Rep. Conyers Wants To Clarify Termination Rights Under Copyright Law

from the but-in-which-direction dept

With all the talk of musicians and their contested termination rights lately (as well as a few early cases about termination rights), it appears that Congress is starting to pay attention. Rep. John Conyers has stepped up to say that Congress should clarify termination rights, and it sounds as though he's going against the record labels here. While he doesn't say so directly, his statements suggest that he means making sure that artists can get back their copyrights.

If that's accurate, that's good to hear. It is a bit surprising, however, since Conyers gets a ton of money from the entertainment industry (his second largest supporters after "lawyers.") And, in the past, Conyers has been in favor of taxing radio and also locking up federally funded research behind copyright. Still, if he's really willing to help get Congress to make it clear that musicians signed to record labels were not "work for hire" situations, and should be able to terminate their copyright assignments, that would be a good step forward.

Filed Under: clarification, copyright, copyright termination, john conyers, termination rights

Dear Musicians: The RIAA Is About To Totally Screw You Over (Again!)

from the watch-for-it... dept

It's been two years since we first warned of the pending fight concerning musicians asserting their copyright termination rights. As you hopefully know by now, copyright law includes a "termination right," which cannot be contractually given up, which allows the original content creator to "reclaim" the copyright on their works 35 years after it was created. The only real exception is in cases where the work qualifies as "work for hire." I'm actually not a huge fan of termination rights in the first place for a variety of reasons, but the fact is that they're there... and they scare the entertainment industry silly.

The big legal fights so far have mostly been about the comic book industry, with the heirs of Superman's creators having won back some rights to Superman -- while Jack Kirby's heirs failed to win back the rights to The Incredible Hulk and X-Men. Kirby's family just appealed and there are still additional disputes around the Superman stuff.

However, the real showdown is about the music industry. The NY Times has an article about the impending battle, which has a variety of interesting tidbits, but none more ridiculous than the RIAA officially making it clear that it intends to totally screw over musicians. As we made clear two years ago when we wrote about this, the RIAA was going to come out fighting to try to block what the law clearly allows, and will do everything it can to screw over artists and keep them from regaining their own copyrights.

“We believe the termination right doesn’t apply to most sound recordings,” said Steven Marks, general counsel for the Recording Industry Association of America, a lobbying group in Washington that represents the interests of record labels. As the record companies see it, the master recordings belong to them in perpetuity, rather than to the artists who wrote and recorded the songs, because, the labels argue, the records are “works for hire,” compilations created not by independent performers but by musicians who are, in essence, their employees.

First, this may be the first time the mainstream media has accurately pointed out that the RIAA represents the "interests of the record labels" rather than the interests of the music industry or musicians. As is clear in this case, the RIAA's interests are diametrically opposed to the interests of artists, and the fact that Marks has the gall to flat out say that termination rights don't apply to most sound recordings is so intellectually dishonest.

The RIAA knows full well that termination rights absolutely do apply to most sound recordings. To be fair, this is mostly an accident of history. As was detailed in an excellent IP Colloquium episode last summer all about termination rights, what got covered and what didn't basically depended on who was in the room and who was more aggressive in their lobbying. Nine "work-for-hire" exceptions were put into the law. It doesn't make much sense which ones made it and which didn't, but that's lobbying for you.

However, the reason we know that the RIAA is fully aware of the fact that copyright termination does apply to most sound recordings is because a dozen years ago, recognizing that this was going to become an issue, the RIAA famously had a small time Congressional staffer by the name of Mitch Glazier sneak four innocuous looking words in the middle of a totally unrelated bill to quietly and retroactively have sound recordings declared "works for hire." This literally happened overnight with no elected officials who were voting on the bill being made aware of it.

Once that became public, artists (quite reasonably) freaked out and went very, very public about how the RIAA was totally screwing them over. It's one of the few times in history when Congress actually went against the RIAA, removing the language soon after it was approved. Of course, the guy who slipped the language in, Mitch Glazier, came out of this fine. Just three months after putting in that language, he was hired by the RIAA at a $500,000 per year salary, and he's just been promoted to the number two spot at the RIAA.

If you ever needed any more evidence that the RIAA is entirely anti-artist, this is it. It's put the guy who tried to take away their right to regain copyrights in the number 2 spot just weeks before out and out declaring that the organization simply doesn't believe sound recordings qualify for termination rights.

So, since they know damn well that sound recordings do qualify for termination rights, how are they going to claim otherwise? They may (as the NY Times article suggests) try to rely on last year's ruling concerning Bob Marley's recordings, in which they were declared "work for hire" and his family was unable to reclaim the copyright. But that's a different story, as those recordings happened prior to the rules of the 1976 Copyright Act, so the ruling really doesn't apply.

Instead, my bet is they're going to lean heavily on a Second Circuit Appeals Court ruling from last year, which claimed that an album is a single compilation for the purposes of copyright law. That matters, because while "sound recordings" are not covered as a "work for hire," "compilations" are. Of course, the obvious intent of including "compilations" was based on the realization that if multiple people contribute pieces to a larger whole compilation, separating out those rights later under termination laws would be freakishly impossible. Thus it was just easier to label the entire compilation as held by the producer. But a single album by a single artist clearly is not a compilation in that sense, despite the RIAA's claim above.

Other than that, the only way the RIAA can make a work for hire claim stick is to say that musicians were employees who created the music "within the scope of his or her employment." That, obviously, is completely laughable, since the labels don't hire musicians, nor do they pay them salaries. In fact, while they give them "advances," those are merely a form of loan that the artists have to pay back out of their own earnings. So the labels aren't even paying for the music creation.

Either way, it's pretty stunning that the RIAA has so blatantly declared war on artists. I'm somewhat surprised that more musicians aren't speaking out about this, but it's going to happen. No wonder the RIAA is so desperate to get things like PROTECT IP passed now, before this next battle comes to fruition. Once you have a bunch of big name musicians going very public about how the RIAA is screwing them over, it's going to be increasingly difficult for the RIAA to keep up the facade about how it's representing the interests of musicians while it's actively and vocally trying to totally screw them over.

Filed Under: copyright, copyright termination, mitch glazier, music, termination, termination rights
Companies: riaa

Warner Bros. So Distraught Over Losing Superman Rights, It Personally Sues The Lawyer Who Won

from the getting-a-bit-personal dept

We've covered the ongoing fight over copyright termination rights lately, as it's quickly becoming a big deal. While the whole concept shows part of how messed up copyright law has become, one element included to help artists (rather than just big companies) when copyright terms were extended, were opportunities for the original artists or their estates to "terminate" the assignment of copyright to a company. The details are highly technical and a bit of a mess, and the entertainment industry has worked hard for years to try to bury termination rights (most famously when the RIAA had a Congressional staffer -- who was hired just months later to a high-paying RIAA job -- slip some text into a bill in the middle of the night that took termination rights away from musicians, until musicians freaked out and Congress backtracked). Even so, the big entertainment industry companies have been fighting against every attempt at artists or their estates reclaiming their copyrights for years. The most famous case was the case over Superman's rights -- which concluded last year with the estate of Jerry Siegel winning back certain rights (while letting Warner retain other Superman-related rights).

The lawyer who represented the Siegel estate, Marc Toberoff, has been pushing content creators and their estates to understand (and make use of) termination rights for a long time. And it's no surprise that we're now seeing new efforts under way from musicians and others, including comic book artist Jack Kirby. Kirby, not surprisingly, is also represented by Toberoff, who isn't just representing these artists in helping them get back their copyrights, but he's apparently set up his own production studio to help make use of those copyrights once he helps the artists get them back.

Apparently, Warner Bros. (a frequent target of Toberoff) has had enough and has decided to sue Toberoff personally, claiming that... well... basically that he's a jerk and a savvy business person, which I didn't quite realize was illegal. Specifically, they seem to be claiming that Toberoff "manipulated" the creators of Superman, having them hand over a large percentage of the rights to the character if he was able to successfully manage the termination. Part of Warner's complaint is that Siegel and Shuster had apparently signed agreements promising not to exercise their termination rights, but as I'm sure Warner's lawyers know (they must know this, right?), you cannot contractually give up your termination rights, or all entertainment industry companies would require that in their standard contract.

Frankly, reading through the complaint -- which you can read below -- it looks like Warner is attempting to retry the Superman termination rights case that it already lost: While I still think there are all sorts of problems with termination rights in copyright law, and have no doubt that Toberoff had plenty of reasons beyond helping artists get back their copyrights in agreeing to represent these artists, it is somewhat amusing to see Hollywood flail around so desperately to try to keep absolutely monopolistic control over these rights. Of course, if the copyright law that was in place when Superman was created was still in place, the character of Superman would no longer be covered by copyright at all today, but would, instead, be in the public domain. So, forgive me for feeling little sympathy for anyone involved in this tug of war over who gets to exploit the creation for more money.

Filed Under: copyright, hollywood, marc toberoff, movies, superman, termination rights
Companies: warner bros.

Court Says Album Is A Single Work For Copyright Purposes; Each Song Is NOT Separate Infringement

from the interesting... dept

In a somewhat surprising case, the Second Circuit appeals court has ruled that infringing on a full album only counts as a single infringement for the sake of statutory damages, rather than counting each song separately. In an era when juries are awarding the record labels $1.92 million for an album's worth of songs being infringed (and industry apologists claim this is totally reasonable), it's nice to see a court recognize how ridiculous this is. As Eric Goldman notes in the link above, this is a situation where a company "snatched defeat from the jaws of victory." It won the lawsuit, and while the court suggested it settle, it kept demanding an award of over $1 million $6 million, by claiming each song was a separate infringement and that each infringement deserved the statutory max of $150,000 per infringement (despite the fact that the amount of actual infringement involved was minimal -- totally $331 accidentally not paid to the client).

That's what happens when you use statutory damages for copyright infringement being totally out of line with common sense. Copyright holders start dreaming of a legal windfall. Thankfully, the court said no way, noting that each album (there were two) only were eligible for a single statutory damage claim, and that the infringement was "innocent infringement," lowering the awards even more. The total amount awarded: $2,400 -- or significantly less than the copyright holder most likely spent on legal fees. The court seemed to recognize the blatant greed in the copyright holder:

Appellees also were reasonable in trying to resolve the case short of trial: Appellees made an Offer of Judgment in the amount of $3000, which Appellants rejected, in favor of continuing to demand over $1 million in damages, notwithstanding the evidence that Appellees had received less than $600 in revenues from infringing sales.

Of course, the news might not be all bad for the record labels. Eriq Gardner is suggesting that some labels may read the decision in a way that will help them prevent artists from terminating their copyright assignments and taking back control over their works. Many musicians have been preparing to take back their copyrights through the somewhat complex system of copyright termination, which lets original copyright holders reclaim works they assigned to others after a certain period of time. The labels have been fighting this for years, famously having a Congressional staffer sneak four words into an unrelated bill late at night, to make all music ineligible for such termination rights, by calling it a "work for hire." That Congressional staffer was then hired for a cushy job at the RIAA a few months later. However, the outrage from musicians finally got Congress to rescind that change.

But it hasn't stopped the industry from looking for ways to prevent termination rights -- including trying to claim that a remastered version of a song should get a new copyright, separate from the old one. And, don't be surprised if they try to use this ruling in their favor as well. As Gardner notes, even though this ruling was over a totally different issue (damages for infringement), the current definition of a "work for hire" includes "compilations," and the judge's ruling in this case points that an album is a single infringement because it's considered a compilation. And, so, the argument goes, the record labels may have just been given a judge to quote on why albums are compilations... and thus works made for hire... and thus not eligible for termination rights. Fun stuff.

Filed Under: album, copyright, song, termination rights

Are The Record Labels Using Bluebeat's Bogus Copyright Defense To Avoid Having To Give Copyrights Back To Artists?

from the oh,-those-record-labels dept

As you hopefully know, back in 1999, the RIAA had a Congressional staffer named Mitch Glazier slip four words into a totally unrelated bill on satellite retransmission of broadcast TV, literally in the middle of the night, that effectively changed the way copyrights worked on songs by major label artists. It effectively took much of the control out of the hands of the artists and handed it right to the labels. Remember that the next time the record labels claim they're representing the best interests of artists. The use of four simple words, buried deep within the bill, which no one other than the RIAA knew about (seriously, those who voted on it later said they had no idea), turned songs recorded by artists signed to record deals to works made for hire. That meant that those artists could not reclaim the copyrights to their songs later on via a "termination" right, as any other content creator could. Glazier, the staffer who slipped this into the bill, ended up going to work for the RIAA just three months after putting this text into the bill. He was apparently hired with a $500,000 salary. Not a bad payoff for changing a key component of copyright law in the middle of the night when no one's looking.

Luckily, soon after this passed a few people did notice, leading to a big uproar from artists, and an eventual backtracking from Congress, who never did believe the RIAA's line that this "change" just "clarified existing law" rather than changed it entirely.

But, it's important to remember all of this when discussing termination rights for music. Back in October, we had discussed how the songs of many top musicians were quickly approaching those termination rights, and some of the major record labels stood to lose the copyrights on some of their biggest hit albums. Wired recently ran a similar article about this "ticking time bomb," and I wasn't going to post it, because I wasn't sure it added much new, until reader Mesanna pointed out one little factoid down at the bottom:

The second option is to re-record sound recordings in order to create new sound recording copyrights, which would reset the countdown clock at 35 years for copyright grant termination. Eveline characterized the labels' conversations with creators going something like, "Okay, you have the old mono masters if you want -- but these digital remasters are ours."

Labels already file new copyrights for remasters. For example, Sony Music filed a new copyright for the remastered version of Ben Folds Five's Whatever and Ever Amen album, and when Omega Record Group remastered a 1991 Christmas recording, the basis of its new copyright claim was "New Matter: sound recording remixed and remastered to fully utilize the sonic potential of the compact disc medium."

Now, of course that sounds ridiculous, to hear that record labels can get a new copyright on just remastering a work... but, that sounds an awful lot like the argument made by Bluebeat.com, concerning its "psycho-acoustic simulation" re-recordings of famous songs, that enabled it to claim a new copyright. Now, the record labels are crying foul about this, and the vast majority of copyright law experts say that Bluebeat's claim has no chance at all. But, if that's the case, then the record labels own attempts to get new copyrights on remastered albums to avoid the termination rights might also be in jeopardy. It seems like any argument that is made against Bluebeat can soon be used against the labels as well if they really do try to claim copyright on remastered albums.

Filed Under: copyright, music, remasters, termination rights, work for hire

Musicians Starting To Assert Copyright Termination Rights Against Record Labels

from the this-ought-to-be-interesting... dept

There's been a lot of attention recently to the news that the heirs of comic book artist Jack Kirby are alerting companies of plans to take back the copyright on various Kirby characters, using the termination rights in the Copyright Act. This followed a very long and drawn out lawsuit involving a similar attempt over Superman. The details are really complex, but copyright law allows the original creator (or heirs if that creator has passed away) certain opportunities to basically negate a deal that was signed early on to hand over the copyright on certain works. The idea was to help protect artists who signed bad deals, but in practice, it's just been a total mess.

Still, given the success of the Superman saga in getting at least some of the copyrights back, suddenly lots of people are looking to see what other copyrights can be reclaimed. Apparently, a bunch of musicians are now lining up to try to regain their rights from the labels starting in 2013 (the first year musical works are eligible). As the article notes, with record labels still too clueless to figure out how to successfully build business models around new acts, many still rely on sales of old music to bring in a lot of their revenue. If the labels lose the copyrights on much of that music... well... let's just say suddenly The Pirate Bay may be the least of their concerns.

The labels, of course, are aware of all of this, and have been planning a strategy to fight it for years. As was detailed in William Patry's latest book, in 1999 the RIAA was able to get Congress to amend copyright law in the middle of the night (literally), to change musical works to "work for hire," which does not have a termination right associated with it. There were loud protests from many artists, and Congress quickly backed down. Still, the record labels are going to claim that, even without that clearly written in the law, the music created by musicians on the labels were, in fact, "works for hire."

So, get ready for a series of long and drawn out lawsuits from the labels over this issue. They certainly realize that even if they eventually lose, by taking it to court, they can delay that day of reckoning for quite some time. Now, to be clear, I tend to have a problem with the whole concept of these termination rights. If you've contractually agreed to give up your copyright, that should be that. It only causes more problems (as we see) down the road to offer some sort of automatic out, not negotiated into the contract. That said, the very fact that the labels are freaking out about this and intend to go to court against the artists over this should (once again) be a reminder that the labels and the RIAA have never had "the artists' best interests" in mind in whatever they do. The fact that politicians and many in the press still think that the labels represent the artists' interests is pretty ridiculous. Hopefully, things like these upcoming lawsuits will help clarify that for them.

Filed Under: copyright, music, termination rights, work for hire