Q. about bluenote and royalties

[David Ayers]

Not strictly Blue Note, and somewhat hearsay, but years back Buddy DeFranco had (and perhaps still does) a website and message board. Someone once asked him about royalties from the Mosaic box, and at the time Buddy claimed that he never saw a penny from it.

If he had a royalty deal (not likely) with Verve, Universal would be on the hook for the royalties, not Mosaic.

I didn't mean to imply that it was Mosaic's fault, but i think most would have expected him to be paid royalties from whomever was obligated to pay him, in this case Verve. If it really is that rare to be paid royalties (or at least not uncommon not to be paid them), then doesn't that undercut much of our argument against the Euro-labels (and others) that are "taking advantage" of PD laws? Not meaning to downplay the involvement (and investment) of producers such as yourself, Chuck, but often the biggest argument against the "import" labels (or even web blogs) is that the artists aren't getting their fair share.

I keep making this point about the fiction of artist compensation. As far as licensing deals by the owners to other labels such as Mosaic, you can be sure that the contract with the artist would have a clause regarding licensing which either would grant a (tiny) percentage of the lump sum paid for the license, or would pay nothing to the artist. Composer's rights are another matter, as I am always pointing out in these discussions.

[Hardbopjazz]

This year I saw Lou Donaldson, and between tunes he mentioned some hip hop artist sampled the piece that the band just played. It was one of his composition. He said he got a big fat check. I don't know the amount, but he seems to get royalties.

I do recall Blue Mitchell's Fungii Mama being used in an Intel TV commercial. He wife reeived two checks I believe for 50k each. We even discussed this here a while back, or on the BNBB.

[Christiern]

The session cost had to be absorbed before any performance royalties were paid, and then only if there was such an agreement, which there usually wasn't with so-called "side-men".

I recall hearing stories of Norman Granz (you know, the saint). Manipulating so that one artist in fact paid another's advance—unknowingly, unwittingly. Billie comes to mind as one of the victims cited, Peterson as one of the benefactors. It all had to do with "studio/session costs".

Heard anything like that, Chuck N.?

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

This year I saw Lou Donaldson, and between tunes he mentioned some hip hop artist sampled the piece that the band just played. It was one of his composition. He said he got a big fat check. I don't know the amount, but he seems to get royalties.

I do recall Blue Mitchell's Fungii Mama being used in an Intel TV commercial. He wife reeived two checks I believe for 50k each. We even discussed this here a while back, or on the BNBB.

In the interview section at the end of Nat Adderley's Chiaroscuro Floating Jazz Fest album, he talks about 'Work song' as his favourite song, becaause it was used for a TV ad in Japan (Toyota I think).

Throughout John Broven's book 'Record makers and breakers' he's continually on about the value of song copyrights. And those copyrights last until 50 years after the composer's death, so they provide for kids and grandkids, too.

MG

[marcello]

Here's the lot for the good ole' US of A:

Works Originally Created on or after January 1, 1978

A work that is created (fixed in tangible form for the first time) on or after January 1, 1978, is automatically protected from the moment of its creation and is ordinarily given a term enduring for the author's life plus an additional 70 years after the author's death. In the case of "a joint work prepared by two or more authors who did not work for hire," the term lasts for 70 years after the last surviving author's death. For works made for hire, and for anonymous and pseudonymous works (unless the author's identity is revealed in Copyright Office records), the duration of copyright will be 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter.

Works Originally Created before January 1, 1978, But Not Published or Registered by That Date

These works have been automatically brought under the statute and are now given federal copyright protection. The duration of copyright in these works will generally be computed in the same way as for works created on or after January 1, 1978: the life-plus-70 or 95/120-year terms will apply to them as well. The law provides that in no case will the term of copyright for works in this category expire before December 31, 2002, and for works published on or before December 31, 2002, the term of copyright will not expire before December 31, 2047.

Works Originally Created and Published or Registered before January 1, 1978

Under the law in effect before 1978, copyright was secured either on the date a work was published with a copyright notice or on the date of registration if the work was registered in unpublished form. In either case, the copyright endured for a first term of 28 years from the date it was secured. During the last (28th) year of the first term, the copyright was eligible for renewal. The Copyright Act of 1976 extended the renewal term from 28 to 47 years for copyrights that were subsisting on January 1, 1978, or for pre-1978 copyrights restored under the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), making these works eligible for a total term of protection of 75 years. Public Law 105-298 [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d105:SN00505: |TOM:/bss/d105query.html| ], enacted on October 27, 1998, further extended the renewal term of copyrights still subsisting on that date by an additional 20 years, providing for a renewal term of 67 years and a total term of protection of 95 years.

[Michael Weiss]

The session cost had to be absorbed before any performance royalties were paid, and then only if there was such an agreement, which there usually wasn't with so-called "side-men".

Just to add 2¢:

Usually the Artist (leader) has to recoup the recording costs OUT OF HIS ROYALTY, normally 12%. Of course the company has already recouped the recording costs more than 7 times over by that time!

Unless they are of such considerable fame that they can demand a royalty, sidemen are compensated in full for the session.

Edited March 19, 2012 by Michael Weiss

[AllenLowe]

though it's been almost 40 years, I do remember when I worked for Don Schlitten and he had Xanadu, he explained something to the effect that he had devised a more equitable split with the musicians, in which he shared royalties even before costs had been recouped. Something like that, IIRC -

[JSngry]

The Xanadu profit-sahring plan was mentioned several times in the late, lamented Jazz magazine, from its initiation to its first actual payout.

[Christiern]

though it's been almost 40 years, I do remember when I worked for Don Schlitten and he had Xanadu, he explained something to the effect that he had devised a more equitable split with the musicians, in which he shared royalties even before costs had been recouped. Something like that, IIRC -

I believe Carl Jefferson also had an unusual artist-favoring arrangement for Concord.

Years ago, when Roberta Flack signed with Atlantic, her agent (Franklin) discovered an outdated "breakage" clause in the contract. It was a leftover 78rpm clause that had conveniently remained in place. FRanklin had it removed.

[Chuck Nessa]

Much misunderstanding about royalties and rights. Some good guys look bad, some bad guys look good.

Not really a consumer's game without real facts.