Copyrights and Wrongs

[Master Jacques]

Simply to agree with Heldenleben's point, that the big corporations (e.g. Disney) are well able to defend - and extend - their copyrights, while smaller fry are progressively unable to do so and cynically trampled.

It's interesting to see which composers (such as Shostakovich) have their copyright stoutly maintained, and those who are unable to defend it. This is the "might is right" trend which has to be fought, tooth and nail - copyright is plainly not dead, but there is a terrible danger it will become the preserve of the rich and powerful at the expense of the majority of artists.

[Ein Heldenleben]

Simply to agree with Heldenleben's point, that the big corporations (e.g. Disney) are well able to defend - and extend - their copyrights, while smaller fry are progressively unable to do so and cynically trampled.

It's interesting to see which composers (such as Shostakovich) have their copyright stoutly maintained, and those who are unable to defend it. This is the "might is right" trend which has to be fought, tooth and nail - copyright is plainly not dead, but there is a terrible danger it will become the preserve of the rich and powerful at the expense of the majority of artists.

Yep that is exactly what has happpened. And what’s even worse the original artists have signed away their rights or had them ‘absorbed’ after death. But it’s not just Disney...

[ahinton]

I'm pleased that this part of the Richard Strauss thread has been migrated to its own space.

I am interesed to know what other members think about the notion that composers being paid for composing may be deemed acceptable whereas composers being paid as a consequence of owning rights in their work may not; the principal reason for my question is that many works are not commissioned and so their composers receive no payment for writing them. Likewise, what is the view on self-publishing, which is another way in which a composer may derive income as a consequence of ownership of his/her material?

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I think that composers losing income from Royalties is an inevitable outcome of composers taking charge of their own materials, rather than entrusting them to a publisher - or the forlorn hope of attracting a publisher. Composers will become more like visual artists, charging for the sale of a finished work but seeing nothing of the money that subsequently changes hands on any re-sale of that work. For most composers - those who don't get commissions, performances, or published - it will make no difference: composing will continue to be a (very expensive) "hobby". Many younger composers, starting out on a career, will make greater "profit" from being in control of their own resources than their equivalents in the pre-internet age - being able to "network" wih performers in Hong Kong, Barcelona, Los Angeles, Brisbane, or Scunthorpe with enviable ease. I suspect that the most successful of them will, in the future, work out a new system of "royalties", negotiated on an individual basis between themselves and interested performers wishing to perform works from the "back catalogue". (I wouldn't be surprised if similar conditions will be the future for the publication of literary texts, too.)

I don't think that the MacMillans, Whitakers, or Parts will be affected, either - they are firmly entrenched in the Publishing Industry, and will continue to receive the kudos from having glossy editions appearing on the shelves of Music Shops. But I imagine that it will entail real hardship for those composers "in the middle", whose meagre income from performances and sales of Music, will shrivel completely in the new market - as people come to regard the work of a Composer to be no different from that of a Plumber or Roofer: something to be paid for on an individual job basis. Except, of course, that the chances of being able to afford to contribute to a Pension scheme from income on composition will be more difficult.

[Richard Barrett]

I think that composers losing income from Royalties is an inevitable outcome of composers taking charge of their own materials, rather than entrusting them to a publisher

Bypassing publishers has in my experience led to a marked increase in interest among performers and students, so that the music is more widely performed and discussed. I see my "job" as consisting of writing and performing music, not of selling it, for which I really have no inclination and to which I'm very loth to devote time and energy that could be spent doing the real work. But apart from that, there's the inescapable fact that it only takes one person somewhere in the world to upload a score once before it effectively and permanently slips out of anyone's control. Being that person oneself means that it's the latest (corrected/revised) and most authoritative version that's made available.

[ahinton]

I think that composers losing income from Royalties is an inevitable outcome of composers taking charge of their own materials, rather than entrusting them to a publisher - or the forlorn hope of attracting a publisher. Composers will become more like visual artists, charging for the sale of a finished work but seeing nothing of the money that subsequently changes hands on any re-sale of that work. For most composers - those who don't get commissions, performances, or published - it will make no difference: composing will continue to be a (very expensive) "hobby". Many younger composers, starting out on a career, will make greater "profit" from being in control of their own resources than their equivalents in the pre-internet age - being able to "network" wih performers in Hong Kong, Barcelona, Los Angeles, Brisbane, or Scunthorpe with enviable ease. I suspect that the most successful of them will, in the future, work out a new system of "royalties", negotiated on an individual basis between themselves and interested performers wishing to perform works from the "back catalogue". (I wouldn't be surprised if similar conditions will be the future for the publication of literary texts, too.)

I don't think that the MacMillans, Whitakers, or Parts will be affected, either - they are firmly entrenched in the Publishing Industry, and will continue to receive the kudos from having glossy editions appearing on the shelves of Music Shops. But I imagine that it will entail real hardship for those composers "in the middle", whose meagre income from performances and sales of Music, will shrivel completely in the new market - as people come to regard the work of a Composer to be no different from that of a Plumber or Roofer: something to be paid for on an individual job basis. Except, of course, that the chances of being able to afford to contribute to a Pension scheme from income on composition will be more difficult.

Much of what you write here is indeed pertinent but it remains the case that one's work does not have to be published ny someone else in order for it to be performed/broadcast/commercially recorded and, as long as one's work is registered (and those registrations updated as necessary) with MCPS/PRS or its equivalent, royalties should still be generated and collected provided that the performances occur in licensed venues that are obliged to submit due returns and broadcasts are given on national radio/television channels that are duty bound to do the same.

[ahinton]

Bypassing publishers has in my experience led to a marked increase in interest among performers and students, so that the music is more widely performed and discussed. I see my "job" as consisting of writing and performing music, not of selling it, for which I really have no inclination and to which I'm very loth to devote time and energy that could be spent doing the real work.

I have an "interest" in selling mine only to the extent that necessity determines, not least because all but one of my scores are self-published; it's not something that I "want" to do any more than in your case but needs must.

But apart from that, there's the inescapable fact that it only takes one person somewhere in the world to upload a score once before it effectively and permanently slips out of anyone's control. Being that person oneself means that it's the latest (corrected/revised) and most authoritative version that's made available.

This is true except that, in many cases, when someone else uploads a score or a recording of a performance of one's work without due authorisation/s, there exist means to have them taken down which, when that is done, can often impact adversely on the uploader's account. The problem in my experience is that some people who have been raised in the internet age seem to assume a divine right to free access to the work on which composers, performers, record companies, broadcasters have lavished much time and/or money just because technology makes this possible.

That said, even some of those unauthorised uploads can generate royalties, albeit vanishingly small ones.

[MrGongGong]

as people come to regard the work of a Composer to be no different from that of a Plumber or Roofer:.

If only composers were paid as much as that

[Ein Heldenleben]

I preferred this over the rest of SH's shortlist but... yet again its download only! Why are reviewers encouraged to include download only recordings when, according to the MD of Presto on this programme earlier this year, downloads account for less than 25% of classical sales. Why are companies so keen to withdraw hard copy CDs when these account for over 70% of the classical market? Yes, I am aware that the pop/rock market is different with downloads and vinyl LPs now accounting for the majority of sales, but this is not the case with classical!

It’s because the marginal production costs of the download are zero and , after artists payments, any sale is pure profit. The distribution costs are paid by the consumer . I doubt if the record company make any profit on CD sales at all. Therefore why produce any?

[Master Jacques]

I doubt if the record company make any profit on CD sales at all. Therefore why produce any?

I asked Klaus Heymann that very question a few years ago. His response was, that Naxos certainly do make a profit on CD sales, otherwise they wouldn't keep publishing them. The difference is, that Heymann - like so many patient independents outside the old (and more or less defunct) "majors" - is prepared to take a long term view, with his CD issues out there and earning money for twenty years or more. They may only run into profit after a decade, but run into profit they do.

His royalty-free model was considered anathema when Naxos started, but is industry standard now. Art musicians use CD issues for publicity, rather than profit (which comes from live performances, in the main, not from media of any kind, streaming, downloads or CDs/DVDs.)

I'd hazard the metaphor of "slow food" against "fast food" - we know which is more enjoyable and sustaining, in the long run. And personally, I like to have something physical to show for my money!

[Ein Heldenleben]

I asked Klaus Heymann that very question a few years ago. His response was, that Naxos certainly do make a profit on CD sales, otherwise they wouldn't keep publishing them. The difference is, that Heymann - like so many patient independents outside the old (and more or less defunct) "majors" - is prepared to take a long term view, with his CD issues out there and earning money for twenty years or more. They may only run into profit after a decade, but run into profit they do.

His royalty-free model was considered anathema when Naxos started, but is industry standard now. Art musicians use CD issues for publicity, rather than profit (which comes from live performances, in the main, not from media of any kind, streaming, downloads or CDs/DVDs.)

I'd hazard the metaphor of "slow food" against "fast food" - we know which is more enjoyable and sustaining, in the long run. And personally, I like to have something physical to show for my money!

Very interesting post . Thing is most companies can’t afford to wait ten years to make a profit. Not paying royalties changes the economics considerably . Difficult to see that the majors can ever make a profit on classical CD’s. Presumably Naxos have no debt at all . Many media companies are leveraged up to the eyeballs.

[Bryn]

[QUOTE=Master Jacques;897637] . . . His royalty-free model was considered anathema when Naxos started, but is industry standard now. Art musicians use CD issues for publicity, rather than profit (which comes from live performances, in the main, not from media of any kind, streaming, downloads or CDs/DVDs.) . . . [QUOTE]

Such an approach is not very new. I recall be advised by John Tilbury that his classic 1974 recording of Cage's Sonatas and Interludes earned him just a one-off fee.

[smittims]

Richard Itter admitted that he'd offered the musicians on his Lyrita recordings a once-for-all payment. They accepted mainly because they wanted to record the music, in many cases the first recordings it had had.

[Goon525]

I preferred this over the rest of SH's shortlist but... yet again its download only! Why are reviewers encouraged to include download only recordings when, according to the MD of Presto on this programme earlier this year, downloads account for less than 25% of classical sales. Why are companies so keen to withdraw hard copy CDs when these account for over 70% of the classical market? Yes, I am aware that the pop/rock market is different with downloads and vinyl LPs now accounting for the majority of sales, but this is not the case with classical!

I’m sure I answered this very point on another thread. Because CD plus download constitutes a minority of listening these days. The Library one is Building is virtual - for many of us, at least.

[Master Jacques]

Such an approach is not very new. I recall be advised by John Tilbury that his classic 1974 recording of Cage's Sonatas and Interludes earned him just a one-off fee.

Very true, especially where companies (Decca Headline here) were already paying royalties to living composers, to enable the disc release at all.

Naxos still have to pay composer royalties, of course. The big difference was that the company applied the 'no performer royalty' rule across the board, even for 18th and 19th century music which was well out of copyright, and even for performers who considered themselves 'star names'; and the scale of their operation alarmed many artists at the time as well as the Musicians' Union. I know a couple of players who still won't buy Naxos material, on principle.

Meanwhile, Naxos did (and still does) very nicely from its CD and DVD releases. It even created its own 'stars' - Maria Kliegel and Jenő Jandó spring to mind as early examples, or the Maggini Quartet from a later period - who had a more pragmatic attitude to the royalty question, and knew how to exploit the company's unparalleled, worldwide distribution to their advantage. These days there are many more small, independent companies following the same model - or even, like the Czech label Odradek, acting as artists' co-operatives, where everyone clubs together to support each other's distribution - while the "majors" have become almost a fringe activity.

I've no idea what model (e.g.) Warner Classics use today. Perhaps others might know?