Europe - copyright extended

[teamsaint]

If part of the "goal " is equitable treatment for Tangible and intangible business assets, then those things ought to have similar tax treatment, for Capital Gains and Inheritance tax purposes.

Is this in fact the case?

[Ian]

If part of the "goal " is equitable treatment for Tangible and intangible business assets, then those things ought to have similar tax treatment, for Capital Gains and Inheritance tax purposes.

Is this in fact the case?

IR do seem to be on the case:

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/shareschemes/shares-valuation.htm

[David-G]

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.

Exactly.

Constanze Mozart and her children would have been destitute on her husband's death if she had not been able to make money from his works. Mozart would not have wanted it otherwise, and neither would I.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

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.

I think it's different for recording companies who might make a huge investment in an opera recording, only for some other company to copy it 50 years later, making a handsome profit with the minimum of effort.

[Stillhomewardbound]

If part of the "goal " is equitable treatment for Tangible and intangible business assets, then those things ought to have similar tax treatment, for Capital Gains and Inheritance tax purposes.

Is this in fact the case?

My father's estate (which exists under a trust arrangement) is subject to taxation in exactly the same manner as when he was alive. Income is income, in the eyes of HMRC, whether it be earned by 'h'Actors or Whores'.

[teamsaint]

IR do seem to be on the case:

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/shareschemes/...-valuation.htm

No doubt they have all bases covered !! (unless you are a really huge multinational, in which case you just pay a few bob as and when)

THanks Ian.

[teamsaint]

My father's estate (which exists under a trust arrangement) is subject to taxation in exactly the same manner as when he was alive. Income is income, in the eyes of HMRC, whether it be earned 'h'Earls or 'Harlots'.

THe question was really about Inheritance and Capital gains.
Income tax is easy in a sense.
Almost all income is taxable, as you suggest.

[Stillhomewardbound]

THe question was really about Inheritance and Capital gains.
Income tax is easy in a sense.
Almost all income is taxable, as you suggest.

Sorry, teamsaint, I was not being evasive. I didn't respond on these because neither would apply, as far as I'm aware. Inheritance Tax is applied, based on a set end-date (ie. the date of demise and a full declaration to be made six months after that date) and does not have a reach as far as future residuals are concerned. The estate is taxed at that fixed point.

There is a process for the levy of Inheritance Tax to be revised, where, for example, a property that might make up part of the estate that was declared at a value of 1,000 groats, sells, subsequently, for 2,000 groats (and a reverse process when it might only sell for 500 groats etc), but still only in regard to earnings up to the point of demise.

As for Capital Gains (and again we actually could do with a bona fide tax type bod on here to provide expert counsel) it does not come up, I believe.

With death and due declaration that is the end of the matter.

Now, as with a very successful artist, commercially speaking, where royalties etc. would flood following the demise of said lucky artist, then the relevant beneficiary(ies) would be obliged to declare those as income in the usual way, ie. dividends from shares, interest on deposit accounts etc. Quite how HMRC would categorise it, I'm not sure, but the estate of 'Lucky Artist' is a done deal.

That a trust, or the like, has been set up for such an eventuality, well that body then has a new and separate beginning.

I'm being a complete barrack-room lawyer here, but, based on our family experience that is my understanding of matters.

[ahinton]

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.

You don't say?! Funnily enough, I had noticed that! How very true...

[Stillhomewardbound]

Too true, ahinton. Royalites, residuals do not fall into any artist's lap. They will get them because the likes of Equity, the MU and the PRS will have fought for a long time on behalf of their members to secure that revenue.

Time to repeat a story I've told often of Peggy Lee who had written some very successful songs for Walt Disney's 'Lady and the Tramp' (He's A Tramp and The Siamese Cat Song). Well, in the latter half of the 80s Walt Disney reaped a huge, new harvest when it released all its' classic movies on to the new video cassette market. The Disney organisation, it seems, had struck gold all over again, only more so, production costs etc, having been met decades previously.

Well, Ms.Lee thought to herself, 'this will be nice, I'll get a shake of the action', but came there nothing. Nada. Zilch. So, she got herself appropriate representation to go to Disney on their behalf, but Disney's response was that they didn't have to pay her a cent because while there was a provision in her original contract for royalties, there was no mention of 'video royalties'. Of course there wasn't. Video didn't exist at the time.

Here was a case where even Scrooge would have coughed up. Instead of which, Ms.Lee had to hire the best commercial litigant and take Walt Disney to court.

She won, and very publicly so.

Well, now there's been much talk on this thread here about whether artists should derive any benefit once they have expired, but here was one of the world's biggest corporations denying an artist income while they were still alive.

As I said, in my opening remarks, m'lud', for however long a company is deriving a commercial benefit from a work that they paid royalties to an artist during their lifetime, then the arrangement should continue in perpetuity.

I'd go even further and suggest that as regards out-of-copyright works, they should also be subject to a small honorarium (maybe 2/3%) for distribution amongst the various musicians and artists benevolent funds and charities.


SHB

[Dave2002]

Generally writers, composers, performing musicians and artists get relatively little reward for the works they create or perform. Until the last century mostly the work of performing artists died with them, though the advent of recording, both film and audio, allows something more permanent to be past on. Composers, writers and artists have always had the possibility of something which lived on after they did.

It is interesting to consider that artists (painters, sculptors etc.) seem to have a different situation. During their life, the way they make money seems generally to be by selling their works. If they do this, they do not have those works to leave for their estate. Otherwise on their demise, there may be physical objects which can be passed on. It does not seem unreasonable that the physical objects should go to family and descendents, or they may be willed to friends of the artist. Generally these will not have a high value, but in the case of a well known artist, they may have sufficient value for tax authorities (e.g HMRC in the UK) to take an interest.

As noted, this can present problems regarding the tax to be paid, as the market value for such objects can only really be established by selling them, thus it may only be a crude estimate of the value, unless the inheritors actually do sell them.

Much later, such objects may gain in value, because of their rarity, so it is perfectly possible for a work of art which has become valuable because firstly the artist has gained sufficient interest for his or her works to have a high value, and secondly because there may be few works left for sale.

In the case of writers and composers, there may be original manuscripts, which are physical objects, similar to art which may have a value, but also copyright. As noted, copyright itself does not provide revenue, but only if exploited. It has an potential value which may not actually be realised.

As with the work of artists, inheritors have to decide whether they need to sell or exploit what has been passed on to them.

Regarding the creator of such work, he or she is by then dead, so it is arguable whether income obtained by selling or business exploitation of what is passed on provides a benefit to them.

[teamsaint]

Sorry, teamsaint, I was not being evasive. I didn't respond on these because neither would apply, as far as I'm aware. Inheritance Tax is applied, based on a set end-date (ie. the date of demise and a full declaration to be made six months after that date) and does not have a reach as far as future residuals are concerned. The estate is taxed at that fixed point.

There is a process for the levy of Inheritance Tax to be revised, where, for example, a property that might make up part of the estate that was declared at a value of 1,000 groats, sells, subsequently, for 2,000 groats (and a reverse process when it might only sell for 500 groats etc), but still only in regard to earnings up to the point of demise.

As for Capital Gains (and again we actually could do with a bona fide tax type bod on here to provide expert counsel) it does not come up, I believe.

With death and due declaration that is the end of the matter.

Now, as with a very successful artist, commercially speaking, where royalties etc. would flood following the demise of said lucky artist, then the relevant beneficiary(ies) would be obliged to declare those as income in the usual way, ie. dividends from shares, interest on deposit accounts etc. Quite how HMRC would categorise it, I'm not sure, but the estate of 'Lucky Artist' is a done deal.

That a trust, or the like, has been set up for such an eventuality, well that body then has a new and separate beginning.

I'm being a complete barrack-room lawyer here, but, based on our family experience that is my understanding of matters.

Thanks for that SHB.Perhaps my question/point wasn't specific enough !

[ahinton]

Sorry, teamsaint, I was not being evasive. I didn't respond on these because neither would apply, as far as I'm aware. Inheritance Tax is applied, based on a set end-date (ie. the date of demise and a full declaration to be made six months after that date) and does not have a reach as far as future residuals are concerned. The estate is taxed at that fixed point.

There is a process for the levy of Inheritance Tax to be revised, where, for example, a property that might make up part of the estate that was declared at a value of 1,000 groats, sells, subsequently, for 2,000 groats (and a reverse process when it might only sell for 500 groats etc), but still only in regard to earnings up to the point of demise.

As for Capital Gains (and again we actually could do with a bona fide tax type bod on here to provide expert counsel) it does not come up, I believe.

With death and due declaration that is the end of the matter.

Now, as with a very successful artist, commercially speaking, where royalties etc. would flood following the demise of said lucky artist, then the relevant beneficiary(ies) would be obliged to declare those as income in the usual way, ie. dividends from shares, interest on deposit accounts etc. Quite how HMRC would categorise it, I'm not sure, but the estate of 'Lucky Artist' is a done deal.

That a trust, or the like, has been set up for such an eventuality, well that body then has a new and separate beginning.

I'm being a complete barrack-room lawyer here, but, based on our family experience that is my understanding of matters.

CGT (Capital Gains Tax) indeed doesn't come into anything of the kind as all liability to it expires during the tax year of a person's death, which is the ponit at which IHT (Inheritance Tax) kicks in; just as well, really, otherweise some assets might find themselves subject to both of those taxes!

As to HMRC and copyright, in most cases it either assesses for IHT purposes based upon royalty income during the originator's lifetime or decides not even to both to do that if its assumption as to the likely post-death income generation is that it's probably not worth bothering about but, as you rightly observe, once the deal's done, it's done (unless, of course attempted tax fraud on the past of the Estate can be proved by HMRC).

[cheesehoven]

Part of the problem, it seems to me, is that while the rewards of copyright to certain composers of difficult music are meagre those of popular music are perhaps too high. While using the moral argument of the former, copyright has been extended to protect the revenue stream of the latter. This seems to have been pushed more by the music industry than by individuals. The very fact that one can be enticed (sometimes insisted upon) into giving up copyright to a company should alert us to the fact that this more to do with keeping the gravy train rolling than fairness. Some cases of people losing out on copyright while they are still alive have been noted here and many more exist.

The Mozart's widow argument is a strange and rather dated one to my mind. Society was much different then when a wife and family had to depend on the work of the husband. Nowadays most wives/husbands/significant others will have their own jobs or sources of income so the moral argument for their support is a very weak one. It should also be remembered that despite the absence of copyright (or because of it?) Mozart earned a very good living and only died broke because he was a spendthrift.

One also wonders whether creativity and innovation are positively being stifled by copyright? Certainly when you look at the small output nowadays by comparison to the productivity of 18th century it seems so.

[MrGongGong]

One also wonders whether creativity and innovation are positively being stifled by copyright? Certainly when you look at the small output nowadays by comparison to the productivity of 18th century it seems so.

??

"small output" ?