galacticboy
Registered Loser
Until GrindEFX is up and running again, thought I'd post this here for your enjoyment...
Our story begins 10 years ago, almost to the day - November 29, 1999.
That was the day Congress signed the Intellectual Property and Communications Omnibus Reform Act of 1999 into law. Anytime you see the word "Omnibus" in the title of a bill, you know you're in for a doozy, and this one doesn't disappoint. Check out the table of contents of this monstrosity to see for yourself
It's got everything - Satellite home viewing, rural home television, patents, trademarks, even... recycling superfund equity?
By now your eyes are probably glazing over. Who would want to read this? Don't worry if you're thinking that - you'd make an excellent Congressman.
Because unlike them, if you took the time to go through it, you'd find something potentially damaging if you were a recording artist.
It's under Section 1011, with the clever title of "Technical Amendments." If you're still on the table of contents link above, you have to page forward a few times just to get to it. There it is:
Big woop, right? How does that affect recording artists? Bear with me here, I'll try to keep this simple. Under copyright law, copyright owners have "termination rights." (FP had a thread on termination rights recently) Roughly 35 years after granting a license to someone else, a copyright owner has the opportunity to end the license, no matter what the contract says otherwise. This is a big protection for copyright owners - in the entertainment business, it's far too common for big companies to take advantage of new, struggling artists using less-than-fair contract terms. Termination rights give them a way out if they have become successful since they first signed on the dotted line.
But termination rights only apply if you are the original copyright owner. The "work for hire" law applies to people who hire other people to make works for them. And under "work for hire," the person doing the hiring is the copyright owner, not the person doing the actual work. So the person doing the work doesn't have termination rights.
The copyright law on the books gives two ways to qualify for "work for hire." One is the traditional employer/employee relationship, but the other one lists several specific situations where "work for hire" always applies (if the agreement is in writing). It includes people who work on movies, people who make translations, people who write answers for tests, and several others.
The recording industry, being the lovable scamps they always are, obviously want the recordings their artists make to be works for hire - catalog sales are big business, and we don't want to risk losing them if an artist wants out after 35 years. Recording contracts usually state that they are "works for hire." They argued that albums fall into one of the specific situations listed in the work for hire definition (They're compilations! They're audiovisual works!) But they had to be sure.
So they snuck that innocent-looking bit of language into the MegaA$$ Omnibus Bill to put 'sound recordings' onto the list.
I'm not saying they "snuck" it in to be cynical. That is what literally happened, like something out of a bad movie:
Well, luckily some people are more astute readers of legislation than legislators are, and the language (along with its implications for recording artists) were discovered very shortly after the bill passed.
The RIAA, facing outrage from all sides, quickly back-pedaled from their "let's be obvious about screwing artists" position, and Congress - possibly embarrassed at the oversight ("It said it was just a technical amendment!") - hammered out a repeal of the amendment within 6 months (which is equal to 4 minutes of normal people time).
So, happy 10th anniversary crazy copyright law! I wonder if things have gotten better since than...
Our story begins 10 years ago, almost to the day - November 29, 1999.
That was the day Congress signed the Intellectual Property and Communications Omnibus Reform Act of 1999 into law. Anytime you see the word "Omnibus" in the title of a bill, you know you're in for a doozy, and this one doesn't disappoint. Check out the table of contents of this monstrosity to see for yourself
It's got everything - Satellite home viewing, rural home television, patents, trademarks, even... recycling superfund equity?
By now your eyes are probably glazing over. Who would want to read this? Don't worry if you're thinking that - you'd make an excellent Congressman.
Because unlike them, if you took the time to go through it, you'd find something potentially damaging if you were a recording artist.
It's under Section 1011, with the clever title of "Technical Amendments." If you're still on the table of contents link above, you have to page forward a few times just to get to it. There it is:
Big woop, right? How does that affect recording artists? Bear with me here, I'll try to keep this simple. Under copyright law, copyright owners have "termination rights." (FP had a thread on termination rights recently) Roughly 35 years after granting a license to someone else, a copyright owner has the opportunity to end the license, no matter what the contract says otherwise. This is a big protection for copyright owners - in the entertainment business, it's far too common for big companies to take advantage of new, struggling artists using less-than-fair contract terms. Termination rights give them a way out if they have become successful since they first signed on the dotted line.
But termination rights only apply if you are the original copyright owner. The "work for hire" law applies to people who hire other people to make works for them. And under "work for hire," the person doing the hiring is the copyright owner, not the person doing the actual work. So the person doing the work doesn't have termination rights.
The copyright law on the books gives two ways to qualify for "work for hire." One is the traditional employer/employee relationship, but the other one lists several specific situations where "work for hire" always applies (if the agreement is in writing). It includes people who work on movies, people who make translations, people who write answers for tests, and several others.
The recording industry, being the lovable scamps they always are, obviously want the recordings their artists make to be works for hire - catalog sales are big business, and we don't want to risk losing them if an artist wants out after 35 years. Recording contracts usually state that they are "works for hire." They argued that albums fall into one of the specific situations listed in the work for hire definition (They're compilations! They're audiovisual works!) But they had to be sure.
So they snuck that innocent-looking bit of language into the MegaA$$ Omnibus Bill to put 'sound recordings' onto the list.
I'm not saying they "snuck" it in to be cynical. That is what literally happened, like something out of a bad movie:
Well, luckily some people are more astute readers of legislation than legislators are, and the language (along with its implications for recording artists) were discovered very shortly after the bill passed.
The RIAA, facing outrage from all sides, quickly back-pedaled from their "let's be obvious about screwing artists" position, and Congress - possibly embarrassed at the oversight ("It said it was just a technical amendment!") - hammered out a repeal of the amendment within 6 months (which is equal to 4 minutes of normal people time).
So, happy 10th anniversary crazy copyright law! I wonder if things have gotten better since than...