Record Industry VS. Artist - Song Rights Battle

[Adonis the DemiGod!]

Record Industry Battles for Song Rights

Since their release in 1978, hit albums like Bruce Springsteen’s “Darkness on the Edge of Town,” Billy Joel’s “52nd Street,” the Doobie Brothers’ “Minute by Minute,” Kenny Rogers’s “Gambler” and Funkadelic’s “One Nation Under a Groove” have generated tens of millions of dollars for record companies. But thanks to a little-noted provision in United States copyright law, those artists — and thousands more — now have the right to reclaim ownership of their recordings, potentially leaving the labels out in the cold.

[Adonis the DemiGod!]

I'm shocked no one is interested in this.

[Lozzy]

I am intrigued.

[HolidayGuy]

I never thought much of this- at some point, an act should have a chance to have ownership in its recordings- whether that's full or not. Ideally, it should be a partnership between the label and the act, especially if the act had a significant tole in crafting the work (and not just laying vocals on it, for the most part).

[PDC1987]

This probably isn't an issue for acts that fund the creation of their own albums from start to finish, i.e. acts like Prince. They merely license the albums/sell the distribution rights to a label, correct?

[Mr. Wonder]

^^^Cosign @ Holiday. But I think the artist should have the most control over their music since they're the ones who created it.

[PDC1987]

Aug 16, 2011 11:03:06 GMT -5 Mr. Wonder said:

^^^Cosign @ Holiday. But I think the artist should have the most control over their music since they're the ones who created it.

But they're usually not the ones who paid for it. Music is a business, and in business the people who make the investments have the control. They take all the risk.

And then of course, like HG alluded to, there are acts that get paid to just go in and lay down vocals. They can't write or produce a stitch and don't play a single instrument. In my opinion they're far less entitled to a larger ownership of their records than acts that have far more to do with the creation of their music. It's much more personal to them, and in many cases it's their livelihood and their life's work. They flat out work harder as well.

[Adonis the DemiGod!]

Aug 16, 2011 11:11:48 GMT -5 PDC1987 said:

Aug 16, 2011 11:03:06 GMT -5 Mr. Wonder said:

^^^Cosign @ Holiday. But I think the artist should have the most control over their music since they're the ones who created it.

But they're usually not the ones who paid for it. Music is a business, and in business the people who make the investments have the control. They take all the risk.

And then of course, like HG alluded to, there are acts that get paid to just go in and lay down vocals. They can't write or produce a stitch and don't play a single instrument. In my opinion they're far less entitled to a larger ownership of their records than acts that have far more to do with the creation of their music. It's much more personal to them, and in many cases it's their livelihood and their life's work. They flat out work harder as well.

I disagree. The sound is the most important thing. If you can find someone else who will do it then go get them. Otherwise you are paying royalties for the song.

[HolidayGuy]

The sound? Well, then that would be the producers. :) if the producer is not the act itself, they would not have any ownership claims- royalties, sure.

If the act is just one that goes in and lats vocals down, and no matter how successful he or she is, is doing something that anyone can do, and has no real distinct emotion or personality- then, no, they should not have a majority ownership (or close to it) for a record.

[Adonis the DemiGod!]

Aug 17, 2011 8:24:43 GMT -5 HolidayGuy said:

The sound? Well, then that would be the producers. :) if the producer is not the act itself, they would not have any ownership claims- royalties, sure.

If the act is just one that goes in and lats vocals down, and no matter how successful he or she is, is doing something that anyone can do, and has no real distinct emotion or personality- then, no, they should not have a majority ownership (or close to it) for a record.

Again I disagree. Basically, I am saying if anything is changed you might not have a hit single. Sometimes a song is uniquely suited to an artist or a certain person's style. It's why some artists sound better on certain tracks than others....even when the act in question is technically the better vocalist. Laying the vocals down is worth much more than you are giving it credit for...which is typical of people who don't actually have the ability to sing.

Whitney's hits wouldn't necessarily be hits if it weren't for the fact that she was singing them.

[Mr. Wonder]

Aug 16, 2011 11:11:48 GMT -5 PDC1987 said:

Aug 16, 2011 11:03:06 GMT -5 Mr. Wonder said:

^^^Cosign @ Holiday. But I think the artist should have the most control over their music since they're the ones who created it.

But they're usually not the ones who paid for it. Music is a business, and in business the people who make the investments have the control. They take all the risk.

And then of course, like HG alluded to, there are acts that get paid to just go in and lay down vocals. They can't write or produce a stitch and don't play a single instrument. In my opinion they're far less entitled to a larger ownership of their records than acts that have far more to do with the creation of their music. It's much more personal to them, and in many cases it's their livelihood and their life's work. They flat out work harder as well.

But what about artists who fund their own projects - pay for studio time, producers, writers, etc - out of their own pockets? Is the label entitled to, for the sake of the discussion, half of the earnings of the revenue generated from the sales of the artist's work? Should the label still have the majority of control over the work?