Yes, they are, if they are copyrighted.
Wanna know why you never hear people sing “Happy Birthday” on TV or in the movies? Until recently, this is why.
If I sadly have to attend the church of my fathers, I’ve found not only has Hymns Ancient and Modern been replaced with The New English Hymnal ( I don’t really mind, but frankly a lot of modern praise is dire, in a clap-happy soft way ) [ see wiki hymnals under Anglican section ] and in both even 18th century hymns * have a copyright symbol and usually a reference to Kevin Mayhew[ Ltd ] who appears to administer copyright at least.
How do the funds get from the coffers of BMI, ASCAP and SESAC get into the hands of the actual songwriters (copyright holders)?
The licensing organizations have a database of songwriters. They factor in how often their songs are played and send a check. Note that the songwriters get a very high percentage of the money taken in; ASCAP and the like keep their administrative costs down to pass through most of the money to the writers.
Tell her that Under The Milky Way was a great song and Starfish was a terrific album.
Restaurants, either.
Heathen. 
I still get confused with Counting Crows vs Casting Crowns.
It was back in the '80’s. Glen Burnie, MD. I definitely remember seeing at least one sticker. Frankly it was so long ago, that there could have been an ASCAP logo there too, I just don’t remember.
Dolly Parton said something to the effect that she wasn’t sorry the Whitney Houston made Dolly’s song “I Will Always Love You” famous (again), because she got royalties every time it’s played.
StG
My favorite song by the Church is “Tantalized”.
As for hymns and other should-be-public-domain sacred music, while the song itself may not be copyrighted, certain arrangements may be. I’ll ask our organist tomorrow if I remember.
The songwriter is the only person in music who consistently makes money - mostly because written sheet music predates the record industry and they had their whole system set up to benefit songwriters. Unless you’re talked into giving up your song publishing, you get a fixed amount for every single and album track.
Proper licensing is a big deal. Hereis a short article about one lawsuit filed by BMI against a Cleveland nightclub from a couple of years ago. It points out that establishments may need up to three licenses, costing at a minimum $800.00 each annually.
Now that you mention it, the music at my church is about an equal mix of songs old enough to be out of copyright and songs new enough that they would be. Does someone have to keep track of what proportion of church music is in copyright, or do they just assume a standard mix? Or are all of the modern songs in the hymnal there because their composers have given a blanket license for churches to perform them? That would explain why there are a few names that come up over and over again on the bylines (David Haas, Bernadette Farrell, etc.).
No, it’s hardly a oxymoron. I wish people would stop misusing that word.
Sure, if you do not consider “christian rock” to be “music” then it is an oxymoron.
Emphasis mine.
I’m not sure what you mean by “put their own copyright,” but if a piece of intellectual property like a movie is out of copyright, you can’t create new copyright just because you happen to whack the movie onto a DVD and sell it.
There are dozens on places online where you can find movies whose copyright protection has expired. If I take one of those old, out-of-copyright movies and stick it onto a DVD, i can legally sell as many of those DVDs as i want. What i cannot do, however, is claim to hold copyright over the movie. Nor can i prevent anyone from showing that movie in any setting they like. Simply changing format, or making a copy of a public domain work, does not create new copyright.
I read that in a more Jack Chick-like “christian” and “rock music”. But both work.