Karaoke: Who Owes, and Who Pays

For karaoke, the establishment that hosts the night owes the public-performance license, and it is the party a performing rights organization (PRO) names when it sues. The karaoke host (the KJ) running the rig does not carry that obligation for the venue, and no clause in a host agreement moves it. Karaoke is one of the most heavily litigated music-licensing patterns against bars in the current enforcement record, and the belief that "the KJ handles the licensing" is the specific assumption that produces judgments.

If a PRO has already sent a letter or called about your karaoke nights, the overview of what to do when a letter or call arrives maps the response, and the demand-letter response walkthrough covers the reply in detail. This page explains who is actually on the hook, and why the common answers get it backward.

The Venue Is the Party That Owes

Federal copyright law reserves to songwriters and publishers the exclusive right “to perform the copyrighted work publicly” (17 U.S.C. § 106(4)). Singing a song to a room is a performance of that song, and a bar open to the public is a public place, so a karaoke night is a series of public performances of the underlying musical compositions. The PROs license that right on the owners’ behalf and enforce it against the establishment that hosts the performance.

The establishment is the licensee and the defendant because it is the party that authorizes and profits from the performance: it advertises the night, opens the room to the public, and takes the drink and cover revenue the music draws. Courts have enforced that obligation directly against venue operators. In BMI v. Evie’s Tavern Ellenton, 772 F.3d 1254 (11th Cir. 2014), the Eleventh Circuit affirmed a judgment against a bar and held its owner personally and jointly liable for the unlicensed performances. Who physically pressed play, or ran the microphone, does not change who the law treats as responsible for the room.

Why “The KJ Handles the Licensing” Does Not Hold

The reassurance most owners are given, by a host or by a search result, is that hiring a KJ moves the licensing question off the venue. It does not, for three separate reasons.

A host’s own license is not the venue’s license. A karaoke host may hold permissions tied to the karaoke tracks themselves (the reproduction and format of the accompaniment files). Those are a different right from the public-performance right the venue owes on the compositions being sung. Whether a KJ’s track files are themselves properly licensed is a real question, but it is a question about the KJ’s product, separate from and beyond the venue-licensing question this page covers.

Independent-contractor status does not move the obligation. Owners often reason that because the KJ is a hired contractor rather than an employee, the licensing exposure travels with the contractor. It does not: the venue’s responsibility follows from hosting the public performance on its premises for its own benefit, not from the KJ’s employment classification. How liability is allocated between a venue and a host, and the four tests that decide it, are covered on who is liable for music licensing.

A contract clause shifts money, not liability. A “host is responsible for all music licensing” clause is an indemnity: a private agreement about who ultimately pays if a bill comes due. It can shift reimbursement between the venue and the KJ, but it binds only those two parties. It does not license the performance, and it does not stop a copyright owner from naming the venue in a demand or a suit, because the copyright owner is not a party to it. The venue remains the infringement defendant; the indemnity is a separate claim the venue would have to pursue against the host, and it is worth only what the host can actually pay. Whether such a clause is worth having, and how to read one, is a question for a licensed attorney.

Karaoke Is Not Covered by the Small-Venue Exemption

The most common escape owners reach for is size: the belief that a small enough room is exempt. There is one size-based exemption in the statute, 17 U.S.C. § 110(5)(B), and it applies only to a transmission “originated by a radio or television broadcast station licensed as such by the Federal Communications Commission.” Karaoke is a live performance in the room, not the communication of a broadcast signal, so it falls outside that exemption regardless of the venue’s square footage. Square footage only ever mattered for over-the-air radio and TV in the first place. Which music sources can and cannot qualify, and the size and equipment conditions that go with them, are covered by the Section 110(5)(B) exemption screener.

What Karaoke Cases Have Actually Cost

The enforcement record is specific, and it runs against venues.

In June 2026, a federal magistrate judge ordered the Baltimore venue Ottobar to pay $18,500 over three unlicensed karaoke songs in a suit brought by BMI: $12,000 in statutory damages plus $6,500 in attorney’s fees, with the infringement ruled willful. The court set the statutory figure at roughly 2.5 times the venue’s estimated annual license (about $4,800), declining BMI’s request for $60,000 and its argument that the award could run as high as the statute’s $150,000 willful ceiling. The venue had conceded liability before the ruling. (Verified as of 2026-07-20.)

A separate 2026 action shows the same pattern on the ASCAP side. In a suit filed in March 2026, ASCAP named the New Orleans venue Garage Music Club among a group of establishments, documenting two karaoke performances from September 2025 and stating it had made more than 80 licensing contacts with the owner since December 2022 before suing. (Reported by Verite News; verified as of 2026-07-20.)

Both matters targeted the venue, not the host. The reason the numbers land where they do is the damages structure: statutory damages run $750 to $30,000 per work, and up to $150,000 per work if the infringement is willful (17 U.S.C. § 504(c)). A handful of songs on one night can exceed a year of license fees several times over. How enforcement escalates and how those figures are calculated in court is covered on how PRO enforcement works.

One point owners ask about directly: stopping karaoke does not undo the nights already played. A performance a PRO has documented is a fixed fact; changing the setup going forward addresses the future, not the past. If a claim is already in motion, that is the point to route it to the demand-letter response and to counsel, not to a cancellation notice alone.

Deciding Whether the Night Is Worth It

The real question behind the search is whether a weekly karaoke night is worth the exposure it carries. That is a business calculation, priced against two real numbers: what the required licenses actually cost, and what an unlicensed judgment has cost venues like Ottobar. This page does not compute what any specific bar owes, because that turns on which catalogs the night reaches and each PRO’s own quote.

The practical sequence is short. Confirm whether any part of the setup could be exempt (the exemption screener checks this, though karaoke itself will not qualify). Identify what licensing the night requires and what it costs on which PROs apply and what a license costs. If the venue also runs bands or DJs, live music and cover bands covers those. And if a letter or call has already arrived, respond to it before anything else.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does the Karaoke Host’s License Cover My Bar?

No. A karaoke host’s licenses, where they exist, generally cover the host’s own track files, which is a different right from the public-performance license the venue owes on the songs performed. The venue is the party the PRO licenses and sues for the public performance, so a host’s setup does not stand in for the venue’s license.

Does the Small-Venue Exemption Cover Karaoke?

No. The only size-based exemption, 17 U.S.C. § 110(5)(B), applies only to a broadcast radio or TV signal (for TV, cable or satellite delivery of a broadcast station also qualifies). Karaoke is a live performance, not a broadcast, so it is outside that exemption at any square footage, even for a small bar. The size numbers were never about live or recorded music.

The KJ Is an Independent Contractor. Isn’t Licensing His Problem?

The venue’s obligation comes from hosting the public performance on its premises for its own benefit, not from whether the host is an employee or a contractor. Contractor status does not move the public-performance license off the venue. How responsibility is allocated between a venue and a host is covered on who is liable for music licensing.

Does a Contract Making the KJ Handle Licensing Protect the Venue?

Such a clause can shift who ultimately pays, but it does not license the performance and does not prevent a PRO from suing the venue, which is not a party to the agreement. The venue stays the defendant and would have to pursue the host separately for reimbursement, which is worth only what the host can pay. Whether a clause like that is worth having is a question for a licensed attorney.

Does Stopping Karaoke Now End the Problem?

Stopping addresses future nights, not past ones. A performance a PRO has already documented is a fixed fact that a later cancellation does not erase. If a demand or suit is already in motion, the next step is the demand-letter response and, for a live dispute, a licensed attorney.