[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ARSCLIST] ^ Letter on British Copyright Term Extension
On Tue, 12 Sep 2006, steven c wrote:
> Except (and this was my point...) that the copyrights on the sound
> recordings
> of this "old music" AREN'T held by their creators (in the sense of
> artists)...
> nor do those people receive any income from them! Copyrights in sound
> recordings are held by the companies who made the recordings, since
> they are legally considered "works for hire" and very few of the artists'
> contracts called for royalties on record sales.
>
> Further, the companies that hold the copyrights have so far shown minimal
> interest in making any but a select few available, citing as an excuse, "We
> can't make any money on them!" All well and good...but they can also legally
> bar anyone else from making them available on the grounds of "copyright
> infringement."
Which reminds me of the fact that the record companies are once again
making fools out of the artists. They have convinced artists that rights
need to be protected in perpetuity...however, the rub comes from the fact
that the artist usually gives the label exclusive rights to
the use that copyrighted recording...or the company owns the
copyright...so, it is up to the company to decide if your
recording is going to be available or not. Sure you may own the recipe for
your salad dressing, but if nobody is going to bottle it and nobody is
going to put it on the shelf, you don't make any money.
Karl (who puts a clause in each of his contracts which has the full rights
revert to the artist should their product not be made available by my
label)