Music Copyright law

Music Copyright law

Music Copyright law is an integral facet of the music industry. It refers to the legal rights granted to a composer, author, playwright, performers of the expression, publisher, or distributor to exclusive production, publication, sale, or distribution of musical work. The overarching goal of the copyright law is to preserve the creativity of the owner(s) of the original work in a tangible form such as record tape, CD, or copying lyrics in a paper as well as enable them to earn revenues from the sale of their musical works. The owner gains automatic copyright protection once the original work is put in a tangible medium. However, the music industry is inundated with controversies concerning copyright ownership issues, particularly concerning sound recording. In legal terms, “whoever pays the studio charges” is the solemn sound record copyright owner (Rutter 2011, p. 82). For music makers (artists and producers), the trend towards being the primary copyright owner brings with it a whole set of debates. Such is a contract case that needs critical evaluation deploying current copyright and music contract law; this provides you with a brief knowledge of in the area to avoid future conflict.

The case involves a solo artist who co-authored a songwriter, who both completed the lyrics and vocal melody. The artist was approached by a music producer who owns a recording studio with the idea that the song had the potential to become a hit song. As such, the producer suggested the idea of recording the song professionally, specifically through a production agreement contract. However, the agreement was to be between the producer and solo artist, implying that it did not involve the other songwriter. The total cost of recording was valued at £2,550, and each party was to contribute 50% of this amount. Moreover, the proposal indicates that all recoding rights was to be co-owned by the artist and the producer, each holding a 50% share. Also, the agreement suggests that all revenue derived from licensing their recording to a third party would be divided equally. Besides, it indicates that in the event of a re-record of the song by the producer of the third party, the artist should pay 3 % of the needed publisher dealer price on all physical sales of the Re-record. In the case of digital sales, the artist should pay 15 % of the total income generated. The contract also specified that any re-record by a third-party producer was to be done after 36 months period starting from the date when recording of the song was completed. There was also the condition that both parties had to keep each other reasonably informed about any third party offers. Finally, this contract was to be administered under the laws of England.

Definition of Major Terms

Music Copyright law– the body of law in England that governs the protection of ownership and rights of usage for musical works.

Copyright ownership– the legal rights granted by the laws of England to a composer, author, playwright, performers of the expression, publisher, or distributor to exclusive production, publication, sale, or distribution of musical work.

Contract– a legally abiding agreement between two or more parties and is enforceable under the law. It can either be written or oral.

Music Artist– someone who creates, composes, and performs music, either independently or through a record producer.

Producer-someone who manages the process of music sound recording. The individual is responsible for myriads of roles, including providing musical instruments, scheduling studio time, negotiations, and handling costs

Music Recording– physical recording of musical performance that later can be played back or reproduced. The process involves aspects such as sound recording, mixing, audio, and video production of musical performance.

Music Re-recording- refers to a recording that is produced following a new performance of existing musical work.

Third-Party – any other person or group besides the primary artist and producer.

Discussion

Contract and the Situation Reflection

The issue of concern in this music production contract analysis is its worthiness and through situation exploration (length, term, territory, etc.). Based on my assessment, especially in regard to the terms and conditions outlined in the contract, it is unwise to accept it. Although in the past, there have been cases where the producer and the artist co-own copyright ownership, I believe that in this case, the property should exclusively be given to the artist. Thus, the artist should compensate the producer for all costs incurred in the production processes. As such, if the producer wants to use the music, perhaps in re-recording it or for other purposes, they should be paid the artist an amount that is proportional to the artist’s copyright fee.

Firstly, the artist is required to contribute 50% of the cost incurred when recording the song. Indeed, this is unreasonable, considering that the producer did not participate in the writing of the lyrics of the song (no intelectual property). Moreover, the payments are made to the producer on a non-returnable basis. Indeed, this is one of the issues that I find contentious. Why would the artist be required to pay the recording fees to a tune of half of the total amount, yet the producer did not contribute towards writing the lyrics of the song? What is more, all income generated from the sales of the recording shall be divided equally, including those earned from licensing the record to a third party.

In the past, many music producers have faced lawsuits filed by song artists as a result of such agreements. This is because many such contracts are unrealistic, having far-reaching financial implications on the side of the songwriters and music artists. Such incidences occur when a musician starts generating a lot of income, yet they are compensated less amount of the profits accrued. The 1994 case pitting George Michaels V Sony Entertainment Corporation serves as a perfect example. The former party went to court to regain his copyright powers from the latter party. However, in dismay, the High Court ruled in favor of Sony Entertainment Inc. In the ruling, Justice Jonathan Parker observed that the contract agreement was “reasonable and fair.”

“I am satisfied on the evidence that there is no substance in George Michael’s claim of unfair conduct by Sony or in any of the detailed complaints which he makes…. In particular, I am satisfied that there was no such deliberate policy decision by Sony as George Michael alleges.”

The ruling shows the magnitude of the losses that musicians undergo when they sign a contract with a producer without fully understanding it. Thus, in this case, rather than paying half of the amount for recording the song, it is reasonable for the artist to pay the producer all the amount incurred in the process of recording the song.

However, there are some cases whereby the court has ruled in favor of the artists. For example, in the case, Zang Tumb Tuum Records Ltd V. Johnson [1993] EMLR 61, the Supreme Court Judges, Lord Justice Mann, Justice Dillon, and Sir John Megaw, ruled that Johnson was free to terminate the contract with Zang Records since when entering into the contract he was under undue influence considering that he was an artist without much experience. Parallel to the case under discussion, the cost of recording was required to be excluded from accrued profits.

Moreover, it is also notable that this contract is not enforceable under the law. This is due to a lack of representation of an important party, specifically, the songwriter who co-authored the lyrics and the vocal melody of the song in the discussion. One factor that may invalidate a contract is a misrepresentation. In this case, the songwriter can sue both parties for failing to involve him in the contract details despite being the one who wrote the music and was also involved in writing the lyrics and the vocal line. This would consequently render the contract invalid.

Copyright law offers the distinction between two basic musical concepts: expression and idea. The former is considered to be the outcome of the original creative process and hence is copyright protected. However, artistic work does not solely comprise of expression since expressions are often based on ideas. Thus, ideas are not copyrighted. This means that one cannot sue a composer for using the same ideas. However, in this context, the artist used the song’s expressions, and thus, can be sued. This is because it is a direct plagiarism of other people’s musical phrases. One of the most prominent cases of plagiarizing other artist’s expression is that of Vanilla Ice v Queen & David Bowie. A collaboration between David Bowie and Queen resulted in the production of a single hit, Under Pressure. The song became a number hit in the UK in 1981. In 1990, Vanilla Ice released the song, Ice Baby, which used Under Pressure classic baseline. Ice was charged with copyright infringement. However, the case was settled out of the court, with Ice paying the Queen and Bowie an undisclosed amount of sum.

Over and above, concerning the producer’s offer, I would recommend the artist to decline from signing the contract. This is because the offer presented is unrealistic. As underscored in the discussion, the proposal that the artist fund half of the cost incurred to record the song is unreasonable, considering that they are sharing the income generated from the sales of the recordings equally. Rationally, this would translate to mean that the producer should also pay the musician for writing the lyrics and vocal line of the song. Moreover, the idea.

xxxxxxxxxxxxx

Lawsuits in music contracts have been evident for a long time where one party feels that the other has breached/violated. The contract requires that the producer agrees to provide services to the producer for recording purposes, and the rights for recording and shared evenly between producer and the artist (band) and to follow other regulation. The first important aspect is the length of the agreement. Some contracts would take a long time, which would prompt the artist and the contractor to abide. For instance, in 2013, the EU extended the period of sound record from 50-70 years, which can alter the decision of the artist. The music industry has been commercialized in ads, and campaigns and the contract do not require the artist to engage in any selling activities. Imitating other people sounds and