This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
Business News Legal
Culture minister advocates recording copyright extension, sort of
By CMU Editorial | Published on Friday 12 December 2008
So, all eyes, well, at least 31 eyes (yeah, work that out), were on UK Music’s Creators Conference at the ICA in London yesterday, not least because Culture Secretary Andy Burnham was speaking and was expected to announce a shift in government policy on the proposed extension of the recording copyright. And that he did, sort of.
As much, much, much previously reported, the record industry has been pushing for an extension in the copyright term awarded to recorded music, which currently stands at fifty years.
They argue that that is unfair compared to the life plus seventy years term awarded to visual artists, writers and songwriters, and have been pushing for an extension from fifty to 95 years, which would bring the UK in line with the US, where the recorded music copyright term has been that long since 1998.
There is a sense of urgency about all this because some of the most profitable records of the rock n roll era not to mention early Beatles and Stones recordings are all due to come out of copyright in the next decade.
The whole debate has a performer dimension too, because royalties generated by a recorded copyright are normally shared with the musicians involved in the recording, even though the copyright itself is normally owned by the record company.
Cynics argue that most artists don’t see that share until they have ‘recouped’ on the label’s initial investment, and that for many artists that’s never, though there is a performer element to this even for musicians yet to recoup.
This is because said musicians have a statutory right to any royalties generated by the public performance of their recordings (ie the royalties paid by radio and TV stations and venues etc) and so start earning from this as soon as a recording starts being played, even if they are millions of pounds away from recouping on their record deal (and therefore not earning off record sales). These royalties are paid direct to the artist via collecting society PPL.
Because it’s arguably easier to sympathise with aging session musicians about to lose their royalty cheques than it is with global conglomerates, a lot of the recent campaigning around term extension has centred on individuals rather than companies.
Anyway, I digress. The point is that while the record industry pushes for copyright extension, since 2006 the government has been officially tied to the Gowers Review of copyright law, which said there was no case for the extension of the recorded copyright term.
However, since becoming Culture Secretary at the start of the year, Andy Burnham has come across as an ally of the music industry, and revealed at a MusicTank event earlier this month that the issue of copyright extension – which is being reviewed at a European level as we speak – was still being discussed within government, ie extension might still get government approval.
And yesterday at the UK Music event Burnham went further, advocating an extension to about 70 years on the basis this would cover the lifetime of the average recording artist who is most active in their twenties and thirties. It should be noted that despite saying he wanted to be “absolutely clear” on this issue, he wasn’t really all that clear about anything. He did, however, say this…
“There is a moral case for performers benefiting from their work throughout their entire lifetime. That is why I have been working with John Denham, my opposite number in the Department For Innovation, Universities And Skills, to consider the arguments for an extension of copyright term for performers from the current 50 years”.
“An extension to match more closely a performer’s expected lifetime, perhaps something like 70 years, for example, given that most people make their best work in their 20s and 30s. And we must ensure that any extension delivers maximum benefit to performers and musicians. That’s the test of any model as we go forward. It’s only right that someone who created or contributed to something of real value gets to benefit for the full course of their life”.
Despite nothing being set in stone, the boss of record label trade body the BPI nevertheless welcomed Burnham’s comments.
According to Music Week, Geoff Taylor said this: “Copyright is the lifeblood of our creative economy and we are delighted that the government is recognising this by supporting an extension of copyright term for British musicians and labels. Copyright stimulates investment in musical talent and encourages innovation. Thousands of recording artists, hundreds of music companies and all British music fans will benefit from fairer copyright term”.
Speaking for musicians, the Assistant General Secretary of the Musician’s Union, Horace Trubridge, said this: “We are delighted that the Government has today demonstrated its clear support for the performer community. The MU has always argued that term of protection should not run out during a performer’s lifetime, and we would support any proposal that supported this principle and was of direct benefit to performers”.
The host of the Creators Conference meanwhile, UK Music boss Feargal Sharkey, said this: “At this critical time of change, the creative industries have never been more vital to this nation’s future prosperity. Today’s announcement regarding term extension is a clear sign that Government, like everyone in our industry, is committed to ensuring that UK music retains its status as the very best in the world”.
Groovy. Much of the rest of Burnham’s speech covered well trodden ground, with much of what he had to say about combating online piracy and the internet service providers’ role in doing so the same as what the minister said at the aforementioned MusicTank event earlier in the month. However, should you wish to read it, the full speech has been posted on the Music Week website at this URL.
One interesting side remark in the speech is Burnham’s reference to so called moral rights – where artists who no longer control the copyright in their work can, nevertheless, stop it being used or treated in certain arguably immoral ways. Burnham says: “There’s another moral argument that says you should have a right not to have something you’ve created being associated with a cause or a brand you’re not comfortable with”.
Of course one area where a number of artists have arguably had their “moral rights” infringed in recent years is when political parties use their music at rallies and conferences without asking for permission, and in doing so imply some kind of endorsement of the party by the artist.
Said political parties can do so because the use of music at conferences is covered by blanket licences. But there’s an argument political events should not be covered by such blanket licences to protect the moral rights of the artists.
What I’m saying here is that if Burnham wants to help protect artists’ moral rights, he could start by getting his political mates to be more responsible in this regard. You never know, it could happen. Things can only get better, and all that.
