As I understand it, the current dominent model for music recording is that the label basically buys out the artist’s copyright, copyrights it in their own name, and then recovers the cost of the aforementioned buyout by marketing and selling the music. In other words, the label acts as the main source of creativity, and treats the artists as a mere contracter. This seems to me to be the exact opposite of the true nature of the relationship: the label is simply a contractor, fulfilling a completely non-unique role, while it is the artist that supplies all of the creativity. Can anyone offer an argument in favor of the status quo? Also, the current model appears to highly favor the label over the artist. Isn’t the fact that artists would accept such a blatently unfair practice prima facae evidence that the labels are engaging in restraint of trade?
I’ve always understood it as basically (each contract is different) that the label fronts the band money and other resources so they can record their songs as well as possible, then if the label gives it the thumbs up, it distributes and promotes the recording. The money fronted is then recouped from the band’s cut of the royalties. The creativity from the label is in the realm of marketing and business.
The label is clearly in the driver’s seat because it decides whether or not to release the recording, what level of promotion and tour support to provide, whether or not to release an artist from contract, and so on.
The contractor issue raised a huge stink a few years ago because record labels wanted to reclassify the relationship between artist and label such that a recording would be a ‘work for hire’ and the artist would have no claim to their copyrighted material. Kind of like when you work for a company and they make you sign a statement saying anything you come up with is theirs.
I would think record companies rarely own full copyrights of new songs from artists under contract nowadays, but I could be mistaken. Not even the most craven wanna-be rock star would sign away something like that. What an artist accepts in a contract is pretty much up to them.
Yet another element I don’t understand. Isn’t the label’s cut for fronting the money? Why should the label be paid twice?
I wouldn’t call that “creativity”, at least not in most cases.
They might not have full copyright, but the copyrights are almost always in their name.
Amazing, isn’t it? Artists agree to this because it’s pretty much the only game in town if they want to make it big. An artist has to sell a whole lot of recordings before they start seeing any money. The alternative is for the artist to be independant of the big labels, but then they lose the distribution and PR machine (including the independant promoters that get songs played on the radio) that the labels have.
Here’s a good article
No. The copyright on the recording belongs to the record label. The copyrights on the songs belong to the publisher, which is more often than not (in the realm of pop music) the songwriter. They are two different things.
Example: The physical object Abbey Road, with the cover art, liner notes, song sequence, etc., is copyrighted to Capitol Records (Parlophone/EMI in the U.K.). Capitol, and EMI, have the exclusive right to publish and sell a sound recording called Abbey Road by the Beatles. When a copy sells, they get paid, and a certain percentage goes to the recording artist. After a period agreed upon by the record company and the artist, the artist gains control of the sound recordings. Sound recordings copyrights are registered by filling out Form SR and sending it to the copyright office.
The songs, “Come Together,” “Something,” “Maxwell’s Silver Hammer,” etc., are each copyrighted by Northern Songs Ltd., the publisher (well, “Something” and “Here Comes the Sun” are copyrighted to Harrisongs). Northern Songs used to be owned by the four Beatles and Dick James, then by Michael Jackson, and is now owned by Sony Music. Northern Songs has the exclusive right to publish and perform, and to grant permission for same, those works. Whenever one of their songs is played on the radio, used in a motion picture or television show, or otherwise publicly performed, Northern Songs gets paid. Those monies are split between the publisher and the songwriters in a formula agreed upon by them. The record company has no control over those copyrights. Copyrights on songs are registered by filling out a copy of Form PA for each song and sending to the copyright office.
What this means is that, for example, another artist can cover the song “Come Together” for a movie, and the producers will have to pay a licensing fee to Northern Songs Ltd. If that same producer wants to use the Beatles recording of “Come Together,” the producer has to get permission from Capitol Records.
When a new artist is signed to a record label, the label fronts the band money for equipment, recording, promotion, touring, etc. These are recoupable costs for the label–when the album hits the stores, the record company gets their investment back first. Then and only then does the artist get a (usually miniscule, for new artists) per-copy fee on each record sold. On the other hand, if a single from the record happens to become a smash hit, and gets played 10 times a day on four different stations in the top 75 radio markets, the publisher and songwriter start making money right away.
For recording artists who don’t write their own songs, this can lead to untenable financial positions. That’s why you see artists like Toni Braxton and TLC declaring bankruptcy–they sold a lot of records, but didn’t write the hit songs, and had shitty contracts with their labels.