You Got a Letter or Call From a PRO: What It Is and What to Do

A letter, phone call, or in-person visit from ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, or GMR is a demand from the copyright owners' authorized agent, not a scam. These organizations are performing rights organizations (PROs), and they collect the public-performance royalties that federal law reserves to songwriters and publishers (17 U.S.C. §106(4)). Courts enforce that right against venues that decline to license (BMI v. Evie's Tavern Ellenton, 772 F.3d 1254 (11th Cir. 2014)). Whether you actually owe, and to whom, is a separate question, and it turns on facts the search results tend to get wrong.

Is the Letter or Call Legitimate?

In almost all cases, yes. A PRO is a licensing agent acting for the songwriters and music publishers who own the compositions being performed. Federal copyright law gives those owners the exclusive right “to perform the copyrighted work publicly” (17 U.S.C. §106(4)), and the PRO is the entity authorized to license that right and collect the fee. Playing music in a venue open to the public is a public performance, so the demand has a real legal basis even when it arrives unannounced.

Owners usually ask this as “is this ASCAP letter legit” or “is BMI legit” — and the answer is yes, the organizations are real and the demand class is lawful. The four legitimate PROs in the United States are ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, and GMR. To confirm a specific contact is genuine, check that it names one of those four, that it offers a license (not just a payment), and that its phone number, mailing address, and web domain match the PRO’s official published contact information rather than a look-alike. A genuine PRO demand and a fraudster impersonating a PRO are different things: the first is lawful collection you may owe, the second is worth reporting. If the contact checks out, the next question is not whether it is real but whether you owe anything at all.

Can They Actually Sue, and What Is at Stake?

Yes. The letters and calls are the opening of a documented file, not an empty threat. In BMI v. Evie’s Tavern Ellenton, a Florida tavern kept performing copyrighted songs “without a license despite numerous cease and desist letters and phone calls.” BMI sued, won summary judgment on five works, and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the award of statutory damages, attorneys’ fees, and a permanent injunction in 2014. The court noted it “did not need to make a finding as to whether” the infringement “was innocent or willful” to award damages within the default range, and the tavern’s owner was named individually.

The reason ignoring a PRO contact is the expensive move is the gap between a license and a judgment. A venue’s blanket license typically runs from a few hundred to low four figures a year (the cost of licensing is covered on which PROs apply and what a license costs). Statutory damages under 17 U.S.C. §504(c) run “not less than $750 or more than $30,000” per work, rising to as much as $150,000 per work for willful infringement and dropping to as little as $200 for a proven innocent infringer. A few songs on one night can exceed a full year’s license many times over. The depth of how those numbers are calculated in real cases is covered in what losing actually costs; the point here is that the asymmetry, not the license fee, is what makes doing nothing costly.

One specific trap is worth naming. If a venue claims the music-licensing exemption as a defense without reasonable grounds to believe it applied, 17 U.S.C. §504(d) lets the court add “an additional award of two times the amount of the license fee” the establishment should have paid for up to the preceding three years, on top of other damages. Guessing at the exemption is itself a risk. For how enforcement escalates from a first letter to a filed lawsuit, see how PRO enforcement works.

Do You Actually Owe? Your Music Source Decides, Not Your Size

This is the single point the search results get most wrong. Square footage does not, by itself, exempt you. The only exemption that turns on size, 17 U.S.C. §110(5)(B) (the business exemption added by the Fairness in Music Licensing Act), applies solely to a broadcast radio or television signal. Recorded music (a Spotify or Pandora account, CDs, a commercial background-music service) and live or karaoke music fall outside it at any size.

Under that exemption, a food or drink establishment under 3,750 gross square feet, or another kind of establishment under 2,000, can be exempt when the source is an over-the-air radio or TV broadcast (cable or satellite for the audiovisual part), no admission is charged, and the signal is not further retransmitted. A 900-square-foot cafe playing a personal Spotify account owes public-performance fees; a 5,000-square-foot restaurant playing only an over-the-air radio broadcast may owe nothing. Because the answer turns entirely on your setup, the practical first step is to identify your actual music source. The source-by-source walkthrough is at do you even owe, and the exemption itself, with a self-check screener, is at the §110(5)(B) exemption.

Which PRO Is Contacting You, and Do You Need All Four?

Each PRO licenses only the songs in its own catalog, and the catalogs do not overlap. A blanket license from one PRO covers that PRO’s works; it does not cover the others. That is why a venue that plays a broad mix of music can hear from more than one organization, and why paying or answering a single PRO does not resolve a claim from another. The four are ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, and GMR.

The four are not identically situated. ASCAP and BMI operate under longstanding U.S. Department of Justice consent decrees, which give a venue that cannot agree on a fee the ability to seek a court-set reasonable rate; SESAC and GMR operate without such a decree (verified as of 2026-07-08). Which PROs apply to your venue, and what each one costs, is covered on which PROs apply and what a license costs. For now, the useful takeaway is that “I paid one, so I am covered” is a common and expensive misunderstanding.

What to Do Now

The honest first move is neither to pay immediately nor to ignore the contact. It is to establish the facts before you respond:

Many of the beliefs that lead venues to ignore these contacts (that the letter is a scam, that a small room is automatically exempt, that nonprofit status removes the obligation) are addressed in what the web gets wrong.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is a letter from ASCAP or BMI a scam?

No. ASCAP and BMI are performing rights organizations that license the public-performance right federal law gives to songwriters and publishers (17 U.S.C. §106(4)). A genuine contact from one of them is lawful collection, though it is still worth confirming the sender is a real PRO and not an impersonator before you pay anything.

Do I need a license if a live band or DJ performs, or if a guest plays their own playlist?

Generally yes. Live music, cover bands, DJs, and karaoke are public performances that fall outside the size-based exemption at any square footage, and the venue is typically the party held responsible for performances at its establishment. Whether a specific setup owes is walked through source by source at do you even owe.

I only play the radio. Am I exempt?

Possibly. The §110(5)(B) business exemption can cover an over-the-air radio or TV broadcast when the establishment is under the size threshold (3,750 gross square feet for food and drink, 2,000 for others), no admission is charged, and the signal is not retransmitted. It does not cover recorded, streamed, or live music. The self-check is at the §110(5)(B) exemption.

Can I just ignore the letter?

Ignoring it is what turns a licensing demand into a lawsuit. In BMI v. Evie’s Tavern Ellenton, continued performance after repeated letters and calls led to summary judgment, statutory damages, fees, and an injunction. How that escalation actually unfolds is detailed at how PRO enforcement works.

Does paying one PRO cover the others?

No. Each PRO licenses only its own catalog, so a license from ASCAP does not cover BMI, SESAC, or GMR works, and vice versa. A venue playing a broad music mix may need more than one license.