We hear alot these days about the RIAA suing people for copyright infraction. What gives them standing to sue?
I was reading a little bit about one of my favorite bands, Genesis, and apparently the copyright for the music on their first album is owned by some guy who financed the recording (who apparently releases it periodically without requiring the band’s consent). All music on their subsequent albums is owned by the band itself.
Nowhere in all of this do I see the RIAA. Excluding the first album, all the copyrights are apparently held by Phil Collins, Peter Gabriel, etc., (although, in my ignorance of the music biz, I don’t know if Gabriel got to keep partial ownership for Genesis songs after he left the band.) I assume it’s similiar with other artists.
The RIAA doesn’t appear to own any of this music, they just happen to represent a record label that publishes the music. It seems like the recording artist is the one who has standing to sue, not the RIAA, so what’s the deal with these lawsuits?
I’m sure someone more knowledgeable than myself will come along to answer this, but there is a distinction between copyrights on the work (i.e. the lyrics, music, etc.) and the particular recording. Thus, while all of Bach’s work is in the public domain, a new recording by an orchestra will be protected. I believe that sheet music publication is also copyrighted as well.
Probably the artists retain copyright on the original work, but the recording/publishing company owns the copyright on the recording that people buy. Since people are downloading particular recordings, the RIAA would go after that. I guess if someone decided to record their own version of a song and distribute it, it’d be up to the artist to defend the copyright.
Usually, this is how it is with a typical song you’d hear on the radio (ugh, who listens to that anymore?) There’s actually two copyrights: one for the actual song(s)(PA), i.e., the lyrics and melody, and one for the sound recording (SR), i.e., that particular recording of that particular band playing that particular arrangement. The PA copyright is usually owned half by the songwriter(s) and half by the publishing compan(y)(ies) (The publishing companies are usually some subsidiary of the record company.) The SR copyright is usually owned by the record company as a “work for hire”. There will be slight variations on the above theme depending on the individual contract, etc.
The RIAA, an association of the Big 5 (or is it Big 4 now?) record companies, claims to be protecting the artists rights by sueing file sharers, and are in theory. But because of the way most recording contracts are, the artists are actually “losing” very little money because they’re making very little money (relatively to all involved) in the first place. The RIAA really protecting themselves, i.e., the Big 5, from losing money. (Of course, the claim that file sharing actually cuts into profits is for another thread.)
The songwriter owns the copyright, unless of course they sell the copyright (unless the song was written by a company’s employee as part of their job, in which case it’s known as a “work for hire” and is owned by the company outright).
The copyright for a song applies to the music and lyrics. The copyright holder has the right to decide when, in what manner, and under what agreements any “derivative work” is created, the one that holds our current interest being a sound recording of the copyrighted music. Once a recording is made, the record company now has its own creation, to which it owns its own copyright. This new work contains copyrighted material by the songwriter which has been licensed according to whatever terms the songwriter and the record company came to before the recording was released for sale.
The RIAA is basically the union of record company owners, which advocates for their interests, which include getting cash dough from anyone who owns a copy of their recordings.
Curious about who owns the copyright to a song or its recording? The U.S. Copyright Office has an on-line database of all copyright registrations and all copyright renewals from Jan. 1, 1978 onward. Another database on that same page records ownership transfers.
Misleading. They may be making less than the record companies, but successful musicians do get paid very well for their recordings.
In any case, the record companies, no matter what, pay the artists something. File sharing pays them nothing. Ever notice that very few artists are criticizing the RIAA for going after file sharers? There are some exceptions, of course, but most acts are perfectly happy to have people blame the RIAA for doing what the acts want them to do: protect their rights.
And, remember: the record company is taking the risk. Only a very small percentage of the records they put out are big hits, with another group having moderate success. But some of the money coming in from the platinum records is used to sign and promote new acts, or keep marginal acts on the roster long enough to give them another chance. I believe well over half the CDs put out fail to make any money for the record companies (and not through phoney accounting like in films, either – real losses).
Actually, the record companies pay very little to the vast majority of recording artists (I’m guessing 80-95 percent). They “advance” them some money and then run a tab of expenses (at jacked up prices). The receipts from record sales usually doesn’t cover that, so most artists end up in the red with respect to their labels. They have to try to make up the difference through touring.
Once an artist has made a breakthrough and can negotiate his or her own deal, then the contracts become much more favourable, but here we’re talking a small, small minority of superstars. The rest of them just bide their time until “Behind the Music” decides to show exactly how they went broke and how they are either barely eking out an existence or have left music altogether.
Thanks for all the input fellas, I think it clarified the issue for me. Strange to think that often the band owns the copyright to the composition but the label owns the copyright to the recording, but if that’s how it works then I can see how the RIAA has standing.
Your responses are appreciated, I won’t have the chance to take copyright/trademark law this year, so I guess much of it will remain a mystery, but your answers helped satisfy my curiousity.
Two buddies of mine are in a very successful commercial act whose name you would recognize. They aren’t monsters like the Beatles, but they have several gold records and play regularly on the Tonight Show. Neither of them has any substance-abuse problems, both are smart guys, superbly talented, with multiple degrees in music. They’ve been with this act close to ten years.
After several years of recording and touring full time, neither one of them had any money in the bank.
Thankfully, their early recordings have passed out of the record company’s control, and the boys are finally starting to make some money by selling their music over the internet. AFT.
Regardless of how one feels about file sharing, the recording industry is evil.