Re: [ARSCLIST] ^ Letter on British Copyright Term Extension

[steven c <stevenc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Don Cox" <doncox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> On 14/09/06, Bob Olhsson wrote:
> > Steven C. Barr wrote:
> >> First, the concept of
> >> unlimited copyrights only begins to make sense if EVERY artist
> >> (including past artists) owns the copyrights to his/her/its music
> > 
> > EVERY artist DOES own the copyright to his/her music unless they
> > decided that it was worth their while to sell the rights to somebody
> > else.
> > 
> > For the life of me I don't understand why people seem to think this
> > isn't the case.
> 
> Typically the record company also owns a music publishing company and
> finds some way to get hold of the copyright in the music.
>  
During much of the "78 era," music came from professional songwriters,
most of whom were contracted to music publishers (the "Tin Pan Alley"
era). In fact, recording ledgers generally included the name of the
publisher of the song! Some record companies (most notably Grey Gull)
had staff songwriters and in-house publishers to save a few cents).
In fact, Durium/HOW was driven into bankruptcy when they fell behind
in publisher-royalty payments!

With a very few exceptions, it wasn't until the early sixties when
recording artists were expected to write their own songs...and they
are usually so desperate to become "record stars" they sign away
their composer rights to "paper" publishing firms that are actually
subsidiaries of the record labels involved...not realizing they are
actually "giving away money!"

However, in the cases of a few artists (most notably Al Jolson and
Elvis Presley) the shoe wound up on the other foot! They insisted on
a share of the composer credits (and thus the royalties) on tunes
they recorded, on the basis (which does have some validity) that
the songs would usually earn significant royalties simply because
they performed it...

Steven C. Barr