a2f2a

“It’s written into the statute,” says American entertainment lawyer Robert Bernstein. “It’s just a matter of time.”

That’s the US Copyright Act of 1976 which could “bring another round of tumult to the business, due to provisions that allow authors or their heirs to terminate copyright grants — or at the very least renegotiate much sweeter deals by threatening to do so,” he says.

He’s quoted by Eliot Van Buskirk in Wired under Copyright Time Bomb Set to Disrupt Music, Publishing Industries. And that pretty much sums up what the story predicts will become not so much a bad headache for the corporate music industry as a major disaster.

Explains the post >>>

The Copyright Act includes two sets of rules for how this works. If an artist or author sold a copyright before 1978 (Section 304), they or their heirs can take it back 56 years later. If the artist or author sold the copyright during or after 1978 (Section 203), they can terminate that grant after 35 years. Assuming all the proper paperwork gets done in time, record labels could lose sound recording copyrights they bought in 1978 starting in 2013, 1979 in 2014, and so on. For 1953-and-earlier music, grants can already be terminated.

The Eagles plan to file grant termination notices by the end of the year, according to Law.com. “It’s going to happen,” said [Greg] Eveline [of Eveline Davis & Phillips Entertainment Law]. “Just think of what the Eagles are doing when they get back their whole catalog. They don’t need a record company now…. You’ll be able to go to Eagles.com (currently under construction) and get all their songs. They’re going to do it; it’s coming up.”

Other artists are also filing notices (there’s a five-year window), according to Bernstein. But in some cases, they’re choosing to leave the copyright grant where it is — albeit with much more favorable terms.

“There are all different kinds of ways people approach it,” said Bernstein. “If they have a publishing company that’s making money for them, and collecting it and paying them well, they may just want a higher royalty. Or if they’re unhappy, they get it back.”

And, “It’s every type of copyright,” Wired has Bernstein saying, pointing out the only exceptions are derivative works “such as movies based on novels that include certain music in their soundtracks, because Congress decided it was unfair to ask publishers to give those licenses back to artists and authors”.

So now Big Music two options, “neither of which looks promising” >>>

1. Continue to claim albums are compilations (”Everybody kind of snickers at that [strategy],” said Eveline.
2. Re-record sound recordings to create new sound recording copyrights, “which would reset the countdown clock at 35 years for copyright grant termination”.

In the story, Eveline characterizes the labels’ conversations with creators going something like, “Okay, you have the old mono masters if you want — but these digital remasters are ours.”

“This might sound familiar, because BlueBeat.com employed similar logic in creating new copyrights to Beatles songs — right before it was sued by EMI and a judge barred them from continuing to sell the songs,” says Van Buskirk, adding:

“If the labels’ best strategy to avoid losing copyright grants or renegotiating them at an extreme disadvantage is the same one they’re suing other companies for using, they’re in for quite a bumpy — or, rather, an even bumpier — ride.”

Jon Newton