the clock is ticking on the old guard...

[daddymack]

http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/16/don-henley-urges-artists-to-know-their-rights/?ref=music

 

The 1978 release application threshhold for getting the 'termination rights' is happening; you have to apply two years in advance...

This could be a major nail in the coffin for the Big Four labels as far as income stream, as they rely more and more on their legacy titles to keep them afloat. The battle lines are being drawn, arguments for the RIAA are pretty thin; NARAS seems to be holding the winning hand in the long term.

Thirty five years is a long time to have to wait to get back control of your own product, but there it is.

[sventvkg]

{censored} the RIAA...Seriously..Labels shouldn't own ANYONE'S copyrights PERIOD! It's one thing to be signed to them and have them rip you off for years on end but another to presume they can {censored}ing OWN AN ARTISTS WORK!! DIE DIE DIE DIE!!!! I would punch any of them in the face if they were present right now this makes me so mad....

[3shiftgtr]

wow....the earth is moving right under our feet....work for hire...I remember the flub about that years ago....what bull{censored}...what other work for hire job on the entire planet loans the worker the money, spends the worker's loan for them and then pays themselves out of the worker's earnings, of which the worker gets none til the 'employer' gets his plus back....also notice the wind he sucked in when he was asked why players on the recording date shouldn't get {censored}?

 

Maybe the new model is if you want to keep your {censored}, all you'll ever be able to do is loan it out.....

[sventvkg]

The Model is {censored} those Theives and make no mistake, people understand what's up nowadays. It's not like back in the old days when artists didn't know any better. It's insane. I would NEVER NEVER NEVER give my copyrights away. I will give some publishing away and possibly all of the publishing away on a single song basis if that opportunity could lead to more and better ones..But other than that no way..My pub deal now is 50/50 which is fair... As far as session men..They are in a work for hire situation and have nothing to do with the song. Arrangements and parts can't be copyrighted, on the the melody and lyrics.

[daddymack]

wow....the earth is moving right under our feet....work for hire...I remember the flub about that years ago....what bull{censored}...what other work for hire job on the entire planet loans the worker the money, spends the worker's loan for them and then pays themselves out of the worker's earnings, of which the worker gets none til the 'employer' gets his plus back....also notice the wind he sucked in when he was asked why players on the recording date shouldn't get {censored}? Maybe the new model is if you want to keep your {censored}, all you'll ever be able to do is loan it out.....

never been divorced, eh?

 

the 'work for hire' issue was pushed out of the equation several years back...the RIAA are grasping at straws as they slip down the slope. The negative side is, to me, the thirty-five years...who thought that was a great idea for the artists?

Ten years would have been reasonable, IMHO.

As to the non-copyright holders, well, typically they are contract employees paid for the one session...but the producers, who, IMHO, have as much to do with the success of a recording's sales as the artists, are the ones who get no long term benefit; arguably,yes they too got a payday at the time, but they get left out beyond that.

[flatfinger]

Contractually obligated you are !!!

 

 

It's a bitch , but if they have lawyers then you better have them too....

 

The U.S. has the most per capita than any other country in the world ..... 1 for every 295 citizens .

[flatfinger]

never been divorced, eh?

 

 

" She got the gold mine ; you got the shaft .....":lol:

[EvilMinstrel]

Record companies don't own copyrights, except in rare circumstances. They own master recordings. Usually because they paid for the recording. This will affect publishing more than it will the other side. There are a lot of people in the world that know absolutely nothing about the music industry, and those are usually the ones who do most of the talking in these discussions. By and large it goes both ways, and it is a very unpopular truth in today's cultural landscape to point out that the universally vilified record companies ripped off a much lower percentage of artists than people like to believe.

[sventvkg]

 

Record companies don't own copyrights, except in rare circumstances. They own master recordings. Usually because they paid for the recording. This will affect publishing more than it will the other side. There are a lot of people in the world that know absolutely nothing about the music industry, and those are usually the ones who do most of the talking in these discussions. By and large it goes both ways, and it is a very unpopular truth in today's cultural landscape to point out that the universally vilified record companies ripped off a much lower percentage of artists than people like to believe.

 

 

Well I do know and so do many others on these forums. I do think Record companies are crooks. On a GRAND, GREAT Scale.

[flatfinger]

Nothing wrong with having a subjective opinion ; perhaps next time you could also include

anecdotal evidence as well .

 

 

 

An artist needs to have a good team behind them; a manager , an accountant , and a entertainment lawyer . If these folks are all loyal and honest, then he or she will be fine .

 

( Provided some sort of revenue stream and positive cash flow are to be had )

 

Perception isn't always reality .Many athletes want to renegotiate their contracts after they have taken advantage of the opportunity afforded them , as also many an artist have cried the blues and vilified the entertainment company who they are attempting to renegotiate their deal with . It's a way to attempt to acquire leverage . They paint themselves as uber victims and get the sympathy of their fans .

 

There are bad citizens in any industry . But on the other hand , the many who have received a fair shake aren't out raising {censored} and complaining and thus remain under the radar .....so that aspect isn't as visible and publicised in comparison to the squeaky wheels .

 

Of course most will continue to choose dichotomous thinking and simplify the situation as black and white ; especially when they can in addition use it as a convenient rationalization to " stick it to those bastards " and not only become thieves , but feel justified and smug about their thievery as well .

 

Great stuff ,,,

[BlueStrat]

A major record company is much like a booking agent who gets you gigs and then demands that you work for them exclusively, that they get to decide how much to promote you and at what expense, that they can decide to not book you if you don't live up to expectations but keep you from booking elsewhere, and then take 100% of your earning until they decide they're paid back. Sound about right?

[daddymack]

pretty close...the crux here, though is more about the publishing and the masters, but in some cases, the writer credits, and therefore the copyrights and publishing royalties, were diluted to include, oh, maybe the A&R guy...or the producer... but that was much more common prior to the 'rock era', though. In some cases, the labels controlled and stipulated where the publishing went. That could prove to be very lucrative for the label, if they had their finger in the publisher's pie....which many did. Funny, there was so much ballyhoo in the film biz about studios owning theater chains, but no one batted an eye about labels controlling publishers.

[flatfinger]

Most of the horror stories that are served As all encompassing truths involve wide eyed artist who did not read a sentance of the documents they signed. There is no such thing as a standard contract and any decent negotiator will tell you that you must be willing to walk away.

[EvilMinstrel]

 

pretty close...the crux here, though is more about the publishing and the masters, but in some cases, the writer credits, and therefore the copyrights and publishing royalties, were diluted to include, oh, maybe the A&R guy...or the producer... but that was much more common prior to the 'rock era', though. In some cases, the labels controlled and stipulated where the publishing went. That could prove to be very lucrative for the label, if they had their finger in the publisher's pie....which many did. Funny, there was so much ballyhoo in the film biz about studios owning theater chains, but no one batted an eye about labels controlling publishers.

 

 

I've seen this scenario many times! I work in publishing ,so all those things tend to come out in the wash over time. Luckily, a lot of the older writers do end up with someone who will correct this for them. I worked for 3 years at a publishing company that had a lot of what would be considered heritage acts from New Olreans. THose guys got screwed around endlessly in the 50's, but at this point their stuff is being handled correctly and most of the crooks of the day have been relegated to alt titles where they can only collect royalties if their specific master recording is used, and more often than not, the labels avoid using it for that reason. Give people a bad name once, and they'll avoid you forever.

[EvilMinstrel]

 

Most of the horror stories that are served As all encompassing truths involve wide eyed artist who did not read a sentance of the documents they signed. There is no such thing as a standard contract and any decent negotiator will tell you that you must be willing to walk away.

 

 

I can tell you that I've seen documents for a certain influential reggae artist where his signature spells his name wrong because he copied it from the printed name under the line because he couldn't read. It was like that for almost 40 years, and it was spelled wrong at BMI for that reason too.... until I fixed it for him.