The next front in Copyrights

[Billster]

Termination rights

 

The looming problem is the so-called termination rights Congress gave to creators of copyrighted material when it amended the U.S. copyright law in 1976. The rights -- which allow a copyright grant to be terminated after 35 years -- have bedeviled the film and publishing industries lately in cases involving the Superman franchise, John Steinbeck novels and Captain America comic books. Legal observers say those conflicts will pale next to the ones facing the music industry come 2013. That's the first year holders of sound-recording copyrights can take advantage of this provision, which, in turn, makes recordings from 1978 potentially the first to be up for grabs.

 

Because copyright law requires those seeking to terminate to notify grantees no more than ten years but at least two years in advance, the clock is ticking. As of now, songwriters and performers -- as well as producers, engineers and anyone else who helped create a song -- can send a notice for songs created between 1978 and 1984. That's where "Funkytown" comes in. Steve Greenberg, who wrote, performed and produced the 1980 disco hit under the name Lipps, Inc., recently sent a termination notice to Universal Music Group, the parent company of Greenberg's original label. Greenberg's move is likely to be just the first volley in this music war. "This will heat up quickly," says Lee Phillips. And which of his clients will join the fray? "Maybe Barbra Streisand," he says. "We'll be looking into it. Or The Eagles. They are litigious and could be into this sort of thing."

 

Looking at you, Henley.

[the stranger]

Interesting.

[halfnote]

First I've heard of this, but then I've been on the low-end of the music biz for years.

 

My primary question is this: am I correct in interpreting that these "termination rights" confer SR © to the composers of the work or to the performers of the recording ?

Anyone able to clear that point for me ?

 

One potentially stalling point is that while © is inherent in the creation of a work from inception, its ownership can be conveyed to another by various contracts or sales.

Contracting to deliver recorded work might belie later claims.

 

One thing seems logical re:

" Phillips and other lawyers concede that standard recording contracts often classify what's created by an artist for a label as a "work for hire." But, these lawyers say, the same copyright act that created termination rights explicitly defines what qualifies, for copyright purposes, as a work for hire. And sound recordings, these lawyers say, aren't mentioned.

Ten years ago, the Recording Industry Association of America moved to fix that, lobbying for a last-minute provision to the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act that amended the work-for-hire rule. After President Bill Clinton signed the law, artists such as Sheryl Crow and Eagles frontman Don Henley reacted angrily. The provision was later repealed, leaving the door open to more squabbling over whether sound recordings are works for hire. "

 

A contract to deliver recorded work would seem to make that work done for hire, just as much as the work of a session musician or a jingle writer.

Would such status have to be defined by specific releases, as musicians are sometimes required to sign ?