The Cost of Copyright Term Extension
3 Comments
Recent Posts
How Much Further Will Lawful Access Go?: Police Chief Tells Bill C-22 Hearing That Three Years of Metadata Retention Would Be “Ideal” 
Bill C-22’s Groundhog Day: Why the Government’s Dismissal of Signal, Apple and the U.S. Congress Concerns Runs Back the Disastrous Online News Act Playbook 
Slick Videos Won’t Save Lawful Access: Why The Government’s Bill C-22 Defence Avoids the Charter, Privacy and Security Concerns Raised By Critics 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 268: Sara Grimes on the Moral Panic Behind Banning Kids from Social Media and AI Chatbots 
U.S. Congressional Leaders Warn Canadian Lawful Access Plans Harm U.S. National Security and Economic Interests
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.