Artists vs. record industry over songs rights

[brownie]

Artists may regain control over their post-1978 songs rights.

Interesting article in The New Yor Times

It's obviously going to be a long battle over the U.S. termination rights laws!

[Ted O'Reilly]

Artists may regain control over their post-1978 songs rights.

Interesting article in The New Yor Times

It's obviously going to be a long battle over the U.S. termination rights laws!

Wasn't there a topic here about this, regarding Frank Foster (?) a few months back? (Did he miss his opportunity...?)

[medjuck]

Any great jazz records from '78 or 79? I wouldn't be surprised is various estates take this up.

[randyhersom]

Google led me here:

http://www.scaruffi.com/jazz/70.html

More free-bop than hard-bop, but interesting choices.

[fasstrack]

Artists may regain control over their post-1978 songs rights.

Interesting article in The New Yor Times

It's obviously going to be a long battle over the U.S. termination rights laws!

It's very tempting to say about the labels 'good for the greedy bastards, they got what was coming'. But simple human compassion and also common sense won't let me. The fact is that all the unpaid downloads are shutting down the recording industry as we knew it. Everyone is getting creamed, labels and creators alike. The only way for even hot groups to make money now is live gigs and T-shirt sales. How are you gonna make royalties when everything is avalable free for download?

Aside from the performers being underpaid, for years labels definitely took songwriters (I specify songwriters b/c they're usually the ones ripped off, uncredited, or bought off for pennies), especially younger ones hungry for exposure, for a serious ride. But back then they were the only show in town, and would back you with advertising and touring. And 50% or even 25% royalties on a monster hit over many years can still make one plenty rich. And, for the above reasons and more, if the companies die everyone suffers.

I'm glad big names like Springsteen and Dylan are getting whats theirs from '78 on. The scales were tilted the other way too damn long. But, let's face it, we oughtn't cry for them. They're doing pretty damn well financially. I would reserve my tears for a guy like Jimmy Norman, the in-studio lyricist for Time is On My Side. The lyrics were written for Irma Thomas, still a practically unknown entity after many great records she made. Norman made next to nothing on the song after the Stones covered it. Maybe one could say he should've watched his back copyright-wise, but with all the record sales by the Stones it's scandalous what happened to him. Aside from not getting paid to this day everyone thinks Mick Jagger and Keith Richards wrote the song. (The late Jerry Ragovoy wrote the music and there were, I think, also lyrics prior to Norman's).

In current times it's even harder for songwriters to collect royalties because of the aforementioned free giveaways but also an important factor is the fact that royalty societies like ASCAP, of which I am a member, are doing a pitiful job putting fire to the asses of youtube and the like. I co-wrote an inspirational song (You're My Foundation) with the same Jimmy Norman. It wasn't released commercially, but a video about the making of the song and its dedication to the Jazz Foundation is widely viewable on youtube and scads of other sites. (I put it on youtube myself, truth in journalism). I called ASCAP and asked how many youtube views it would take before Jimmy and myself could collect royalties. I was told 250,000 hits! And it would amount to a few hundred bucks then. Since we're not big names imagine how long 250,000 hits would take.

I guess Jimmy and I ought to sell T-shirts......

[Teasing the Korean]

I'm glad big names like Springsteen and Dylan are getting whats theirs from '78 on.

The record industry may be glad they're getting rid of Dylan's post-78 stuff. There's a bright side to everything.

[Moko]

It's always funny when the labels complain about illegal downloading and then attempt to dodge paying the tiny amount of royalties they are legally obliged to pay artists.

I think as a business model especially if like the Jazz labels of 50's/60's you paid the artists $50 each to record an album, then if you haven't made your money back in nearly 50 years you should maybe try some other way to earn a living and stop complaining. As always rather like banks record companies think they have a right to win even when they make huge mistakes.

I feel for artists like fasstrack in these days of computer accounting there is no real reason why they should be unable to receive all the monies they rightfully deserve. If you've done the work then you should get paid the correct amount for it.

[fasstrack]

I feel for artists like fasstrack in these days of computer accounting there is no real reason why they should be unable to receive all the monies they rightfully deserve. If you've done the work then you should get paid the correct amount for it.

Thanks. Especially with that song, which could have real legs if I had the time to hustle it or my co-writer was also in a position to. In this day and age all you can do is your best and try to put your heads together with other writers to coolly figure out what can be done and, in the words of our esteemed Commander-in Chief 'whose ass to kick'.

My sympathy in the above remarks is not with the labels, BTW. Just a reality check based on the fact that if they smelled money with a given performer they would invest in them. It all came off the top off royalties anyway, then you factor in 'creative bookkeeping' . To be fair, with the egos and general shallowness of a lot of pop folks, I'm sure more than one pain in the ass regularly pushed for advances against royalties to keep up with purchases of nose candy, boats, and other toys. That's where the labels have you, overdrawing. Greed cuts both ways.