50 Year Copyright Extended To 70 Years

[Guest Carl Dixon]

Hopefully this is the link forthe programme:-

https://www.blogtalkradio.com/alyshalive/2011/09/18/alysha-live-radio-show-with-special-guest-yusuf-wilson

[Guest Paul]

Paul , when you say publisher looking after your interests, these are for the writers, yes? Not the recorded works?....

Although publishers are concerned with songs rather than recordings, some publishers will also assist and advise clients on issues regarding recordings if you don't have a record deal or a strong manager or lawyer. It's extra protection and free advice.

Publishers need to consider recordings when, for example, they find an opportunity for a sync license and they need to be able to clear rights for the song and the master (or they need to collaborate with whoever controls master rights). The same applies to sample clearance etc, it's more efficient for one party to negotiate a combined deal for the song and the master, rather than two parties negotiate individual deals - and sometimes with conflicting results.

As a publisher I've done many things in the interest of the song / composer(s) which have automatically been of benefit to the owners of master rights too. This can be copyright disputes, conflicts, sample clearances, sync deals, dealing with bootlegs, etc.

So in the abscene of a record deal you should continue the do-it-yourself approach (and learn from it, as Ian said) but with publishing you really need professional protection from the start because it's complex and mistakes can be costly. You need a publisher who is affiliated with every society in the world, not just here in the UK, and ideally a publisher who has associates in all key territories - not just for protection but for any opportunities which might be generated.

Many record deals for artists and producers are initiated by their publishers. It isn't their obligation but it's certainly in their best interests.

To do-it-yourself as a publisher is very time consuming, expensive and generally unwise.

Paul

[Ian Dewhirst]

You want to hear what the musicians think about what is going on with their performances hence why I am so adamant.

But surely the record company or whoever paid for the studio time and the musicians are the ones who should be concerned since they own the recordings or am I missing something? Once a musician accepts a session fee, then presumably they only get to receive performance residuals after that don't they, and only then if they register with the appropriate bodies (another grey area by the way) or unless they're credited as a writer. In other words, once they've done the session and been paid, then the performance doesn't belong to 'em anymore does it?

Also, I'm not sure if it's against the law to sample either a bass line or a drum beat as long as it doesn't go over a certain length - maybe Paul can clarify. Clyde Stubblefield must be the most sampled drummer of all time......

Ian D

[Guest Carl Dixon]

Thank you Paul. There is a bigger picture, isn't there? I see it from a control point of view as well, being able to look after my interests in the short term, but letting go in the future. I have an inquisitive mind and do not feel relaxed unless I know exactly what I am doing. That' s just me, but the same me comes up withe the songs, so it is a package I guess. What a terrific thread, and as usual advice that is priceless. I can't imagine the hell that song writers have to go through to get recognition, actually I can now and appreciate their frustrations even more.

My next move is after Christmas, as I am thinking of taking a sabaticle for a few months. I have an idea I want real strings and horn, percussion overdubs on some of my efforts. I want my home towns youth orchestra involved to give them something more to aim for with their studies. If things work out, I could have a London rhythm section, Hull string, horn o/dubs and maybe Detroit and Philly vocals, or what about the other way around! Also, I may ask around and try and get some work experience somewhere in the business. My pdp at work will take me into the legal department to look at copyright, intellectual property rights and trade marks, so, things are on the agenda......

Edited September 18, 2011 by Carl Dixon

[Kris Holmes]

Also, I'm not sure if it's against the law to sample either a bass line or a drum beat as long as it doesn't go over a certain length - maybe Paul can clarify. Clyde Stubblefield must be the most sampled drummer of all time......

Ian D

essentially there is no time limit regarding samples, you have to clear it, no matter how short.

[boba]

essentially there is no time limit regarding samples, you have to clear it, no matter how short.

yeah. there is a myth about getting to use 2 bars or 4 bars free as a sync or sample, obviously not true

[Guest Carl Dixon]

Hi Ian -

yes, there should be a performance waiver which assigns the rights to the record label etc, for them to exploit. It is not always done and just shows how ignorant some are in the music business......like me.

As for the moral issues that I really feel strongly about, it raises a number of things today, rather than yesterday. The guys in 'Double Exposure' were chatting in Bobbys' studio and the general feeling is that their performance, which was for a specific song, cut in a specific week, or overdubbed over a number of weeks is pertinent to that time line and frame. I saw Jimmy Williams sing his heart and soul out (soul being the operative word) on 'Soul Recession' and without a doubt he and the other boys took the song to another level. The issue with some of the old school performers is they get extremely concerned that their original performances are changed by all sorts of means, stretched, distorted, snipped, copy and pasted, re mixed, doubled in length, sampled...so much so, when they are asked to perform the song....they do not know which version to work on, unlike say a Motown cut from 1965...because they are really in the can and the remix anoraks like me, tend to leave alone. My point is, how can a relationship exist between artist, writer, publisher, label, studio etc, when the minute the studio session is over, it's 'everyman' for himself, and it is irrelevant what the writers intended, or the musicians, featured artists etc, just because there is a waiver in existence, and I'm alright Jack. I think the exploitation of a song isn't necessarily keeping the original version 'as is' these days, but to look at re-mix opportunities to generate revenue, especially in todays climate. As for royalties for featured artists from sales, on my Detroit session for example, I pay them from any digital or vinyl sale. If I remix, which I will do and extend lengths, and I may even do a Hammond overdub or two on them, will still pay the featured artist, even though an instrumental. I feel their performance is paramount, and they should be respected for their contribution. I know they are for 'hire'...but I feel obliged that they, down the line should new business models arise due to the technology, should benefit.

I guess I am being a little naive with much of this, but, should any of the songs I write or produce a master for, be successful and pay their way (which non have yet and probably never will), from a label perspective, I would profit share a percentage in the first instance to featured artists and those who came on board and invest another percentage in other sessions, with other performers, artists and musicians. To me, it's about good songs, good productions, trust, reputation and a healthy long term relationship with individuals that can co exist with a common interest: music. The academics which I struggle with, by definition suggest that the very people who like your songs/productions are those to be most fearful of, because in essence some do not have the same scruples and will take the songs/recordings and bastardise them cite: Star Wars cantina parody song. This is brilliant, but as far as I am aware, the writers of the song do not want Copacabana (Barry Manilow) changing at any cost, no matter how much money it could make....somebody! I would hate a parody on one of my songs and somebody else claim they are co writers.......no way (yet!).

[Guest Carl Dixon]

I may have mentioned this before, and Paul correct me if I am wrong, but if a UK musician/artist performs on a UK recording (or in a territory where there is a reciprocal agreement), they are paid 50% of the airplay royalties (the other 50% goes to the label). That artist royalty is split 35% going to the featured artist and the balance pro rata to the other performers/musicians on the session. All American recordings do not qualify for that royalty because they are in a territory without a reciprocal agreement. BUT, the royalty is still collected by the PPL and is in a pot waiting for congress to agree to performer royalties on airplay in the US, then the PPL's may be backdated to 1996 for any US record that has been played on a UK radio station. The problem here is, traditionally, US recordings released on a UK label, or imports played on a UK station, will have no performers registered in the PPL database, because it was pointless doing from a UK label perspective and as for an import...forget about it.

The question is, with these new business methodologies, technology advancing at a rapid rate, and old songs/recordings still having a healthy shelf life (by definition on YouTube, played at gigs, played so much on internet radio sites and pod casts...but where's the money?)....what 's in it for the those who originally conceived the song and recordings, and indeed the musicians? I agree their flat fee should have taken care of that...but can you imagine sat in a studio (garage in fact) in 1965 down Kipling Avenue (off West Grand Boulevard Detroit opposite Motown) waiting to hi-jack some of the Funk Brothers onto a session you are about to record and somebody saying.......'this'll be a great Northern Soul track in 10/20 years. They'll love it, lets make sure we have our collaboration agreements all signed and witnessed, that we have the best tape stock to record the tracks on because we all know, anything other than Ampex tape will have excessive drop out 20 years after recording, that the songs are registered with ASCAP or BMI for our future interests should the songs be synced to a movie in the UK, or indeed used on a commercial, and that we future proof our ideas and look after the interests of those who came on board and made the song/recording/project work' Definitely not, as at that time is was all about hit records and certainly not about compilations, remixes or anything else I guess. The story about Kipling Avenue: Fred Bridges (Brothers of Soul), and a couple of us sat down there next to the garage, where he told us the story about that recording session....priceless, well it was for him back them I guess, but this year, he performs for the first time in the UK in the Brothers of Soul...so his investment worked out in the end. Plus he has been The Four Tops manager for 20 odd years.......

Just as a matter of interest when Jimmy Williams laid down his vocal on SR, we kept hearing a bell ring in the back ground. Eventually, we found out it was Jimmys' mobile in his pocket, so we had to do the vocal again....

Edited September 20, 2011 by Carl Dixon

[Ian Dewhirst]

essentially there is no time limit regarding samples, you have to clear it, no matter how short.

It's different in different territories Kris. I'll do some digging around (maybe Paul can help) but I can think of countless UK records that have sampled basslines, rhythms and persussion without accreditation and who haven't been sued, not that I'm avocating that or anything.

Not much time to dig around, but just found this, which is interesting....

"Not all copyright disputes over uncleared samples are resolved in favour of the sample’s copyright holders. One example is the US case of Newton v Diamond (2003). In this case the Beastie Boys had actually obtained permission from ECM Records to sample a six-second, three-note sequence from James Newton’s flute recording Choir. The Beasties then incorporated the sample as a loop into their song ‘Pass The Mic’, which featured on the album Check Your Head. Unfortunately, the composer of the tune, James Newton, sued, as he hadn’t given his permission for use of the underlying composition.

On appeal, the court confirmed an earlier ruling that no infringement had taken place. The court was of the opinion that the use of the sample was minimal, the two records weren’t substantially similar, and also that the public wouldn’t recognise any appropriation of Newton’s composition. (Though it should be stressed that recognition alone is no legal barometer of whether another work has indeed been copied.)

Other defendants on the receiving end of sample infringement claims in the US have been able to rely on the defence of ‘fair use’. Fair use is a doctrine not recognised in UK, which permits copying for the purposes of criticism, reporting and review. The aim of the US legislators who enshrined this in law in 1976 was to allow authors to build upon, and transform existing works, but without the requirement of buying a licence to do so. The rights accorded to the copyright holder needed to be balanced with the broader cultural benefits of allowing artists to borrow from, re-work, and comment upon existing works of art. If Andy Warhol could re-work the images of Campbell’s soup or Marilyn Monroe, then a fair use defence would argue that today’s gangsta rappers should be free to sample their source of musical inspiration to produce new and original work".

It's still a very grey area if you ask me.....

Ian D

[Guest Carl Dixon]

Fascinating.....and to me one word covers it: respect, and there ain't much of bit about hence "Soul Recession'.

Talking of which, I sent a copy of SR and the presser to The White House this morning! That'll be interesting.

[Kris Holmes]

As far as the sampling thing is concerned, there is not a time limit, but there is a case as to whether it is fair use (I don't think Fair Use really stands up regarding music, I thought it was more for written works) or a defining characteristic of the new track (ala Beastie Boys). The fact that countless people haven't been sued is probably just a case of them getting away with it when technically they are breaking the law.

[Ian Dewhirst]

As far as the sampling thing is concerned, there is not a time limit, but there is a case as to whether it is fair use (I don't think Fair Use really stands up regarding music, I thought it was more for written works) or a defining characteristic of the new track (ala Beastie Boys). The fact that countless people haven't been sued is probably just a case of them getting away with it when technically they are breaking the law.

Wow. You sound pretty genned up on this Kris. Do you study the law in this area? I'm curious because I'm generally in favor of greater transparency and access in most situations but the music biz is still pretty murky in some areas, not least this kind of thing.

I know records which have blatently sampled some Northern Soul riffs and not credited the original in any way, either in using the master recording or using part of the song. So naturally I'm curious. Does the EEC have an accord on this stuff? I need to study up on this stuff a bit more......

Ian D

[Kris Holmes]

Wow. You sound pretty genned up on this Kris. Do you study the law in this area? I'm curious because I'm generally in favor of greater transparency and access in most situations but the music biz is still pretty murky in some areas, not least this kind of thing.

I know records which have blatently sampled some Northern Soul riffs and not credited the original in any way, either in using the master recording or using part of the song. So naturally I'm curious. Does the EEC have an accord on this stuff? I need to study up on this stuff a bit more......

Ian D

let's just say I've been through the mill a couple of times regarding sampling

a particularly tricky/frustrating one is on the go at the moment in fact

[Ian Dewhirst]

let's just say I've been through the mill a couple of times regarding sampling

a particularly tricky/frustrating one is on the go at the moment in fact

Ah, you're a musician or producer then. The thing that always kills me is the expense in going after people. I hope the lawyers aren't taking all the money!

Best of luck. I've been there myself.

Ian D

[Guest]

Not saying this is bad news but isn't it moving the goal posts as such? After all, a large portion of artists never saw any royalties at all let alone adulation. This lends to thinking that this is purely for the financial benefit of record labels or current owners of 'song' copywrite.

It makes me wonder if current song writers etc, have made adequate provision for the protection and payment of their labour in years to come. Or aren't they as worried as the big label record companies. I'd go with the latter. "let's make a buck and not give a f*ck".

[Ian Dewhirst]

Not saying this is bad news but isn't it moving the goal posts as such? After all, a large portion of artists never saw any royalties at all let alone adulation. This lends to thinking that this is purely for the financial benefit of record labels or current owners of 'song' copywrite.

Yes, correct Karen. The primary recipients will be the owners of the copyright but obviously it also extends the royalty period for artists too, so theoretically good for everyone involved if they receive royalties.

It makes me wonder if current song writers etc, have made adequate provision for the protection and payment of their labour in years to come. Or aren't they as worried as the big label record companies. I'd go with the latter. "let's make a buck and not give a f*ck".

The songwriters benefit from the 20 year extension. They've just got another 20 years of royalties from nowhere.

Ian D

[Guest Carl Dixon]

If anybody is interested I have just spent about 6 hours filing Copyrights in the sound recordings of some works. And yes, it is extremely frustrating knowing that on the one hand copyright is automatic if you create something tangible, and on the other hand, best to do something a little more official....just in case. Litigation often calls for evidence other than PRS/PPL records, and indeed the old chestnut a sealed recorded delivery to yourself with the item in there. The problem with that scenario is, if I can prove I wrote the song 10 years before you, without a registered envelope...I would 'Walk away the Winner':

https://soundcloud.com/55motown/walk-away-the-winner