Members 6StringSling Posted August 17, 2011 Members Share Posted August 17, 2011 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/16/arts/music/springsteen-and-others-soon-eligible-to-recover-song-rights.html?_r=3&pagewanted=1&hp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members riversitter Posted August 17, 2011 Members Share Posted August 17, 2011 Post 1978? The originators get screwed again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vito Corleone Posted August 17, 2011 Members Share Posted August 17, 2011 Post 1978? The originators get screwed again. The "originators"? Someone else recorded "Darkness on the Edge of Town" before Springsteen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members riversitter Posted August 17, 2011 Members Share Posted August 17, 2011 The "originators"? Someone else recorded "Darkness on the Edge of Town" before Springsteen? Obviously I'm talking about Little Richard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Crustee Posted August 17, 2011 Members Share Posted August 17, 2011 Bruce did "Tutti Frutti" on that album?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vito Corleone Posted August 17, 2011 Members Share Posted August 17, 2011 Obviously I'm talking about Little Richard. I thought Thomas Edison invented recorded music. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vito Corleone Posted August 17, 2011 Members Share Posted August 17, 2011 This probably will only settle some issues and create new ones. It's probably fairly easy to determine who the artist was who recorded and is deserving of the "termination rights" to 52nd Street or Darkness On The Edge of Town. But who is going to get the termination rights to a Milli Vanilli or Spice Girls album? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members kmart Posted August 17, 2011 Members Share Posted August 17, 2011 But who is going to get the termination rights to a Milli Vanilli or Spice Girls album? Whoever draws the short stick? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members New Trail Posted August 17, 2011 Members Share Posted August 17, 2011 Unless I'm misreading the story, this is regarding the original master recordings, not song authorship, correct? I'll be interested to see how this turns out. For example, if an artist, say Bruce Springsteen, signs a record deal that says that the record company owns the original master recordings in perpetuity, can a new law supercede that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vito Corleone Posted August 17, 2011 Members Share Posted August 17, 2011 Unless I'm misreading the story, this is regarding the original master recordings, not song authorship, correct? I'll be interested to see how this turns out. For example, if an artist, say Bruce Springsteen, signs a record deal that says that the record company owns the original master recordings in perpetuity, can a new law supercede that? Yes, I think so, and I think that's why the law couldn't be back-dated, so to speak, so that Little Richard can get the rights to his recordings in the 50s. I don't think it is legally possible for an artist to sign a contract today that would determine the rights of his recording 35 years from now. That's what this law is saying. But I think there will certainly be some legal issues about who the "artist" is. For "artists" that have their name on the record but are essentially little more than just one part of a product put out by a production team---who is the artist there? Who will get the rights to the "Hannah Montana" master recordings? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members wardjames Posted August 17, 2011 Members Share Posted August 17, 2011 This is simply a copyright issue. For songs after 1978, the copyright to the song (not just the master recording) goes back to the artist after 35 years. The reason this doesn't apply to pre-1978 recordings is that the reversion clause would have likely created a due process issue if retroactively applied. This should apply to masters, ASCAP and BMI payments, etc. The record company's arguement is ludicrous. The Eagles, Bruce, etc. were employees??? Were they paying workman's comp premiums on the artists? What a joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vito Corleone Posted August 17, 2011 Members Share Posted August 17, 2011 This is simply a copyright issue. For songs after 1978, the copyright to the song (not just the master recording) goes back to the artist after 35 years. The reason this doesn't apply to pre-1978 recordings is that the reversion clause would have likely created a due process issue if retroactively applied.This should apply to masters, ASCAP and BMI payments, etc.The record company's arguement is ludicrous. The Eagles, Bruce, etc. were employees??? Were they paying workman's comp premiums on the artists? What a joke. I don't think this is about SONG copyrights, is it? For one thing, many artists don't write the songs so the copyrights can't go back to them. And copyrights are covered by laws that exceed 35 years. I believe this is just about master recordings and who owns the rights to them. Where I see this getting murky is in deciding who legally "owned" the ARTIST at the point in time of a particular recording. Say we're talking about Joe Rockstar's first album that came out in 1978. Now if he was under contract to Big Shot Management at the time who had some typically-oppressive contract given to new acts, does Joe get the master recordings? or the Management company? What about these current artists who sign these "360" deals? I'm thinking of stories like the one about the horrible contract Billy Joel signed with "Family Productions" who put out his first album. The only way he could get out of that contract and sign with Columbia for his 2nd album was to give Family a cut of his next 10 albums. Which is why you see that logo on all his records. Will be interesting to see how this plays out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members wardjames Posted August 17, 2011 Members Share Posted August 17, 2011 I don't think this is about SONG copyrights, is it? For one thing, many artists don't write the songs so the copyrights can't go back to them. And copyrights are covered by laws that exceed 35 years. I believe this is just about master recordings and who owns the rights to them.Where I see this getting murky is in deciding who legally "owned" the ARTIST at the point in time of a particular recording. Say we're talking about Joe Rockstar's first album that came out in 1978. Now if he was under contract to Big Shot Management at the time who had some typically-oppressive contract given to new acts, does Joe get the master recordings? or the Management company? What about these current artists who sign these "360" deals?I'm thinking of stories like the one about the horrible contract Billy Joel signed with "Family Productions" who put out his first album. The only way he could get out of that contract and sign with Columbia for his 2nd album was to give Family a cut of his next 10 albums. Which is why you see that logo on all his records.Will be interesting to see how this plays out. No, I'm pretty sure this specifically applies to the copyright itself. See http://www.wixenmusic.com/coyright_reversions.htm and search for "Section 203 Reversion". The basic idea is that if I sell you my song after 1978, then 35 years later I have the right to take back the copyright, regardless of the terms of our deal, unless I was your employee at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vito Corleone Posted August 17, 2011 Members Share Posted August 17, 2011 Yeah, seems it applies to both? Interesting. And confusing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members New Trail Posted August 17, 2011 Members Share Posted August 17, 2011 ....The record company's arguement is ludicrous. The Eagles, Bruce, etc. were employees??? Were they paying workman's comp premiums on the artists? What a joke. "Work for Hire" has been mentioned. I would imagine that if it were ruled that the artists were 'work for hire' for the record company then normal things like workmans comp, social security deductions, tax deductions, etc., would not apply. However, it seems a F A R stretch that artists could be considered employees of record companies in ANY scenario. I can't see any way that the artists lose this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members jimiv Posted August 17, 2011 Members Share Posted August 17, 2011 This is simply a copyright issue. For songs after 1978, the copyright to the song (not just the master recording) goes back to the artist after 35 years. The reason this doesn't apply to pre-1978 recordings is that the reversion clause would have likely created a due process issue if retroactively applied.This should apply to masters, ASCAP and BMI payments, etc.The record company's arguement is ludicrous. The Eagles, Bruce, etc. were employees??? Were they paying workman's comp premiums on the artists? What a joke. I dunno, may not be as ludicrous as it appears at first blush. I could see where the argument can be made that the contract signed by the artist in question was an really an employment contract even though we all have traditionally referred to such as "recording contracts". It is hard to say without reading the terms in the contract itself, but I can see the argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members wardjames Posted August 17, 2011 Members Share Posted August 17, 2011 I dunno, may not be as ludicrous as it appears at first blush. I could see where the argument can be made that the contract signed by the artist in question was an really an employment contract even though we all have traditionally referred to such as "recording contracts". It is hard to say without reading the terms in the contract itself, but I can see the argument. I have a feeling that "work for hire" is a very specific contractual agreement and would need to be specifically stated in contractual agreements. Where it would likely apply would be Nashville style writing contracts where a songwriter is hired specifically by a company to write songs. This copyright law is specifically designed to avoid situations where artists sell huge songs for pennies on the dollar. The irony is that a song that retains some sort of value after 35 years will often belong to a huge artist who's already very wealthy, but whatever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members jimiv Posted August 17, 2011 Members Share Posted August 17, 2011 Actually, as the article hinted, the controversy will surround the issue of independent contractor status, which if found by the factfinder to be established would be good for the artist. The elements of independent contractor status are well established and revolve mainly around who has control over the end product and the means by which that product is made, who provides the tools, sets the working conditions, etc. those types of things. The law professor from Columbia needs to brush up a little on her independent contractor law as "paying social security" is a small part of a multi-pronged test. As we all know and some of us here have direct experience with this, the record companies are all about controlling the end product and means by which to achieve said product. Control of the artist by the record company is the sine qua non of such contracts. Therefore, I think independent contractor status would be hard to establish unless your contract specifically elevated you above the fray,....which I doubt it did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators daddymack Posted August 18, 2011 Moderators Share Posted August 18, 2011 No, the article clearly points out that since nearly all contracts stipulate that the monies paid to the artist are an advance against earnings on royalties, the 'independent contractor' stance will hold up, as it precludes any possibility of there having been an 'employee/employer' relationship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vito Corleone Posted August 18, 2011 Members Share Posted August 18, 2011 No, the article clearly points out that since nearly all contracts stipulate that the monies paid to the artist are an advance against earnings on royalties, the 'independent contractor' stance will hold up, as it precludes any possibility of there having been an 'employee/employer' relationship. Yep. I don't see how the record companies can argue "work for hire" when the "employee" is paying for all the costs of the recording. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members jimiv Posted August 18, 2011 Members Share Posted August 18, 2011 No, the article clearly points out that since nearly all contracts stipulate that the monies paid to the artist are an advance against earnings on royalties, the 'independent contractor' stance will hold up, as it precludes any possibility of there having been an 'employee/employer' relationship. I'm not sure what you disagree with: my statement that the article implies that the main issue will be independent contractor status or a rebuttal to the record company position that there is an employee/employer relationship. I suspect the latter, but I am not trying to argue the merits here; just responding to wardjames' point that the record company position was ludicrous. I just don't think it is, thats all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.