[Table of Contents]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [ARSCLIST] Public's rights....was offlist archival question from ARSC list member

Hi George:

The legitimate argument from the record companies/copyright owners is that they paid for the sessions and if the payment was for playing for X hours in a studio and they owned the tapes at the end of the day, they can release what they want. I do see their point but I think in a lot of cases, short term greed dillutes long-term standing of the artist (and thus annuity-type constant steady sales) because art is kind of like Oz, you really don't want to show what's behind the curtain in most cases. Here's a for instance -- I have a good friend who does still photographs for movies. We've discussed how he can look at a movie he's worked on and know exactly how it was put together, how a scene played out, how many takes, etc. I tell him that would ruin the experience of seeing the movie for me -- I like to digest the whole product at once and take in the overall artistic vision of the writers, producers and directors and enjoy the magic of good acting. Someone who really loves the art, it would seem to me, wouldn't want to know how the sausage is made.

But, like I said, what a record company owns in its vaults, it owns. These are commercial enterprises and they have a right to use their copyrights for whatever commercial purposes they desire. I just think some of this is exploitive of the original artists (not all of it by any means) and in most cases it dillutes the artist's historic standing except among completist-fetishists and academics (which make up a very small slice of the potential commercial market). So it's usually bad business thinking.

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message ----- From: "George Brock-Nannestad" <pattac@xxxxxxxx>
To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 7:35 AM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Public's rights....was offlist archival question from ARSC list member

From: Patent Tactics, George Brock-Nannestad

Tom Fine wrote:

Roger, it's not the "fan base's" right to hear what the artist, producer and
record company don't want to release. These are COMMERCIAL products.
You as a fan do not own the artist, you mearly
purchase the right to own and enjoy what the artist puts forward as their
art. If you don't like that, take music lessons and make better art.

----- Tom I could not agree more (although I have stricken your examples).
However, I maintain that the basis for the decision not to issue is the moral
or ideal right ("droit moral") of the artist. It only becomes a commercial
decision when the record company decides to keep it in-house. If they later
decide to issue it after all, in spite of the artis'ts objections, then they
are actually infringing the moral rights - these cannot be assigned. The
moral rights are fundamentally eternal, and not dependent on date of death
and whether you are a relative.

----- in Denmark there is a special provision for "subsequent sales" of works
of art (painting, sculpture). If it is sold at auction, the original artist
and his heirs during the copyright period will receive a fixed percentage of
the sale price. A collecting agency takes care of these matters.

Kind regards,


[Subject index] [Index for current month] [Table of Contents]