Europe - copyright extended

[David-G]

2. It should end at the creator's death

I think that if you were the creator's widow, you might think differently.

[Dave2002]

I think that if you were the creator's widow, you might think differently.

Yes indeed, but that wouldn't necessarily make it a poor rule to follow. Why should people think they have a right to live off the efforts of others long after they have passed away? In practice I would suggest a 20-30 year gap would not be unreasonable. It would still be possible to make a living even after that period by using the copyright to create new works, or events, which themselves could be a source of income, and which - since the wife or other dependents would have created something new, would then be subject to the same rules during their lifetimes.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

There is a difference between a work's creator being still alive and therefore having some moral right to claim "Intellectual property" and the enforcement of the rights of dead, the current strange situation.

Copyright, as it presently exists, is the most egregious example of big business stitching up the market while claiming to be protecting the little guy. The composers can easily be (are usually are) screwed over into signing over their rights to record companies and publishers for little or nothing. Paul McCartney does not own his work with the Beatles, Jagger/Richards their early Rolling Stones works, the composer of the song "Angels", these are a few of the vast number of examples of those being screwed while international law supports big business.

What must be doubly galling for these creators is that someone is earning a tidy sum from their "intellectual property" but they themselves receive not a penny, while the courts ruthlessly enforce copyright. I remember a case of a songwriter being prosecuted for plagiarizing a song that he himself wrote.

My own thoughts on what a sensible copyright law should be is:
1. It should be inalienable

- excellent points, all; no matter what one's opinion of Mr McCartney, the idea that he had to ask Michael Jackson's permission to perform his own material - and pay Jackson for the privilege - is pernicious (with due credit to MJ for waiving his rights here).

2. It should end at the creator's death

There are flaws here: as David-G points out the dependents of the composer lose out on income upon the death of someone they loved. And, with gritted teeth, some profit should be granted to the Publisher who has invested in the composer - Universal Edition took great risks putting the Second Viennese School and subsequent "ultra modern" composers into print. It does seem unfair that returns on such investment should cease with the composer's pulse. (Very gritted teeth - my jaws are aching - when the Webern Bagatelles cost nearly £20 for six pages of printed Music does rather encourage illegal photocopying.) And it's not just the "cutting edge" composers - the investment that George Lloyd's publishers put into printing his Requiem still hasn't been recouped, fifteen years after his death.

Never sure why the Fifty years was extended to Seventy, though.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Why should people think they have a right to live off the efforts of others long after they have passed away?

1) There isn't much of a pension scheme for composers - dependents of deceased composers do "have a right" to share the profits that other Musicians might make from performing the Music that they helped create the conditions for it to be written.
2) Publishers invest in composers - they "have a right" to recoup some of this expense, and even profit from posthumous performance.

It would still be possible to make a living even after that period by using the copyright to create new works, or events, which themselves could be a source of income, and which - since the wife or other dependents would have created something new, would then be subject to the same rules during their lifetimes.

I don't follow your line of reasoning here. Say a composer finishes a String Quartet and dies two weeks later. His wife/her husband (who is a teacher of English as a Second Language) makes income by ... ?

[Dave2002]

1) There isn't much of a pension scheme for composers - dependents of deceased composers do "have a right" to share the profits that other Musicians might make from performing the Music that they helped create the conditions for it to be written.
2) Publishers invest in composers - they "have a right" to recoup some of this expense, and even profit from posthumous performance.


I don't follow your line of reasoning here. Say a composer finishes a String Quartet and dies two weeks later. His wife/her husband (who is a teacher of English as a Second Language) makes income by ... ?

I go back to my original

Why should people think they have a right to live off the efforts of others long after they have passed away?

There are many people who aren't composers or musicians who get **** all and are struggling to live, and who don't rely on others to survive.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

There are many people who aren't composers or musicians who get **** all and are struggling to live, and who don't rely on others to survive.

So - performers can make a profit when they play a composer's work; the venue makes a profit from hiring the hall out - but the creator's investors can just **** off, because that's the shitty way of the world?

[cheesehoven]

I'm with Dave, I don't really see why widow/children/lover/lawyer should be entitled to anything. A lot of people earn low wages in their lifetime, that does not follow that their employer is obligated to support their children.
The point made about publishers needing to recoup their investment is, however, one worthy of consideration.

[Dave2002]

So - performers can make a profit when they play a composer's work; the venue makes a profit from hiring the hall out - but the creator's investors can just **** off, because that's the shitty way of the world?

Many musicians get paid very little in relative terms. Arguably they are not forced to do the work they do, and indeed, sadly, some do go off and do other things, or have sidelines. One musician turned to writing software, successfully, I believe to supplement his income. Regarding the venue, often the musicians who promote new works cannot do so without additional support, which might come in the form of grants. Where do the grants come from? Philanthropists, public purse? Legacies? Regarding the venues making a profit - that happens with some large venues, but small music societies which may attempt to put on new works find that they have to pay a modest fee to the Performing Rights Society. It is only a smallish fee, but it nevertheless is noted by society committees, which may then opt for a more conservative season of programmes in order to avoid this additional expense. Many small music societies are currently struggling to survive, and a number are going to the wall. Performers are less likely to perform new works if they can't get work at music society venues - it won't be worth their while learning them. Large organisations, such as the BBC may promote new works - but that's the public purse again.

The whole issue is rather complex, and very probably dealt with by a patchwork of special cases. We can still argue about whether musicians including composers have a "right to survive" if there isn't a sensible market for their work, and dealing with dependents as well makes things even more complex.

Sadly, in today's world, Wayne Rooney has a greater right than the members of (say) the Elias, Sacconi or Pavel Haas quartets, though that is also conferred by some very odd contractual arrangements within our "system".

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I'm with Dave, I don't really see why widow/children/lover/lawyer should be entitled to anything. A lot of people earn low wages in their lifetime, that does not follow that their employer is obligated to support their children.

Because a piece of Music continues to create revenue long after the death of its creator - not something that can be said of the work of an Investment Banker, Refuse Collector, Tobacconist, Solicitor, Fish & Chip Shop proprietor, Plumber, Bank Clerk, Telephone Seller etc etc etc. Very few Composers have "steady incomes" or a company pension, the accumulation of Royalties as a piece of Music gains popularity is the best equivalent they have. And, just as pensions are continued to be paid to partners after the death of the person who paid into them, so Royalties should be paid to survivors of composers. Partners, even (especially) of unknown creative artists have to make sacrifices in order to create the conditions necessary for the artists to continue to work. They fully deserve a share of whatever profits their late partner's work makes for other people.

[cheesehoven]

Because a piece of Music continues to create revenue long after the death of its creator - not something that can be said of the work of an Investment Banker, Refuse Collector, Tobacconist, Solicitor, Fish & Chip Shop proprietor, Plumber, Bank Clerk, Telephone Seller etc etc etc. Very few Composers have "steady incomes" or a company pension, the accumulation of Royalties as a piece of Music gains popularity is the best equivalent they have. And, just as pensions are continued to be paid to partners after the death of the person who paid into them, so Royalties should be paid to survivors of composers. Partners, even (especially) of unknown creative artists have to make sacrifices in order to create the conditions necessary for the artists to continue to work. They fully deserve a share of whatever profits their late partner's work makes for other people.

As i said earlier, this is essentially a circular argument: it creates revenue because it is in copyright. Unless of course you are arguing that the performance creates revenue- quite a different thing. Bach and Mozart compositions make revenues, is that an argument for perpetual copyright? I simply do not see the case that -simply because one happens to be related to a composer- someone should be able to claim a special right over a piece of music they did not create.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

As i said earlier, this is essentially a circular argument: it creates revenue because it is in copyright. Unless of course you are arguing that the performance creates revenue- quite a different thing. Bach and Mozart compositions make revenues, is that an argument for perpetual copyright? I simply do not see the case that -simply because one happens to be related to a composer- someone should be able to claim a special right over a piece of music they did not create.

I refer you to the last sentence of #33. You appear to be attacking ideas that no one (certainly not I) has suggested: "perpetual copyright"? Any old "relationship to a composer"? Pshaw, cheesey - argue, if you will, against the moral right of an Artist's immediate dependents to benefit from the Artist's work for up to seventy years after their death: don't argue against propositions that haven't been made.

[Stillhomewardbound]

Children?? Grandchildren??? Really????

Anyway, more than anyone else it is the large corporations who will benefit from the extension of copyrite.

I couldn't tell you the number of DVDs my father turns up on. Episodes of The Saint, The Avengers, Dangerman, Adam Adamant, Man In A Suitcase, Jason King, The Sweeney and Bleak House amongst others. Anyway, I seem them on sale in HMV and other outlets, online at Amazon and on friend's shelves. His estate receives a minor royalty based on these sales and any broadcasts by the digital tv networks. This is according to an agreement proposed by Equity and voted for by its members which freed distributors from having to negotiate individual contracts with all appearing artists.

So, you might not be surprised that I don't buy into the 'oh, that old actor's dead now - we can knock him off the royalties list' argument. Much of that stock was bought up at basement bargain prices by the likes of Fremantle and it costs hardly anything to put it onto DVD. Meanwhile, it retails at commercial rates and due to the appetite for cult tv sells very nicely, so, such as they are, my late father's estate will continue to collect, thank you very much.

[cheesehoven]

I refer you to the last sentence of #33. You appear to be attacking ideas that no one (certainly not I) has suggested: "perpetual copyright"? Any old "relationship to a composer"? Pshaw, cheesey - argue, if you will, against the moral right of an Artist's immediate dependents to benefit from the Artist's work for up to seventy years after their death: don't argue against propositions that haven't been made.

ok.

[ahinton]

If copyright ceased with death, some pieces would have a very short coppyright life if they were only performed for the first time close to their composers' deaths; this would apply to composer's last works as well as those not performed at the time of writing. Carter's Joyce setting My Love is in a Light Attire was composed in 1928 and enters the public domain on 1 January 2083. Ornstein's earliest surviving works date from before WWI but the 70-year rule would take his copyright to 1 January 2073 (although his son's put some of these into the public domain as a matter of personal choice, as far as I understand). Much of Sorabji's music was not performed until the mid-1970s, although he had written vast amounts of it from 1914 onwards.

[Ian]

The idea underpinning the concept of intellectual property (and its continuation after death) is to create some sort of parity between creators of intangible assets like music, and creators of tangible assets like businesses and property. An individual devoting a lifetime to building up a business creates an entity that both (hopefully) provides an income as well as creating an asset that can be passed on or sold after death. A composer devoting a lifetime to creating music might well earn an income from his copyrights but also needs (if things are to be equal) to build up an equivalent holding of assets that can be passed on in a similar way.

Also worth noting that copyrights don’t often bring in income without a lot of work from the owners - so there is a strong element of successors still having to work the business - even though no new works are being added to the pool.