Europe - copyright extended

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Mozart earned a very good living and only died broke because he was a spendthrift.

Yes; sort-of. Volkmar Braunbehrens' Mozart in Vienna gives details that suggest that Mozart earned about the equivalent of a present-day Headmaster during his time in Vienna. This income was unpredictable, however, and there were years when there were significant dips in what he earned. In order to keep his rich pupils, and to continue to receive higher-paid commissions, he had to seem to be living well; to move to cheaper accommodation would have been a public admission of failure, news of which would have quickly spread via gossip, and his clients would have dropped him. So, yes, he did live beyond his means - his stalled career would have completely plummeted had he not done so.

He was also used to these low periods being followed by a rise in his fortunes, and spent and borrowed on this assumption. Indeed, towards the end of 1791, there were indications that his fortunes were turning, with new commissions coming in - unfortunately, he fell ill before the income from this started to appear, and so couldn't afford medical help, and so ...


I have no quarrel, however, with your comments about the nefarious, money-grabbing activities of some of the larger multi-national companies. So many smaller companies (who often used revenue from profitable product to fund less popular work) have been asset-stripped out of recognition. But the pernicious aspects of modern Capitalism shouldn't stop us from paying a composer's surviving dependents what they are due.

[Dave2002]

But the pernicious aspects of modern Capitalism shouldn't stop us from paying a composer's surviving dependents what they are due.

I think you and I have different views of the world. I do not consider that the world owes me anything now which I've not earned, or at least contracted for - this last comment to cope with pensions which I have now activated. Regarding possible dependents (wife, children) I consider that they ought to be able to survive by their own means, though if they obtain further support because of money or assets which I may pass on, that's a bonus for them.

Composers make money because society allows them to, because of the organised legal and financial frameworks in which we all operate, and because there is the possibility that they may make money out of devices such as copyright. I can also use copyright, and indeed I have published, but it is very unlikely that I will make any money out of copyright for articles or other material I have published. That is why, like many others, I have sought employment elsewhere.

Capitalism presumably deters composers who "simply" want to make money, and at the same time write certain styles of music which they enjoy writing which may at the same time not find favour with the listening public. Not every composer wants to write music like Andrew Lloyd Webber. However, many composers have had to write music which they may not have enjoyed in order to survive. It is clear that some composers write music which is not going to have even a small market, and capitalism will be hard on these people. If they provide music which hardly anyone wants to hear, then why should they deserve payment? People in other walks of life do not have a right to an income if they don't at least attempt to satisfy some of the constraints of the market. Many people do things which they don't or didn't want to do in order to survive - it's just life. Why should composers and their families be different?

Regarding the relationship between composers and their partners and dependents, that's up to them. If they want to pass on "stuff" to these that is their right. As noted, copyright does not by itself provide money or an income - further work is required. Those who inherit copyright may be able to use it, either to sell it on, or perhaps to use some form of licensing, or to exploit it themselves.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I think you and I have different views of the world.

I think this might be true, also. I won't go over yet again why I think that payments of royalties to composers' surviving dependents is a moral right equivalent to a Pension yet again, nor repeat that, if a piece of Music makes money for its performers and record companies then it's tantamount to theft to deny such income to a surviving dependant. You seem to be suggesting that, when we have the Threads commemorating the death of a composer, the general tone should be "RIP, Bert; and thanks for all the pleasure your Music has given me. But I hope your wife and kids starve, the free-loading parasites."

However, I would take issue with

However, many composers have had to write music which they may not have enjoyed in order to survive. It is clear that some composers write music which is not going to have even a small market, and capitalism will be hard on these people. If they provide music which hardly anyone wants to hear, then why should they deserve payment? People in other walks of life do not have a right to an income if they don't at least attempt to satisfy some of the constraints of the market. Many people do things which they don't or didn't want to do in order to survive - it's just life. Why should composers and their families be different?

... which takes issue with nothing that's been suggested so far in this discussion. The whole point of royalties is to pay the composer for work that has been performed. Nobody is suggesting that money should be paid if there are no performances. The whole point is that if performers make money from the work of a recently dead composer, then some of that money should see its way to the composer's immediate surviving dependants. No performances, no money: just like when the composer was alive.

Regarding the relationship between composers and their partners and dependents, that's up to them. If they want to pass on "stuff" to these that is their right. As noted, copyright does not by itself provide money or an income - further work is required. Those who inherit copyright may be able to use it, either to sell it on, or perhaps to use some form of licensing, or to exploit it themselves.

I'm not sure where your argument is going, Dave: you seem here to contradict what you've just said. I thought (and I'm sorry if I've misunderstood you) you were arguing against the idea of copyright/royalties being paid to surviving dependants? Here you seem to be saying that it's something they can "exploit"?

[Stillhomewardbound]

Bottom line for me in this debate is what I might describe as the 'retail dynamics'. I go into a record store (or its on-line equivalent these days) and pick out two new choral recordings as have been recommended to me by Gramaphon magazine. One is a recording of Monteverdi's Vespers, while the other is a suite of pieces for choir by Eric Whitacre..

In the latter, the record company has had to pay a handsome royalty to the composer, while it has cost them nothing to produce the Monteverdi work. I suspect the difference in the CD costs might be 10 to 20%, however, when I get to the checkout both items, as new releases, are charged at an identical price.

Now, if it is so unacceptable, as appears to be the view of a fair number of people in this discussion, that a company is obliged to pay royalties to a a composer who died within the last seventy-five years, how is it acceptable that said company will price works by composers who are out of copyright as if they were still having to pay royalties and happily pocket the difference.

Why do people not get more incensed about that state of affairs?

[Dave2002]

fhg

... which takes issue with nothing that's been suggested so far in this discussion. The whole point of royalties is to pay the composer for work that has been performed. Nobody is suggesting that money should be paid if there are no performances.

The whole point of copyright is that it applies to music AFAIK irrespective of whether music has been performed or recorded, thought there might still be different rules for recordings than for manuscripts and published printed or electronic editions of the text.

Royalties are a feature of our capitalist legal and financial system - which you seem to rail against. It is precisely these which give at least part of the revenue to the composers and their families. Again, as far as I can see, although there is international agreement about enforcement of copyright, there are many different regimes, and they are not all conforming to the same rules. Technically copyright issues are enforceable only within the jurisdiction under which the copyright has been taken out or registered. In the UK there is no need for any registration - every author or composer has copyright over his/her work.

For copyright to produce a revenue stream there are I believe a few options, which are

1. Sell it (as if it was a good or chattel) to someone or some other organisation. This provides a one off payment - rather like an artist selling a painting. After it has been sold there is no residual right left to the originator.

2. "Rent it out". Essentially this is a form of licensing based on usage by others. This is very unlikely to work without the assistance of large organisations - publishing companies, recording companies, or enforcement agencies such as the Performing Rights Society etc. which will almost certainly be in a better position to collect payments (royalties) than the creator.

It may also be possible to transfer some rights to others, either permanently, or for an agreed time period, so that they can either use the material or do the financial exploitation.

Music is slightly odd, in that there are few physical manifestations, and performances count as usage. I see this as reasonable, though it is hard to enforce without general agreement. If I happen to obtain a manuscript for a work, and have it performed, who is going to check that the performing rights fees have been paid? Most reputable societies will do this, but I doubt that there are effective ways of controlling this. There could be even other odd cases - such as a performance which gets rehearsed, but the actual performance is cancelled. What enforcement would there be for payment for any charges to attend the "rehearsal"?

Under my "rent it out" heading, there are ways of increasing the revenue stream, without losing the right to the original. These would seem to be (a) charges for performances, (b) charges for copies of the printed text or manuscript, which might enable a performance to be put on, and (c) charges for physical copies of manifestations of a performance (e.g CDs, DVDs etc.) and nowadays (d) charges for electronic or other intangible copies of performance manifestations **.

The Peggy Lee story is an interesting example, as she did not know at the time that she created the songs for the films that newer forms of reproduction would come along. I'm not suggesting that the judgement was wrong, but a (maybe weak) analogy might be of an artist selling off a batch of paintings which was some while later found to contain a few which got in by mistake, and which subsequently turned out to have a very high value. The (new) owner of the batch could reasonably argue that he/she'd paid for the whole batch, and was entitled to do what he/she liked with them, and the original owner would have no rights. Of course if the new owner knew that there were likely to be some "goodies" in the batch, there could be elements of fraud, though it would be difficult to prove. Even so it would be hard to prove, and we would then get into issues about "moral" behaviour versus actual behaviour and legal entitlement. Consideration of "moral" behaviour might suggest that the new owner would share any unanticipated bounty with the original creator, but there would be no legal requirement to do so, and the "real" world does not work like that.

** I'm guessing that smart lawyers these days would also ensure that copyright rules included future, as yet unknown, forms of manifestation of a work or performance of a work.

[MrGongGong]

I think (but it doesn't really apply to composers who don't write music in a form that others will play after they are dead ........ so that's a "bad" move then , he said in retrospect !) people confuse Copyright with Mechanical Rights.
I'm reminded of an electroacoustic music conference I went to some years ago where a man from the PRS was trying to explain their new sampling system. In the previous system composers could submit evidence of broadcasts from other countries in order to get the royalties (composers of this music rarely get it played on R3 etc BUT in the course of a year there can be a significant number of broadcasts worldwide). The new system they brought in used (or still uses ?) a mathematical sampling model, which inevitably means that the people who will get paid are those with the most significant percentage of broadcasts. So Michael Jackson 10 : Trevor Wishart 0, which seems to me to be a very sad state of affairs indeed. He did get more than a little out of his depth when trying to explain what mathematical model they were using (I think he really didn't understand it !) to a room full of people who , not only were those who understood the equations in Xenakis's "Formalised Music" but could point out the mistakes (which there are apparently a couple ?).
I guess the point is that the system we have does little (and the PRS have made a big difference in the last 10 years in developing new music by commissioning and supporting innovative projects) to support composers.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

fhg
The whole point of copyright is that it applies to music AFAIK irrespective of whether music has been performed or recorded

Yes, this is how I understand the situation, too. Do you object to this state of affairs? If so, is your objection
1) That royalties should not be paid on Music that is performed, recorded (or bought in print)?
or
2) That royalties should be paid on Music that isn't performed, recorded or bought in print?

I don't know what it is that you are objecting to, Dave. Your reference to "smart lawyers" (which carries suggestions of underhand practice) doesn't help - why should an artist whose work is being used to generate profits for a huge multinational have to resort to any lawyer (smart or dumb) to get their share of those profits? The behaviour of the Disney company in this case was crass, and deserves a pre-Beeching network-sized railing in condemnation.

Contrast this behaviour with that of Universal Edition, using revenue from sales of out-of-copyright classics to fund the publishing of, for example, Webern's Music. During the time Webern was composing the Cantatas and Orchestral Variations, the number of performances from his Music could be counted on the fingers of one foot. By 1960 (15 years after the composer's death) it had become a healthy source of revenue for the company, repaying their earlier investment in the work. The Music of Bartok has a similar performance history. Why should not Webern's or Bartok's widows and children receive a part of that revenue? . Why do you believe that this is wrong; you do seem to be suggesting that this is somehow unfair on people buying a CD of, say, the Concerto for Orchestra?

[Dave2002]

fhg

I don't have time for a detailed reply, but actually you might be surprised to know that in large part I agree with you. There are IMO issues about who gets the money though. It is very unlikely that any composer would get anything without the efforts of large companies and organisations some of which you appear to dislike. The fact that these companies (Disney and others) are perhaps making more for others in their organisation and other "hangers on" is a great shame, but that's the way it is. Without them, the creators would probably get nothing at all.

Re handing down works to descendants - I'm not against it, but where does one draw the line? Should rights really be "in perpetuity"? Probably impractical - can we trace the living descendents of Homer or Sophocles for example? You make the point that family members may have supported a composer during his or her lifetime, so it is reasonable that they should have some reward. This takes us into the whole issue of inheritance and who gets what, which can often be a murky business even in the estates of those who did not create works of art.

In many ways, as ever, it comes down to trust. Now I must go out.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

fhg
I don't have time for a detailed reply, but actually you might be surprised to know that in large part I agree with you.

Not really, Dave - part of my difficulty has been that I've kept thinking "Yes, that's what I think, too - are we actually disagreeing here?"!

There are IMO issues about who gets the money though. It is very unlikely that any composer would get anything without the efforts of large companies and organisations some of which you appear to dislike. The fact that these companies (Disney and others) are perhaps making more for others in their organisation and other "hangers on" is a great shame, but that's the way it is. Without them, the creators would probably get nothing at all.

I agree here, too. But there is a difference between the huge multinationals like Disney (other septic organizations are available) and, say, Augener's, printing the Music of "serious" British composers in the first half of the 20th Century, funded by more popular sheet song sales. When Universal were taken over, the financial equivalents of Webern were ditched (leaving composers like Simon Holt without a publisher) so that only immediately revenuable composers were kept on the books.

Re handing down works to descendants - I'm not against it, but where does one draw the line? Should rights really be "in perpetuity"? Probably impractical - can we trace the living descendents of Homer or Sophocles for example? You make the point that family members may have supported a composer during his or her lifetime, so it is reasonable that they should have some reward. This takes us into the whole issue of inheritance and who gets what, which can often be a murky business even in the estates of those who did not create works of art.

As I've said before, I don't (nor, I think, does anyone else) argue for "in perpetuity" payments, and I was surprised when copyright was extended to seventy years after the composer's death. Fifty years seemed reasonable to me from everyone's point of view.

In many ways, as ever, it comes down to trust. Now I must go out.

If you read this after you get back, I hope you had a profitable day (in every sense).

[ahinton]

Re handing down works to descendants - I'm not against it, but where does one draw the line? Should rights really be "in perpetuity"? Probably impractical - can we trace the living descendents of Homer or Sophocles for example? You make the point that family members may have supported a composer during his or her lifetime, so it is reasonable that they should have some reward. This takes us into the whole issue of inheritance and who gets what, which can often be a murky business even in the estates of those who did not create works of art.

In many ways, as ever, it comes down to trust. Now I must go out.

I don't see why intellectual property rights, including copyright, should in principle be treated any differently to any othe assets in terms of how they are bequeathed; it's up to the originator to specify his/her wishes in a Will. Not all composers may have surviving family members at the time of their deaths and they quite rightly have the freedom within the law to specify in a Will to whom they wish their rights to go. The copyright term is a separate issue and my concern happens to be that efforts be made to harmonise this internationally so that every country adopts the same term, otherwise confusions and infairness can airse; what that terms should be is something over which there can never be universal agreement.

The fact remains, however, that - as has been noted earlier in this thread more than once - work often needs to be done following a composer's death to ensure that the IP rights that he/she has bequeathed be converted whenever possible into royalties; believe me - I should know!

[Dave2002]

The copyright term is a separate issue and my concern happens to be that efforts be made to harmonise this internationally so that every country adopts the same term, otherwise confusions and infairness can airse; what that terms should be is something over which there can never be universal agreement.

International harmonisation might be a good thing, though I can see some possible problems. Why go for the longest period - why go for the shortest? Perhaps more tricky might be getting agreement on enforcement- fees and penalties. It's going to be at least a theoretical problem for many years I think.

[Dave2002]

Copyright can also work against almost everyone, IMO, in some circumstances. For example, if a music club decides to put on a recital of songs, then not only the music may be copyright, but also the texts. If the texts are old enough they will not be subject to copyright, but if the texts were in a foreign language, possibly German, Italian or French, then any translation could be subject to copyright. If the texts are in English (American), then it is quite possible that the texts will still be in copyright - examples W.H Auden, James Agee, John Betjeman.

The consequence of this is that it may not be possible to legally print the texts of the songs in any programme. Even if the funds could be found to pay for any right to do this, the practical difficulties may be such that this is ruled out.

Possibly some concert organisers will "just do it anyway" and see if there are any consequences - possibly not, but in theory there could be. Apart from the financial and legal issues, this is actually counter-productive, as the works of the poets do not get printed where it would be useful to do so. It seems unlikely that the authors would actually wish the suppression of their work because of these constraints, but that is what would happen.