www.musicweek.com BODYTALKTHE FAC
COPYRIGHTS SHOULD BE OWNED BY CREATORS - NOT CORPORATIONS
Universal/EMI reminds us that the future model of the entire industry must change, says The FAC RIGHTS
BY MARK KELLY (CEO), NICK MASON (CO-CHAIR), ED O’BRIEN (CO-CHAIR), SANDIE SHAW (CO-CHAIR)
10.08.12 Music Week 23
I
n the last 50 years we have seen the rise of a recorded music industry based on copyright trading. Artists signed to record labels and music publishers and sold their copyrights in return for finance and expertise. The new rights owners took a risk whether the
new copyrights generated income or not and were rewarded accordingly. Their reward was also that they owned the copyrights outright. All copyrights could therefore be traded as
though they were a financial instrument like a mortgage, albeit generating variable income. When creators were still under contract relationships had to be maintained and the view of the artist might be taken into account. When relationships did not continue creators assets were sold on without reference to them. Key decisions in the courts changed the music
publishing landscape decades ago but record labels have persisted with this model. The last ten years have seen a gradual change in label models to include more income streams such as live and merchandising. These new models are often touted as partnerships but copyrights are still being assigned (sold) rather than licensed.
“Selling to the highest bidder without input from creators over the post- acquisition landscape is a poor choice and territorially fractured copyrights are a step backwards.”
Musical intellectual property is a cultural asset
that lives and breathes both for those that created the works and those that enjoy them. To trade them like any other asset loses this subtlety and society become the poorer for it. Copyrights should be owned by creators rather than corporations. As all of us come to terms with the excesses of
the capitalist system and the constant pursuit of financial gain, perhaps music can set an example for how corporate transactions should be governed. Selling to the highest bidder without input from
the creators of the works and with little thought as to the impact on a post-acquisition landscape is a poor route to choose. The FAC is pursuing a vision shared by EC Digital Commissioner Neelie Kroes of an artist-centred music business. When constructing these we need to be aware of
ABOVE One Direction | The FAC says labels should ‘embrace’ new models of marketing - like the online, social approach which broke 1D in the US
sustainability. We need to think long-term about building businesses that will last. We cannot get this wrong. Mistakes made now will have echoes for years to come. We need to remember Napster and what might have been. We need to build businesses with artists at the centre in control of their own careers.
“We cannot get this wrong. Mistakes will echo for years to come. We need to remember Napster and what might have been. We need to build businesses with the artists at the centre of them.”
What we don’t need when building the new
artist-centric music business is to continue the old practices. Moving copyrights around from one entity to another to satisfy competition concerns or just for financial gain does little for the future – it just perpetuates the old structures and leads to a complete disconnect between, initially, artist and rights holders and eventually between artist and fan. Artists become totally frustrated when their
creations are traded and the umbilical cord between them and their creation is broken. They are then faced with dealing with a new owner of their progeny who may not have their best interests at heart. Copyrights should be offered to artists as first option not as an afterthought. In addition, for ease of operation, and to avoid
minority blocking rights, copyrights need to be unified so that one decision can clear a rights usage for the world. Territorially fractured copyrights are a step backwards into a world where complication
inhibits commerce and the re-growth of the music business. One of the biggest problems that the music business has failed to get to grips with over the past decade is the basic fact that we live in the ecosystem that is the worldwide web. We have seen this in the reluctance to embrace new models of marketing and the holding on to the release windows policy which encourages piracy. Piracy doesn’t respect national boundaries so
why does the music business when licensing? Nick Gatfield admitted recently that One Direction had been broken worldwide by 14 year old girls interacting on the web not through the traditional territorial medium of radio. We need to embrace that not deny it. The Digital Copyright Exchange proposal
should also be supported and pushed forward; a place where creators’ moral rights can also be asserted – or withheld. There doesn’t have to be a limit on the size of a transaction – it is up to the rights owner. As long as transactions are transparent and clear, consumers and rights holders worldwide should be able to commercialise music. The future of the music business is a collection
of thousands of artist businesses where copyrights are owned by creators as the centrepiece of their own enterprises. This will not mean the destruction of the existing structures but an adaptation where those structures will service artists and be rewarded for their skills and investment. Innovation rather than legislation is the future. Let’s remove the barriers between artists and
fans. Music is in safer hands when the fan and the artist are closer together.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48