Musicians win copyright extension to 70 years.

[mysterysinger]

http://m.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/s...a&type=article

[theboyfromxtown]

Am I reading this right..the old recordings must be made commercially available, either by the record company or the artist.

Who would be the "artist"? The singer or the musician or producer, arranger, songwriter...

[Hotspurman]

Am I reading this right..the old recordings must be made commercially available, either by the record company or the artist.

Who would be the "artist"? The singer or the musician or producer, arranger, songwriter...

My understanding is that the record company would have to make the repertoire available following a request from the artist [[or the estate, if he/she is deceased). There is some dispute as to what constitutes 'available' - is it physically or digitally available? The plan is that if the record company fail to comply within a set period, the rights would revert back to the artist.

If you've followed the various threads regarding Hallmark [[and more recently Not Now) issuing public domain material, you will know where I personally stand on the copyright term. If a record company has not earned back the initial costs within 50 years, would an additional 20 years make much of a difference? And if they have earned them back, why should they have a another 20 years monoply on them?

Someone should ask George Michael what he thought of the copyright extension. If you recall, a major part of his argument for trying to get his Sony contract terminated was that he had paid back all of the advances, recording costs, marketing costs etc on his albums but still didn't own them.

[theboyfromxtown]

But who would be the "artist" that carries the leverage to force the record company. Most recordings have a multitude of "artists"involved....eg the Andantes, the musicians etc.

I hear your argument about "earning" and the additional 20 years. However, if I buy shares or stock in a company as an investment, my right to receive dividends or interest continues until I sell the investment.

There is a lot riding on this case by former Joe Meek artists who recently forced one Youtube poster to remove all unreleased recordings.

[Hotspurman]

Unreleased recordings is a different kettle of fish altogether. I'm not advocating that everything should be fair game after fifty years, but material that was released fifty or so years ago should be in the public domain, in my opinion. Take the situation with Motown as an example - The Twistin' Kings was released, albeit briefly, in 1961 and after the initial pressing was sold that was it. Nothing available for a further forty nine years. And not only in the US - not one of Motown's UK distributors ever saw fit to release the album. Had the change in the copyright law come in earlier, the album would have remained unavailable for another twenty years. The Twistin' Kings is maybe not the most important album ever released, and there were never going to be enough potential buyers to justify its re-release by Universal, but companies like ours can justify it with lower print runs.

Taking my corporate hat off for a moment, there are countless albums I'd love to be able to buy but can't because they are not available in any format other than original vinyl. I don't have a record player at home, sold most if not all of my vinyl for reasons of space and have built up a sizeable CD collection. I prefer physical CDs to downloads, but even then, not everything I want was issued on CD or if it was there was such a short print run as to makre them almost impossible to get hold of - The Crusaders' Unsung Heroes, Herbie Hancock's Lite Me Up being just two I've been searching for for ages. So, to my mind, allowing a decreasing number of major companies to increase their monoply for a further twenty years doesn't make sense. And how the Americans can justify a 95 year copyright term is beyond comprehension.

I remember reading somewhere a good few years ago, just before the US term was extended to 95 years, that there were several interested parties who wanted to make the term a million years [[I kid you not). When told that would constitute perpetual copyright, they agreed to knock one day off the term.

[Sotosound]

The artist is the person or persons who had a contract with a record company that resulted in royalties being paid to them as a result of sales of recordings, i.e. normally the named group or artist, but sometimes the producers if the ‘artists’ are just there for the purposes of promotion or don’t actually exist.

Producers, backing singers, session musicians etc. don’t always figure in such contracts.

Therefore compensation isn’t always directly proportional to the value of someone’s contribution either.

In reality, and if I’ve understood things correctly, this new legislation doesn’t speak to George Michael’s concerns inasmuch as it pertains to the artist losing all rights to earnings, not having to share them with a record company.

Also, if I’ve interpreted the new legislation correctly, then the artist will now have some leverage to force a record company to release a recording; and if the company doesn’t want to do so then the artist will be within their rights to do so instead.

Either way, the recording will, in theory, get released and the artist will have the potential to earn some royalties. It will, however, also be for both parties to work out whether or not there is any money to be made from releasing something.

This could be the ultimate obstacle, i.e. are there sufficient funds available, and will a profit be turned?

Once this law is in place it might also be that some record companies discover that for some reason or other they can’t locate certain master tapes. If this is the case then achieving release will be harder still.

I’m guessing, therefore, that artists with a huge repertoire and a lot of clout might benefit from this legislation, whereas others with, perhaps, one minor hit and no money won’t really notice the difference.

From a collector’s perspective, the question also arises regarding what will happen about those recordings currently in the public domain that will suddenly be copyrighted again.

Boom and bust in some respects for Not Now, Avid etc. with a rush to buy affected recordings by big artists before they have to be withdrawn?

Also, will such companies then enter into agreements with less successful artists to get otherwise un-releasable stuff out there?

[Hotspurman]

Anything that has fallen into the public domain will remain in the public domain. Unlike the US the term extension will not be made retrospective, so that means that Hallmark, Not Now et al can continue releasing pre-1961 material [[assuming the new term goes through later this year) forever and a day.

I'm assuming that if the record company cannot locate the original master tapes, will the artist have any greater joy? Are they likely to have kept copies - somehow I don't think so. Also, there are scores of labels that have bitten the dust over the last five decades, so locating their master tapes might well be impossible.

[Sotosound]

I've found that how hard one looks for something often depends upon the consequences of finding it.

[copley]

OK, I'm very confused! I understand that the Twistin' Kings album had never been re-issued in 49 yrs until this year. However the Marvelettes debut album 'Please Mr Postman' was re-issued on CD in the '90's and again the whole album was included in 'Forever: The Complete Motown Albums, Vol. 1'. So how was it able to be re-released if the same rule applies?

[Hotspurman]

The Marvelettes Please Mr Postman was originally released in 1961, meaning it fell into the public domain [[in Europe) at the start of 2012. It does not matter that it had subsequently been reissued over the years - it did not get a further 50 years of copyright protecftion. I used the Twistin' Kings as an example to show how specific albums could now virtually disappear for ever with the extended term. So let me offer a couple of other examples - Paula Greer, Johnny Griffith Trio and Dave Hamilton were all originally released in January 1963 so under the 50 term would have become PD in January 2014. That is now unlikely to happen - they will enjoy a further 20 years protection until 2034. What do you reckon the chances of Universal releasing these albums before then? So if Universal won't release them and Hallmark and Not Now can't, they have all but gone. You can also add George Bohanon, Ralph Sharon and Amos Milburn to the above list. So unless Paula, Johnny, Dave, George, Ralph and Amos specifically ask for their albums to be issued, I'm afraid you're never going to see them available commercially.

[Hotspurman]

The Marvelettes Please Mr Postman was originally released in 1961, meaning it fell into the public domain [[in Europe) at the start of 2012. It does not matter that it had subsequently been reissued over the years - it did not get a further 50 years of copyright protection. I used the Twistin' Kings as an example to show how specific albums could now virtually disappear for ever with the extended term. So let me offer a couple of other examples - Paula Greer, Johnny Griffith Trio and Dave Hamilton were all originally released in January 1963 so under the 50 term would have become PD in January 2014. That is now unlikely to happen - they will enjoy a further 20 years protection until 2034. What do you reckon the chances of Universal releasing these albums before then? So if Universal won't release them and Hallmark and Not Now can't, they have all but gone. You can also add George Bohanon, Ralph Sharon and Amos Milburn to the above list. So unless Paula, Johnny, Dave, George, Ralph and Amos specifically ask for their albums to be issued, I'm afraid you're never going to see them available commercially.

[copley]

Thanks for the explanation

[mysterysinger]

Guess we'll have to wait for the Complete Motown Albums series before we see those titles released!!

[kenneth]

The Marvelettes Please Mr Postman was originally released in 1961, meaning it fell into the public domain [[in Europe) at the start of 2012. It does not matter that it had subsequently been reissued over the years - it did not get a further 50 years of copyright protection. I used the Twistin' Kings as an example to show how specific albums could now virtually disappear for ever with the extended term. So let me offer a couple of other examples - Paula Greer, Johnny Griffith Trio and Dave Hamilton were all originally released in January 1963 so under the 50 term would have become PD in January 2014. That is now unlikely to happen - they will enjoy a further 20 years protection until 2034. What do you reckon the chances of Universal releasing these albums before then? So if Universal won't release them and Hallmark and Not Now can't, they have all but gone. You can also add George Bohanon, Ralph Sharon and Amos Milburn to the above list. So unless Paula, Johnny, Dave, George, Ralph and Amos specifically ask for their albums to be issued, I'm afraid you're never going to see them available commercially.

Quite the disappointment. I was hoping to see those titles come out.

How does this affect Hallmark's business plan? Does this mean even the material from the 1961-62 time frame will become protected again and thereby impede its release? Will there be other material which becomes available? Does the future catalog still seem viable in terms of marketing, or bleak?

[tamla617]

hotspurman
your quote
I remember reading somewhere a good few years ago, just before the US term was extended to 95 years, that there were several interested parties who wanted to make the term a million years [[I kid you not). When told that would constitute perpetual copyright, they agreed to knock one day off the term.quote

there are people locked up over there with several hundred year sentences and maybe thousands!so when they get out of sing sing.....................theres a terrible joke there somewhere!

[Hotspurman]

When the barrier comes down and wel have nothing new for twenty years, we will concentrate our efforts on material that is still in the public domain. And there is a lot of it - we have merely scratched the surface - there are still loads of Al Bowlly albums we have not yet touched! The problem is our target market gets older at the same rate as us - will that audience want more Al Bowlly, or Charlie Kunz, or Paul Whiteman, or Bing Crosby?

As I have said on countless occasions, this is not about protecting the rights of Paula Greer or any of the artists I mention above, it is purely and simply about protecting The Beatles, Beach Boys, Rolling Stones and others from that era. Do Paul McCartney, Brian Wilson and Mick Jagger need furhter protection? Have they not already earned enough?

Perpetual copyright is coming, either through the back door or front door, but it is on its way. I wonder what the original founding fathers would have made of it.

[kenneth]

Thanks for the additional information. I agree; releasing these titles seems to be in the public interest.

Will the '62 or '63 titles, such as the Columbus Mann, be able to come out before the cut off?

On a side note, wasn't it J. M. Barrie's "Peter Pan" which originally extended the copyright duration laws, so that its revenues could benefit a children's charity? Or maybe that was just for that one work...or maybe just an anachronistic story.

[Hotspurman]

My understanding is that 1962 albums will fall into the public domain but not 1963 - that is certainly the story that the BPI [[the UK's industry body) are putting out.

Peter Pan has been put into perpetual copyright by the government with all royalties going to the Great Ormond Street Hospital. This is unique - the decision to extend the copyright did not affect the overall copyright term and so far as I know there are no plans to impose perpetual copyright on any other item.