Copyrights and Wrongs

[Richard Barrett]

There is a wider question - why should the estate of a dead artist profit from royalties after death at all?

Indeed. But the whole question of copyright and royalties is really blown out of the water by the fact that it's possible to obtain so much musical material just by trawling around on the internet a bit: as soon as a score has been digitised it's effectively available to everyone forever, and for nothing. IMSLP has full scores of most if not all of Strauss's operas for example. They aren't as nice as the beautifully bound published versions, but for study purposes they'll do. So the problem under discussion here is in the process of solving itself: the age of copyright is coming to an end, whether we like it or not, and, as I've said here before, I've always thought people ought to be paid for doing things (like composing music, or any other occupation) rather than for owning things (like copyrights, or houses).

[Master Jacques]

As to why a dead composer should profit from royalties after his or her death ... you might as well say, 'why should a house-owner profit from ownership after they die, and be allowed to pass it on to their heirs?'

Only a sick society values house ownership more than writing symphonies or plays, and only a very stupid society will idly allow a coach and horses to drive through copyright laws painstakingly achieved over the last hundred and fifty years or so. Believe me, grabbing houses will be next in line if we allow liberty hall to printed music.

There would be very little new music written, if it weren't for the charitable work of wealthy, dead composers' foundations. And that's a fact. But then, I get the impression that many "music lovers" think that all art should be given away to them completely free anyway.

[Richard Barrett]

As to why a dead composer should profit from royalties after his or her death ... you might as well say, 'why should a house-owner profit from ownership after they die, and be allowed to pass it on to their heirs?'

Which I do.

[Ein Heldenleben]

As to why a dead composer should profit from royalties after his or her death ... you might as well say, 'why should a house-owner profit from ownership after they die, and be allowed to pass it on to their heirs?'

Only a sick society values house ownership more than writing symphonies or plays, and only a very stupid society will idly allow a coach and horses to drive through copyright laws painstakingly achieved over the last hundred and fifty years or so. Believe me, grabbing houses will be next in line if we allow liberty hall to printed music.

There would be very little new music written, if it weren't for the charitable work of wealthy, dead composers' foundations. And that's a fact. But then, I get the impression that many "music lovers" think that all art should be given away to them completely free anyway.

As I say it’s all about balance - some royalties for partners and charitable purposes yes but giant corporations exploiting image rights for decades afterwards no . As I say it’s all a bit theoretical with music because copyright is so abused already.Maybe blockchain will sort it all out ....

[Dave Payn]

As far as I am aware, posthumous copyright in the UK is 50 years after the work/s’ publication. I worked for the PRS and believe this was correct when I left in 2004.

[ahinton]

charitable organisations based on income from performances of works still in copyright - such as the RVW Trust - exist with the express purpose of funding creative work of other composers/writers. An essential service, given the general paucity of funds for such creative activities.

Speaking as one who has benefitted twice from the activities of the charitable organisation what you name (the largest being a contribution towards the costs of release of the recording of my string quintet), I am bound to agree with you and feel most fortunate in my ability to do so...

[Richard Barrett]

As far as I am aware, posthumous copyright in the UK is 50 years after the work/s’ publication. I worked for the PRS and believe this was correct when I left in 2004.

It's 70 years after the author's death (or that of the last author if there are multiple authors). This has been the case since the 1990s.

[Ein Heldenleben]

As far as I am aware, posthumous copyright in the UK is 50 years after the work/s’ publication. I worked for the PRS and believe this was correct when I left in 2004.

I think , though I am not sure , that this is mechanical copyright I.e right of electronic reproduction not artist copyright . Copyright law is pretty complicated which is handy for the lawyers ...

[Richard Barrett]

I think , though I am not sure , that this is mechanical copyright I.e right of electronic reproduction not artist copyright . Copyright law is pretty complicated which is handy for the lawyers ...

Yes, 50 years after release is the law for recordings.

[Dave Payn]

It's 70 years after the author's death (or that of the last author if there are multiple authors). This has been the case since the 1990s.

Yes, 70 years in general terms since falling in line with the EU Copyright Directive from July 1995, but posthumous copyright was still limited to 50 years at the time when I left in 2004. I don’t know if it’s been changed since then.

[Bryn]

Re. the question of copyright on broadcast recordings, I note that Premiere Opera are offering the September 2nd Proms performance of Berlioz's Benvenuto Cellini for sale on 3 CDs for a current discount price of $8.97 plus p&p. This can surely only be the BBC Radio 3 recording. I wonder if the BBC has been paid for the use of this recording?

https://www.premiereoperaintl.com/15002-3benvenutocelliniberlioz.aspx

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Yes, 50 years after release is the law for recordings.

According to the Government, UK copyright on sound recorded Music material lasts for 70 years from the date of release (copyright on silent film recording of a Musician's performance is protected for 50 years). Copyright is held on unreleased material for 50 years - so the owner of a recording can prevent someone else releasing this material for 50 years from the date of the recording. 49 years and 364 days after the recording, they can then release the recording, and hold the copyright for another 70 years (if there's sound - another 50 if it's a silent film).

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/performers-rights/performers-rights

[Richard Barrett]

According to the Government

What do they know?

[ahinton]

What do they know?

They don't HAVE to "know"; they just lay down the law, which is what's they're paid to do...

[ahinton]

the age of copyright is coming to an end, whether we like it or not

Not necessarily; so many statements issued by PRS and its sister organisations in other countries now include endless pages of piddly sums for online manifestations of uses of works in copyright which are therefore not available for free because someone is paying those piddly sums.

and, as I've said here before, I've always thought people ought to be paid for doing things (like composing music, or any other occupation) rather than for owning things (like copyrights, or houses).

That's all very well as far as it goes but, if your stance means that composers have - and should be expected to have or regarded as having - no "ownership" on the work that they have done, the only ones to benefit financially from such works will be those who are commissioned and paid to do it; do you believe that only composers who are commissioned and paid to do their work should stand to derive financial benefit from it? If so, we would surely be deprived of a great deal of music that, as it is composed but uncommissioned, its composers will derive no financial benefit from it other than from sales of scores (self-published or otherwise) and from performance/broadcast/recording royalties?