A B.C. musician has voiced her objection to VANOC's demands that she sign away all her rights in order for the Olympic organization to even consider her song for use during the upcoming Games. After submitting the song, organizers responded with a contract requring her to give up ownership and royalties before they would listen to the song.
B.C. Musician Upset Over VANOC’s Control of Song Rights
14 Comments
Recent Posts
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 200: Colin Bennett on the EU’s Surprising Adequacy Finding on Canadian Privacy Law 
Debating the Online Harms Act: Insights from Two Recent Panels on Bill C-63 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 199: Boris Bytensky on the Criminal Code Reforms in the Online Harms Act 
AI Spending is Not an AI Strategy: Why the Government’s Artificial Intelligence Plan Avoids the Hard Governance Questions 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 198: Richard Moon on the Return of the Section 13 Hate Speech Provision in the Online Harms Act
…
Yeah, consumers are the real thieves…
Can I charge my friends money when they ask me to listen to songs on the radio?
Frankly, this isn’t all that different
from a lot of contests, etc, where the item that you submit becomes the property of the organization running the contest. It would have been useful for VANOC to have publicized these conditions prior to her sending them the song, but at least she still retains the rights. She doesn’t have to sign. Check out the releases that you need to sign for “America’s Funniest Home Videos” (http://site.abc.go.com/primetime/afv/?pn=forms) and submit with the video.
What does she give up if she does sign? Her rights to that song. What does she gain? If they use the song, she gets free publicity. The trade-off is her decision to make.
“What does she give up if she does sign? Her rights to that song. What does she gain? If they use the song, she gets free publicity. The trade-off is her decision to make. ”
You should read the agreement they sent her in particularly:
“I acknowledge and agree that VANOC and its licensees may in their discretion use the Proposal in any way and for any purpose whatsoever, without any further agreement with me or any other person, without any compensation to me or any other person, and without identifying me or any other person as the creator or source of the Proposal. ”
They don’t have to credit her, so wheres this free publicity comming from then???
A very good question
And I won’t argue with her on this one.
Cultural Ownership
VANOC has demonstrated from day one that they believe that all cultural artifacts that come into contact with the Olympics, or that may be of use to the Olympics, should be their property. From inuit symbols to music rights to artistic speech, the stance is nothing short of a program of cultural theft. Sadly, I know they don’t intend that and don’t see it that way, but it’s really just a runaway ideology of taking from the publics and making all things private.
Rights
I’d be interested in reading the full text. I expect it requires that Vanoc demands the rights to the song, but I would be very surprised if they asked for her performance royalties as a writer. That’s a distinction folks sometimes neglect to make. The writers royalties are sacrosanct and cannot be assigned to anyone else. The rights and publishing royalties are what it sounds like Vanoc is demanding, and it’s the harsh reality of the current world – and is what film composers increasingly facing.
@db
I did read the agreement before posting. My point stands. Unless she has already signed, VANOC currently has no rights with respect to the song. By signing, she voluntarily gives up those rights. There is nothing externally that requires her to sign, only her own desire to get VANOC to listen to it.
@Shari Ulrich
In essence, what the film composers appear to be increasingly facing is the reality for the rest of us. The contract you come to when you write something states what you are to be paid, what your rights are with respect to the work and the rights of whoever commissioned you to do the work. You can take less money and retain some rights; or take more money up front and not retain those rights. If, as an artist, there are rights that you have that cannot be taken, even for a commissioned piece of work, then you have rights that most of the rest of us don’t. For instance, I don’t get paid when the company that I currently work for, or a company that I previously worked for, sells a piece of software that I wrote; I have absolutely zero (0) rights for a royalty.
This occurs in a number of areas, not just the arts. It occurs often when doing contract work in high-tech (for instance, the project I am currently working on is that way, I’ve also worked on a contract where the company that contracted us paid more, but had all of the rights to what we did).
Now, is this a bit excessive? Perhaps. However, welcome to the 21st century. Our corporatocracy is flourishing.
@ Anon-K
“I did read the agreement before posting. My point stands. Unless she has already signed, VANOC currently has no rights with respect to the song. By signing, she voluntarily gives up those rights. There is nothing externally that requires her to sign, only her own desire to get VANOC to listen to it. ”
Did you even read what you wrote and what I replied with?
You stated she stood to gain “free publicity”, I mearly pointed you to the section of the agreement that stated they do not have to “identifying” her. So where is that ‘free’ publicity that they are giving her coming from?
@db
Yes. I did. Agreed that VANOC has no requirement to publish her name. Does that necessarily mean that, if asked, they won’t say who wrote the song? In any case, she has performed this publicly prior to submission (from her website: Nicole wrote Sea To SkyWay soon after Vancouver won the July 2003 bid to host the 2010 winter Olympics. The song was first performed with her R&B band Red Hot Strings during a public concert in Place Des Arts in Coquitlam BC on March 12, 2005. The current version of the song was recorded in January 2009). While she may lose the rights to perform, those people who have heard it may remember and tell two friends, who tell two friends, etc. Sometimes all that is necessary is to get your song noticed to get people asking who wrote/performed it. That is what I meant by free publicity. Perhaps free publicity wasn’t exactly the right phrase to describe what I had in mind; may be better to say that it would get her work wider exposure than it would normally, at no direct cost to herself.
@Anon-K
Alan Willaert, is that you?
@GT
No, it isn’t.
My point is that, if she chooses to sign over the rights, she still has the potential to gain because of it. The question is, is the potential gain sufficient to make it worth her while to sign it over? Only she can make that determination.
Of course, VANOC should at least be publishing the names of the contributors for stuff like this (if the contributors agree to be recognized); I’d consider this to be giving back to the community that helped put together the games (not just the artists but anyone who volunteered their time and/or money).
However, the agreement basically means that the contributor has no right to expect to be publicly recognized, much less paid for the use of the song. Consider it a volunteer contribution to the 2010 games, no different than if you contributed hours of work.
what gain?
financially speaking, free publicity isnt worth anything to a songwriter. there are lots of hit songwriters who have had huge publicity with big international hits…..they’re being flushed down the toilet every day as they earn nothing from the new music world on the internet…..get your dream heads out of the clouds folks
Re
Yeah definitely very
friendly for the elocutionists it was pleasant to read about this post! If you need to get a great job firstofall you need resume services. Study and don’t forget – if you have to work and study at the same time, there areold pros who are ready to benefit you with your resume when you under time burden and looking for a great job.