Tuesday, February 21, 2012

Copyright Act of 1976 - Termination

Copyright is the ultimate protection for artists, musicians, and producer’s works. Because of this, it is wise to learn as much as possible regarding copyrights so you can defend and attack copyright infringers and other problems. Today I bring you some information that you may not have known about the Copyright Act of 1976. What most people know is that this act states the basic rights and fair use rights for copyright holders. What most people do not know is the termination rights that are in 17 U.S.C §. This amendment gave the right to songwriters and musicians to terminate or transfer copyrights after thirty-five years have passed. This is very helpful for those artists/musicians who gave their copyrights over to record labels and did not get much back in return. You can say that this is sort of a second chance. What this means is that in 2013, there is going to be many court cases regarding this subject since this is when the law goes into effect. Now, the next thing to look for is the fact that you cannot apply for this transfer if your work was made work for hire. For example if a recording studio contracted you to work on a song in their studio and they provided you the materials for you to work, then you cannot ask for the transfer or termination of the copyright. All work that you were paid to do was not yours, but of the label, unless stated otherwise in a contract. The next step is to give the record label or the publisher a notification of at least a minimum of two years before the thirty-five years have passed. Failure to do so will not make you eligible to participate in this process. A well known case that is an example of this took place in 2011, where Victor Willis, the lead singer of the group The Village People, is trying to acquire back the copyrights for songs such as “YMCA” and thirty three compositions which he created or co created. The problem with this is that his works where works for hire. Stewart L. Levy who represents the publishing companies in this case stated, “We hired this guy. He was an employee; we gave them the material and a studio to record in and controlled what was recorded, where, what hours and what they did.” As you can see, 2013 will be an interesting year in the music industry.

References

Monday, February 6, 2012

Copyright Infringement

The following are court cases that have influenced and had an impact on the music industry in some way, form, or shape.

The first case is the A&M Records Inc. vs. Napster Inc. in the Implications for the Digital Music Library. Napster is a peer-to-peer file sharing system. A person can upload from their computer an MP3 file online and another person can download that MP3 file from anywhere in the world to their computer. Napster was sued because they were conducting copyright infringement. They were duplicating the works and distributing them to the public. Napster was ordered to shut down from the world. However, Napster came into a settlement with the National Music Publisher Association. Napster agreed to pay twenty six million dollars for music that they distributed as well as ten million for future royalties.

Napster was the pioneer for online piracy. They knew what they were doing. Napster could have been the original iTunes, if they would have seen this great opportunity and done everything legally. However, sadly, this was not the case. Napster has as much right to be sued as the users who use it. Napster knew what their users were doing and they let it happen.

The second case is the George Harrison vs. Bright Tunes Music Corporation. George Harrison was a former member in the band The Beatles. In his solo career, he released a song called “My Sweat Lord.” This was his first single as a soloist. "My Sweat Lord" reached number one on the charts for a number of weeks. Bright Tunes Music Corporation filled a lawsuit against George Harrison for copyright infringement. George Harrison’s “My Sweat Lord” was too similar to Chiffon’s “He’s So Fine.” It was implied that it was the same song, with the exception that the words were different. The court ruled that even though George Harrison may not have intentionally committed copyright infringement, he still had to pay $587,000.

Even though, by all accounts, George Harrison did not intentionally copy Chiffon’s song, he is still guilty. I disagree with Bright Tunes Music Corporation for waiting until the song hit number one in the charts before they sued George Harrison. It seems they were waiting for him to make money and then go after the money in a lawsuit. They should have sued when they first heard the song.

The third and final case is Grand Upright Music, Ltd. vs. Warner Bros. Records Inc. Grand Upright Music sued Warner Bros. Records for copyright infringement. Biz Markie has a song called “I Need a Hair Cut” in which he sampled material from Gilbert O'Sullivan’s song called “Alone Again.” It was clear that Warner Bros. Records Inc. knew that they were committing copyright infringement. They tried to argue that Grand Upright Music did not have the copyright to the song “Alone Again.” The judge simply referred the case to the United States Attorney for criminal prosecution. The charges were intentional infringement against Warner Bros Records Inc. The judge who held this case was highly criticized for his actions. This case affects the Hip Hop genre greatly because fewer samples are being used in songs. It was clear who was guilty and innocent. There was no need for the judge to extend this dispute when he could have ended it right there. Warner Bros. knew they were committing infringement and continued as if it was all right.

Sources

Text Widget