peter rh
January 16th, 2005, 01:05 PM
Golden oldies seek a new lease of life
(Filed: 16/01/2005)
Iconic recordings from the early days of pop are falling out of copyright. The artists and their estates want an extension to the protection, writes Guy Dennis
As the clock struck midnight on New Year's Eve two weeks ago and festive cheers went up, the value of some of the world's greatest recordings, including Elvis Presley's Blue Moon of Kentucky and That's All Right, went down.
Thanks to arcane laws that govern the music industry, records lose their copyright protection in Europe just 50 years after they are made. After this period, at the start of the following January, people can sell and use recordings without paying a penny to the performers.
The issue is becoming a focus of attention as a whole raft of formative pop music starts to lose its commercial protection in Europe. At the end of this year, Chuck Berry's debut song Maybellene, Fats Domino's Ain't That a Shame, and Bo Diddley's Bo Diddley will all lose copyright protection. And at the end of next year these tracks will be joined by James Brown's Please Please Please and Presley's Heartbreak Hotel among others. From 2012, the recordings of the Beatles will suffer the same fate.
So the music industry is fighting back. Both record companies and artists, including Status Quo and Sir Cliff Richard, are calling for a reform of the laws. For Richard the financial impact could be huge. He claims that every three months from the beginning of 2008 he will lose a song.
"Who made this stupid law in the first place? That's what I want to know," says Kenney Jones, who drummed for The Small Faces, and then The Who, after Keith Moon, the group's legendary original drummer died from a drugs overdose. As it happens, a series of European governments are responsible for the law, but this is unlikely to mollify Jones, 56.
"I feel very strongly that you should own what you created until you die, and after that it should pass to your family or next of kin. I don't think the copyright should ever run out," he says.
Now a father of six, Jones relies on royalties for a large part of his income, putting food on the family table and paying for school fees. The Small Faces' first single, Whatcha Gonna Do About It?, was released in 1965 so the copyright for the performance will expire in 2015. Jones, who will then be 66, had always seen royalties as a pension or a way to help pay for his youngest child, now 7, to go through university.
The law also poses potentially huge problems for the record companies, such as EMI, the UK's largest music group, and their shareholders. At stake are not just the royalties that performers receive for their music, but the very value of record companies' back-catalogue assets.
One major record company estimates that old albums that sell 100m copies in Europe each year will have lost copyright protection by 2010. It is an issue that is likely to attract growing attention from analysts.
Unsurprisingly, the record labels are lobbying the European Commission in Brussels furiously for reform, seeking an extension to the 50-year limit. An extension in Britain alone would not be a solution, since records could be shipped from other European countries.
At the heart of the issue is the structure of royalty payments. When a record is released, two sets of royalties come into play. There are so-called "mechanical royalties" paid to the songwriter or composer of the words and melody via their publisher. Separate from these are royalties paid for the specific rendition of the music, known as the "record royalties". These refer to the recording rather than the melody and lyrics, and are paid to performers via their record company.
If the performer is also the writer of the song and music they receive both sets of royalties. Either way, under record and publishing deals, artists give up much of their royalties to record and publishing companies in exchange for their services, such as promotion, administration and investment.
The Small Faces' Whatcha Gonna Do About It? was written by the late Ian Samwell, a founding father of British Rock `n' Roll, who also wrote Cliff Richard's first hit, Move It. Members of The Small Faces, including Jones, only receive record royalties from the track.
But the two types of royalty are treated differently. While the copyright for the performance expires after 50 years, the copyright enjoyed by the composer lasts for 70 years after their death, benefiting their heirs.
Not only do performers stand to lose lucrative royalties once the copyright protection ends, but they also lose control over the use of the track. There have been jokes in the music industry that Cliff Richard's recordings could be used in porn films, despite his Christian morals.
The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI), a multinational grouping whose members include EMI, other record companies and individuals in the industry, is leading the call for an extension of the 50-year limit in Europe. It points out that in 1998 the US extended its copyright term for recordings to 95 years. Other countries also give greater protection. In Australia and much of South America, the period is 70 years.
"Ideally we would look for the same period as the US, but any extension would be welcomed," says an IFPI spokesman.
Not everyone is unhappy with the existing laws, however. Some entrepreneurs even believe it gives them a commercial opportunity. John Boyden, the artistic director and founder of the New Queen's Hall Orchestra, an independent British orchestra, has recently founded the Green Label Music Company which will trade under the Yesteryear brand, producing CD compilations of songs that have lost copyright protection.
In a couple of weeks the company will launch its first compilation, "We'll Meet Again", a collection of songs from the Second World War era, including performances by Dame Vera Lynn.
But Boyden has bigger plans that will infuriate the music industry. "Eventually we will be into the Elvis records and the Beatles and all the rest, unless the record companies get their way," he says.
The prospects for changes to the rules appear mixed. The European Commission's deadline for proposals on copyright reform has been extended by a year to 2006. France, Italy and Portugal are likely to back reform while EMI is trying to enlist the support of the UK government.
One issue that has received little attention so far is just who would benefit from a copyright extension. Under most record deals, artists effectively sell most of the proceeds of their copyright to their record company. But some believe an extension should be used to effectively hand the copyright back to the artist, squeezing out the record companies.
"It should revert to the artist, not to the record company," says Andrew King, a former manger of Pink Floyd, Marc Bolan, The Clash and Ian Dury.
For now, the problem for record companies, ageing crooners and former rock `n' roll hell-raisers alike is that the European authorities are not yet dancing to their tune.
© Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2005.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2005/01/16/cccopy16.xml&menuId=242&sSheet=/money/2005/01/16/ixcoms.html
(Filed: 16/01/2005)
Iconic recordings from the early days of pop are falling out of copyright. The artists and their estates want an extension to the protection, writes Guy Dennis
As the clock struck midnight on New Year's Eve two weeks ago and festive cheers went up, the value of some of the world's greatest recordings, including Elvis Presley's Blue Moon of Kentucky and That's All Right, went down.
Thanks to arcane laws that govern the music industry, records lose their copyright protection in Europe just 50 years after they are made. After this period, at the start of the following January, people can sell and use recordings without paying a penny to the performers.
The issue is becoming a focus of attention as a whole raft of formative pop music starts to lose its commercial protection in Europe. At the end of this year, Chuck Berry's debut song Maybellene, Fats Domino's Ain't That a Shame, and Bo Diddley's Bo Diddley will all lose copyright protection. And at the end of next year these tracks will be joined by James Brown's Please Please Please and Presley's Heartbreak Hotel among others. From 2012, the recordings of the Beatles will suffer the same fate.
So the music industry is fighting back. Both record companies and artists, including Status Quo and Sir Cliff Richard, are calling for a reform of the laws. For Richard the financial impact could be huge. He claims that every three months from the beginning of 2008 he will lose a song.
"Who made this stupid law in the first place? That's what I want to know," says Kenney Jones, who drummed for The Small Faces, and then The Who, after Keith Moon, the group's legendary original drummer died from a drugs overdose. As it happens, a series of European governments are responsible for the law, but this is unlikely to mollify Jones, 56.
"I feel very strongly that you should own what you created until you die, and after that it should pass to your family or next of kin. I don't think the copyright should ever run out," he says.
Now a father of six, Jones relies on royalties for a large part of his income, putting food on the family table and paying for school fees. The Small Faces' first single, Whatcha Gonna Do About It?, was released in 1965 so the copyright for the performance will expire in 2015. Jones, who will then be 66, had always seen royalties as a pension or a way to help pay for his youngest child, now 7, to go through university.
The law also poses potentially huge problems for the record companies, such as EMI, the UK's largest music group, and their shareholders. At stake are not just the royalties that performers receive for their music, but the very value of record companies' back-catalogue assets.
One major record company estimates that old albums that sell 100m copies in Europe each year will have lost copyright protection by 2010. It is an issue that is likely to attract growing attention from analysts.
Unsurprisingly, the record labels are lobbying the European Commission in Brussels furiously for reform, seeking an extension to the 50-year limit. An extension in Britain alone would not be a solution, since records could be shipped from other European countries.
At the heart of the issue is the structure of royalty payments. When a record is released, two sets of royalties come into play. There are so-called "mechanical royalties" paid to the songwriter or composer of the words and melody via their publisher. Separate from these are royalties paid for the specific rendition of the music, known as the "record royalties". These refer to the recording rather than the melody and lyrics, and are paid to performers via their record company.
If the performer is also the writer of the song and music they receive both sets of royalties. Either way, under record and publishing deals, artists give up much of their royalties to record and publishing companies in exchange for their services, such as promotion, administration and investment.
The Small Faces' Whatcha Gonna Do About It? was written by the late Ian Samwell, a founding father of British Rock `n' Roll, who also wrote Cliff Richard's first hit, Move It. Members of The Small Faces, including Jones, only receive record royalties from the track.
But the two types of royalty are treated differently. While the copyright for the performance expires after 50 years, the copyright enjoyed by the composer lasts for 70 years after their death, benefiting their heirs.
Not only do performers stand to lose lucrative royalties once the copyright protection ends, but they also lose control over the use of the track. There have been jokes in the music industry that Cliff Richard's recordings could be used in porn films, despite his Christian morals.
The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI), a multinational grouping whose members include EMI, other record companies and individuals in the industry, is leading the call for an extension of the 50-year limit in Europe. It points out that in 1998 the US extended its copyright term for recordings to 95 years. Other countries also give greater protection. In Australia and much of South America, the period is 70 years.
"Ideally we would look for the same period as the US, but any extension would be welcomed," says an IFPI spokesman.
Not everyone is unhappy with the existing laws, however. Some entrepreneurs even believe it gives them a commercial opportunity. John Boyden, the artistic director and founder of the New Queen's Hall Orchestra, an independent British orchestra, has recently founded the Green Label Music Company which will trade under the Yesteryear brand, producing CD compilations of songs that have lost copyright protection.
In a couple of weeks the company will launch its first compilation, "We'll Meet Again", a collection of songs from the Second World War era, including performances by Dame Vera Lynn.
But Boyden has bigger plans that will infuriate the music industry. "Eventually we will be into the Elvis records and the Beatles and all the rest, unless the record companies get their way," he says.
The prospects for changes to the rules appear mixed. The European Commission's deadline for proposals on copyright reform has been extended by a year to 2006. France, Italy and Portugal are likely to back reform while EMI is trying to enlist the support of the UK government.
One issue that has received little attention so far is just who would benefit from a copyright extension. Under most record deals, artists effectively sell most of the proceeds of their copyright to their record company. But some believe an extension should be used to effectively hand the copyright back to the artist, squeezing out the record companies.
"It should revert to the artist, not to the record company," says Andrew King, a former manger of Pink Floyd, Marc Bolan, The Clash and Ian Dury.
For now, the problem for record companies, ageing crooners and former rock `n' roll hell-raisers alike is that the European authorities are not yet dancing to their tune.
© Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2005.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2005/01/16/cccopy16.xml&menuId=242&sSheet=/money/2005/01/16/ixcoms.html