupid to take any of this as any kind of advice except to
illustrate that you need professional legal help.