Steven Barr wrote:
> Thus, if your accomplishment can be somehow recorded for posterity,
> made available for purchase and thus provide recompense for a party,
> it seems only fair that you are also rewarded by a portion of that
> income. In fact, what you are suggesting essentially defines the
> pre-1942 record industry...where an artist was paid a given amount
> for making a sound recording, and that was all he/she/it would...
> or could...ever receive!
May I suggest that we are not only wandering far afield, but are in
danger of coming to (verbal) blows. Next, someone will suggest that my
doctor should receive a portion of my future income - in addition to fee
for service - for constructive care.
Ultimately, there are different models. When there is a meeting of minds
on the model, there can be a contract. Royalties were part of that
contract more than thirty years before the cited 1942, though they were
rare at first. Some musicians were pleased to work for fixed rewards;
others preferred the gamble of royalties. It was the choice of the
artist and the publisher.
Mike
--
[log in to unmask]
http://www.mrichter.com/
|