Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery
for years the record companies have been basically fronting the money for an album to the artist and taking back all that money from the 10% of the royalties that artist gets.
Not exactly the employee/employer relationship that assigns the copyright to the employer.
By default the copyright should be retained by the artist.
If that arguement wins, the record companies will lose their catalog rights, and the artist will get them back.
|
Considering how hard it is even today for someone to get big without the money and expertise a label can give an artist, I'm not so sure that is a good thing for the artists. Not 99.99% of them. Having your copyrights as an artist doesn't mean squat if your songs are never heard.
By the way the smart artists get a writing credit so they do get copyright and larger royalties.
I'm all for companies and artist having copyright protection, BUT copyright was never rmeant to last for 95 years or 70 years after someon dies. The old way of 56 years max was more than enough time to make money from something. Eventually there will be no such thing call "public domain" except for stuff made before 1923. If someone or some company made a song/movie/tv show in 1952 and still hasn't made any money, too bad. It should be public domain. Some has yet to epxlain to me why someon's great grandkids should be getting paid for what their ancestor did. They need to have REAL jobs.