CHANGES IN COPYRIGHT LIFESPAN

[Stratpicker]

From the BBC News today
"Musicians are set to receive royalties from sales and airplay well into their old age under a new EU ruling.
On Monday, the EU Council voted to extend the copyright on sound recordings from 50 to 70 years.
The move follows a campaign by artists like Cliff Richard as well as lesser-known performers, who said they should continue to earn from their creations."

As if they haven't milked it enough already!!!!!
cheers
ian

[JimN]

It hasn't happened yet.

JN

[Rick50]

By being paid for work that has been done (something we all expect?) ensures that the person concerned finds it worthwhile to carry on producing the product or service - in this case the music that we all love!
It's hard enough to try and imitate/replicate some of this - oh for the talent to create something really fresh that makes your neck tingle.....

[iefje]

Does this have consequences for all those budget CD releases, which have appeared by the truckload? I guess the ones which have been released will still be legal, because those were issued when this law did not exist yet. If record companies would want to release recordings by Cliff Richard and/or The Shadows, they would have to pay royalties for those again. Are my statements correct or am I wrong?

[Didier]

Not good news for labels who started to reissue Cliff & Shads EMI recordings over 50 years old...

Didier

[dave robinson]

Not good news for labels who started to reissue Cliff & Shads EMI recordings over 50 years old...

Didier

Well it isn't as if we need any more releases, it's bordering on embarrassment in the supermarkets these days, seeing The Shadows CDs on sale for as little as £3.00 in some cases.
I don't go along with churning out the same old stuff in a different running order and different packaging. That aside the artistes deserve the royalties and it's right that they should continue to get paid. I never could tolerate the 'want it for nowt' brigade.

[iefje]

Not good news for labels who started to reissue Cliff & Shads EMI recordings over 50 years old...

Didier

Well it isn't as if we need any more releases, it's bordering on embarrassment in the supermarkets these days, seeing The Shadows CDs on sale for as little as £3.00 in some cases.
I don't go along with churning out the same old stuff in a different running order and different packaging. That aside the artistes deserve the royalties and it's right that they should continue to get paid. I never could tolerate the 'want it for nowt' brigade.

I 100 percent agree with you Dave! The quality, presentation-wise and sound-quality-wise are well below par with those releases, which is, forgive me for saying, really appalling.

[dave robinson]

The quality, presentation-wise and sound-quality-wise are well below par with those releases, which is, forgive me for saying, really appalling.

This is true and at one time I was using such a recording as a benchmark against my experiments when trying to copy the sound. I was constantly arguing with people who were saying that my guitar sounded too trebly - I eventually realised that the CD was inferior quality and was giving me a 'wrong' example of the recording. It had to much high mid and top end boost. We live and learn.

[Didier]

the artistes deserve the royalties and it's right that they should continue to get paid.

The Shadows don't have any recording royalties on EMI releases, they only have author's royalties for tunes they composed themselves.
This is the reason why they didn't renew their contract with EMI in 1980, as EMI refused to grant them recording royalties as they did for some other artists (as Bruce Welch explains in his book).
They then signed with Polydor (now Universal), and re-recorded in 1989 twenty of their old hits for Polydor for the "At their very best" album. Of course they have royalties on Polydor records !
This is why the "Life Story" complation used the 1989 Polydor re-recordings of old hits, rather than the EMI original recordings...

Didier

[JimN]

the artistes deserve the royalties and it's right that they should continue to get paid.

The Shadows don't have any recording royalties on EMI releases, they only have author's royalties for tunes they composed themselves.

I don't think that's correct, Didier. The Drifters' contract with EMI in 1959 definitely allowed for a royalty (one old penny - £1/240 - per 45rpm disc) and it is not credible that this situation, which started when they were unknowns, would have been changed for the worse after the success of Apache. Of course, there are currently no artiste royalties legally enforceable on Apache or anything else released before 13/09/1961, but it's a safe bet that EMI are still paying The Shadows (and Cliff) on discs sold by that particular company. None of the supermarket specials will be paying though (which is the whole point of a recording no longer being in copyright).

This is the reason why they didn't renew their contract with EMI in 1980, as EMI refused to grant them recording royalties as they did for some other artists (as Bruce Welch explains in his book). They then signed with Polydor (now Universal), and re-recorded in 1989 twenty of their old hits for Polydor for the "At their very best" album. Of course they have royalties on Polydor records ! This is why the "Life Story" complation used the 1989 Polydor re-recordings of old hits, rather than the EMI original recordings...

Didier

Actually, the Shadows aren't signed with Polydor and never really were. They have a deal with their own recording company and that company has had deals with Polydor over the years. But not only with Polydor. Rollover has released its material through EMI in some territories (notably Australia, where the Shads stayed on EMI until the mid-80s at least). In essence, Rollover now takes opportunities to licence its material as they arise.

Around 1980, EMI UK had a company policy (perhaps only a temporary one) of not entering such agreements and it was a question of "Record for EMI - take it or leave it". There were press items at the time in which the negotiations were hinted at, though none of us really expected a change of address.

Best wishes,

JN