Don’t rob old musicians of their royalties Guest Vocals: Peter Wishart MONEY CAN'T buy me love", sang Paul McCartney sagely all those years ago. And as he considers his divorce, money has indeed proved to be a limited commodity. Like the rest of that very exclusive minority of musicians who got to the "toppermost of the poppermost", though, he has found that money is able to acquire practically everything else.
Those early Beatles recordings were the most successful of that amazing explosion of British pop that defined a generation. But fast-forward 50 years and Macca's less successful contemporaries now find themselves at the sharp end of a piece of discrimination that will see their earnings from their recorded work come to an abrupt end. They will fall victims of the 50-year copyright term on their recordings, and in their old age be deprived of the royalties.
Musicians alone are subject to this copyright cut-off. On a single from the 1960s the songwriter(s) received a copyright of life plus 70 years; the producer got the same terms; even the guy who designed the sleeve would receive a royalty for lifetime-plus. Everybody creatively involved in the record could pass on their copyright to their next generation, except the musicians themselves.
I have introduced a Bill in the Commons to address this discrimination. The Sound Recordings (Copyright Term Extension) Bill is supported by almost everyone in the music industry, has support across all parties and 36,000 musicians have signed a petition to end this discrimination.
"But don't you stand to gain from this yourself, Wishart?" I hear the more cynical readers protest. While notionally I might, I never had the big hit that would secure more than pennies in the future. I'm doing this because in the 20 years I spent in the music business, with Runrig and Big Country, I saw many more poor musicians than rich ones. The majority of musicians live on less than £15,000 a year. There is no such thing as a minimum wage for the jobbing musician.
The creative industries will soon take over from the financial sector as the most valuable part of our economy. We've therefore got to treat everyone involved in them fairly. Money won't buy us love, but it should be used to continue to reward the artists who have entertained us throughout the decades. Everybody tells me so!
|
|
Posted by: An t-Amadan, Alba on 9:51am Sun 30 Dec 07
Cue the violins and weepy music! Would it be a great tragedy if Paiul McCartney's billions dried up after 50 yers? Or if musicians were paid like real workers, who get paid once for the job, then that's it, instead of living in luxury and snorting billions of pounds of white powder up their nose for the rest of their life for a few hours of work? Come on Pete, you deserve and will get no public sympathy for this one. Musicians will have to fund their cocaine and champagne lifestyle by working for it!
Cue the violins and weepy music! Would it be a great tragedy if Paiul McCartney's billions dried up after 50 yers? Or if musicians were paid like real workers, who get paid once for the job, then that's it, instead of living in luxury and snorting billions of pounds of white powder up their nose for the rest of their life for a few hours of work? Come on Pete, you deserve and will get no public sympathy for this one. Musicians will have to fund their cocaine and champagne lifestyle by working for it!
Posted by: Elvis X MacNab, Dumfropolis on 12:11pm Sun 30 Dec 07
If some codicil denying musicians and lyricists the right to marry one legged jizz buckets, who dye their partners graying locks orange and empty their wallets, could be added to any copyright legislation, I'd vote for it.
If some codicil denying musicians and lyricists the right to marry one legged jizz buckets, who dye their partners graying locks orange and empty their wallets, could be added to any copyright legislation, I'd vote for it.
Posted by: Dexter St. Clair, Langley on 1:11pm Sun 30 Dec 07
[quote]"Everybody creatively involved in the record could pass on their copyright to their next generation, except the musicians themselves."[/quote]
Musicians rule themselves out of recording royalties by signing contracts which gives most rights to the record companies. Most recording rights belong to the company and they receive most of the royalties during their fifty year tenure. Of course they concentrate on re issuing their most popular acts (just how many Queen compilations are there) whilst refusing to release CDs of their less popular old acts. Tommy Bruce could have done with some royalties during his lifetime but EMI and his other employers sat on his tapes. It was left to a manager , fans and friends to issue a CD. Some record companies can't even be bothered to take tapes out of the vaults and name a big eff off fee to the specialist re issue labels for leasing them out.
I'd like to see Universal issuing statement of how much money from their constant re issues of Motown hits actually went to Martha Reeves, Otis Williams, Levi Stubbs in the past 40 years. Extending the copyright legislation won't mean much more money for them.
Roger McGuinn recorded fifteen albums as a member of the Byrds. According to Roger "In most cases a modest advance against royalties was all the money I received for my participation in these recording projects." Check
http://www.scripting
.com/davenet/2000/07
/12/rogerMcguinnOnMp
3com.html
In seven years time he will be entitled to start re issuing the Byrds albums himself (if he has original recordings).
If Pete Wishart seriously wants to improve the lot of recording musicians he needs to look at existing recording contracts. If he wants to do something for musicians who recorded in the fifties he wants to help set up a campaign like the Rhythm and Blues Foundation in the US which shamed record companies into handing over some of the millions they've made from old records. Artists now receive small pensions and have a trust fund to apply for aid with health bills.
Lonnie Donegan had a massive hit with Rock Island Line. How much in royalties was he paid during the record's 50 year copyright. None at all, he got a one off session fee in 1954. How much more will his family get if Pete Wishart's act extends the copyright. Absolutely nothing.
Cliff Richard, Paul McCartney have all now followed Frank Sinatra, Frank Zappa, David Bowie and their contemporary Dave Clark by owning and leasing their recordings to record companies. Wishart should be using his expert knowledge to make it easier for performers to gain control of their old recordings.
"Everybody creatively involved in the record could pass on their copyright to their next generation, except the musicians themselves."
Musicians rule themselves out of recording royalties by signing contracts which gives most rights to the record companies. Most recording rights belong to the company and they receive most of the royalties during their fifty year tenure. Of course they concentrate on re issuing their most popular acts (just how many Queen compilations are there) whilst refusing to release CDs of their less popular old acts. Tommy Bruce could have done with some royalties during his lifetime but EMI and his other employers sat on his tapes. It was left to a manager , fans and friends to issue a CD. Some record companies can't even be bothered to take tapes out of the vaults and name a big eff off fee to the specialist re issue labels for leasing them out.
I'd like to see Universal issuing statement of how much money from their constant re issues of Motown hits actually went to Martha Reeves, Otis Williams, Levi Stubbs in the past 40 years. Extending the copyright legislation won't mean much more money for them.
Roger McGuinn recorded fifteen albums as a member of the Byrds. According to Roger "In most cases a modest advance against royalties was all the money I received for my participation in these recording projects." Check
http://www.scripting
.com/davenet/2000/07
/12/rogerMcguinnOnMp
3com.html
In seven years time he will be entitled to start re issuing the Byrds albums himself (if he has original recordings).
If Pete Wishart seriously wants to improve the lot of recording musicians he needs to look at existing recording contracts. If he wants to do something for musicians who recorded in the fifties he wants to help set up a campaign like the Rhythm and Blues Foundation in the US which shamed record companies into handing over some of the millions they've made from old records. Artists now receive small pensions and have a trust fund to apply for aid with health bills.
Lonnie Donegan had a massive hit with Rock Island Line. How much in royalties was he paid during the record's 50 year copyright. None at all, he got a one off session fee in 1954. How much more will his family get if Pete Wishart's act extends the copyright. Absolutely nothing.
Cliff Richard, Paul McCartney have all now followed Frank Sinatra, Frank Zappa, David Bowie and their contemporary Dave Clark by owning and leasing their recordings to record companies. Wishart should be using his expert knowledge to make it easier for performers to gain control of their old recordings.
Posted by: Lowgen, New York on 1:40pm Sun 30 Dec 07
I suspect that most of Macca's income come from songwriting credits rather than record sales.
I suspect that most of Macca's income come from songwriting credits rather than record sales.
Posted by: Robert W. Harwood, Kitchener, Ontario on 5:26pm Sun 30 Dec 07
The creative process involves modifiying the past - songs do not materialize out of the air. Songs of today are the building blocks of the future. They must return to the public domain - to conserve the waters we draw upon for inspiration. Interminable copyright is akin to stripping the forest without replanting the trees.
The creative process involves modifiying the past - songs do not materialize out of the air. Songs of today are the building blocks of the future. They must return to the public domain - to conserve the waters we draw upon for inspiration. Interminable copyright is akin to stripping the forest without replanting the trees.
Comment | Read Comments (5)
Print this story
Email to a friend
