Musical Copyright "unlikely to be extended"

[Lissa]

It looks as if Sir Cliff's efforts to be a British Sonny Bono have failed as the recommendation of a think tank is to keep musical recordings in copyright for 50 years.

Cliff wanted the copyright extended to 95 years - meaning singers and bands (and their estates) would get royalties for almost twice as long as the current law. Is this fair enough?

Or is 50 years quite long enough to get paid for a few hours work in a recording studio? Is it simply greed on behalf of musicians who have made fortunes off their old recordings and don't want to give up this easy income stream? Surely any argument that less well off musicians rely on this income is nonsense as they would know what the law is and if their financial planning relied upon the law being changed to keep the money coming in then they are rather foolish.

Is it inevitable that this will change sooner or later? With the Beatles hitting the 50 year mark from 2013 isn't it likely their influence will sway the government into protecting a national treasure?

Or should the government stand firm and refuse to change the law of the land for the benefit of a few aging millionaires who were happy with the rules as long as they were in their favour but who are now crying because they stand to lose out?

[Rob McCow]

If they add 45 years onto the licensing laws, loads of things that were out of copyright would suddenly come INTO copyright. Surely that would lead to madness in the courts?

[Anthony Williams]

If they add 45 years onto the licensing laws, loads of things that were out of copyright would suddenly come INTO copyright. Surely that would lead to madness in the courts?

unless they only made it applicable to material that's still under copyright?

As copyright NOT being extended, I do think that it's a bad thing! Particularly in the 21st Century, where the artist being alive 50 years after material was recorded is actually more likely, they can no longer benefit from their own material. In addition, they could have live through load of really poor cover versions!

Ant x

[WileyKat]

I don't agree with the extension to 95 years, but I do think that you should have copyright on your works for life. It's not just millionaires who would benefit, but all the smaller artists - perhaps who only had a couple of hits back in the fifties and sixties. It seems wrong to deny them the small amounts of money they receive in royalties. I'd say fifty years or life, whichever's longer.

It's not fair to equate money earned from a recording to money earned in a normal job. If I do two hours' work, I get two hours' wages. If I make a record in two hours, then I might get nothing. Or lots. Or some. It's not a straightforward equation.

On a side note, though, if the copyright is held by a corporation, then it should be fifty years flat and any attempt to extend it is wrong. Innovate, corporate suits!

[Paul Clement]

50 years sounds about right for me. How much of the yearn to increase it to 95 years is also a vanity that they don't want anyone else singing 'their' songs?

[WileyKat]

You have no control as an artist over who covers your songs. You have no control as a writer over who sings your songs, so long as you get mechanical royalties. (via the PRS in the UK)

If you want to release it on an album, then you need to get clearance from the publisher, but that's often not the same as the artist (and this isn't true in the US, where you can get a compulsory licence for most things).

[Andrew Curnow]

Maybe I'm just mean-spirited, but I think that getting royalties for work for 50 years is pretty good going - asking for it to be extended seems to be really pushing your luck in my opinion.

[Wayne]

Maybe I'm just mean-spirited, but I think that getting royalties for work for 50 years is pretty good going - asking for it to be extended seems to be really pushing your luck in my opinion.

I don't think you're mean spirited at all. I totally agree with you.
I just think it's basically greed, myself. They don't need it.

[Matthew T]

On the other hand, I'd be well pissed off if a song I wrote and sang could be released by anybody, with them taking all the profits!

It's OK for Cliff who's had many hits since the 50s but what about one hit wonders eg. Procul Harem? It's possible their entire income relates to royalties from that one song!

[Pip Madeley]

On the other hand, I'd be well pissed off if a song I wrote and sang could be released by anybody, with them taking all the profits!

It's OK for Cliff who's had many hits since the 50s but what about one hit wonders eg. Procul Harem? It's possible their entire income relates to royalties from that one song!

I agree with Matt. Think of Roy Wood's grandchildren, won't somebody think of Black Lace's children!

[Paul Clement]

Procul Harem? It's possible their entire income relates to royalties from that one song!

I'd worry about anyone who who was living off royalties of one song for around fourty years. Surely they did some other work during the last four decades.

[Wayne]

but what about one hit wonders eg. Procul Harem? It's possible their entire income relates to royalties from that one song!

Tough! If they're fool enough to sit around for 50yrs expecting to live off that, then that's their fault! They should've done something else!
Besides, they've got about another 10yrs to go. I think 50yrs is long enough.
Anyway, notice the ones kicking up the most fuss, are the ones with the most dosh. It's always the same!

[Paul Clement]

Tough! If they're fool enough to sit around for 50yrs expecting to live off that, then that's their fault! They should've done something else!

Wayne, you said it far better than I did.

[Perry Vale]

Anyway, notice the ones kicking up the most fuss, are the ones with the most dosh. It's always the same!

They're the only ones that can afford the lawyers!

[Rob McCow]

And the lawyers make far more money from the larger cases too. I wonder how much of it is the lawyers pushing these issues for their own sakes?

[Jeff]

I always shake my head when people talk about the greed of artists or athletes, when they ignore the wealth of team owners or music industry execs and owners. Like they don't make 10 times as much. If the artists and athletes don't get the money their work generates, who does? The team and industry owners. And what did they do to earn it?

I say if someone creates something, it should be their intellectual property for life. I don't agree with extending the ownership to heirs though.

[Si Hunt]

It's not whether or not the artist still gets money from something they made for life... it's if you think it's fair that someone else deserves to profit from that property while the person that created it is still living. If someone wrote a song 60 years ago, you might not think they deserve paying for it today, but the fact is that song can be re-sold and can generate money - which has to go somewhere. Should it go to the original artist, or to someone who had nothing to do with it?

Si.

[Wayne]

I always shake my head when people talk about the greed of artists or athletes, when they ignore the wealth of team owners or music industry execs and owners. Like they don't make 10 times as much. If the artists and athletes don't get the money their work generates, who does? The team and industry owners. And what did they do to earn it?

It's not case of 'ignoring' it, (& i agree, they earn too much, too.), It's just that the point hadn't been raised.