No related posts.


From CCH to ChatGPT: How Canadian Copyright Law Played the Key Role in Deciding a Leading AI Training Data Case in India
Starting Over: Court Filing Confirms the CRTC’s Streamer Contribution Decisions Are Dead With a Full Online Streaming Act Reset to Come
The Name on the Window Was Enough: The Attacks on Kiva’s and the Normalization of Antisemitic Violence in Canada
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 277: Kate Robertson on the Risks That Lie Behind Canada’s Unexpected Signing of the UN Cybercrime Convention
A Surveillance Treaty in Disguise: The Trouble With Canada’s Quiet Decision to Sign the UN Cybercrime Convention
Michael Geist
mgeist@uottawa.ca
This web site is licensed under a Creative Commons License, although certain works referenced herein may be separately licensed.
Before anyone gets their backs up on the 4%, I have to ask who owns the IP on the songs? It is entirely possible this is an effect of the agreements signed by the artists in question.
As I understand it in the past (and perhaps the present as well) the artist signed over a portion of the ownership of the work in return for up front consideration (cash), in particular for artists that are just starting out. Established artists, who are more likely to be able to provide a “guaranteed” revenue stream for the publisher are often able to negotiate a better deal for themselves since they are less risky to the labels.
Now, let’s not also forget that the rights may be purchased by a label if the artist, or their estate, decides to sell the rights for cash.
anon-k says: ‘As I understand it in the past (and perhaps the present as well) the artist signed over a portion of the ownership of the work in return for up front consideration (cash), ..’
Ok but then why do the labels get the extra cash grab from mthe extention. It is basically changing the agreement after the contract is signed.
@db: I don’t follow your argument. If the artist signed over full or partial ownership of the work, a sunset clause would have been needed in the contract for the ownership to revert to 100% artist. If there wasn’t, then the original agreement is still in effect. To give all of the money to the artist in these situations would amount to the government changing the agreement.
Note that this goes both ways. These days a number of more popular actors are negotiating a cut of the profits of a movie in return for taking less money up front. Unless there exists a sunset clause in the contract, that actor continues to get cheques from the studio for that movie.