LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST  July 2007

ARSCLIST July 2007

Subject:

Re: Copyright Extension Rejected In UK

From:

Karl Miller <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 26 Jul 2007 13:02:24 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (17 lines)

seva <[log in to unmask]> wrote:    At 5:25 AM -0700 7/26/07, Karl Miller wrote:

>you don't make any money unless your record company keeps your 
>recording in print.

***an artist (author, etc). should simply include a "Right Of Reversion" clause, so that if something is out of print, then all rights revert to the originating author. the initial reaction from the people you might deal with is "no", but if you insist they simply show it to  their lawyers, then the lawyers will recognize the properness of it and approve it. (from experience, not theoretical).

***reversion could come because of it being out of print, the company going bankrupt (and they can't use your materials as assets, they would actually like to have less assets at that point), non-payment of royalties for xx days and so forth.

  From the beginning of our small company, I put that in all of our agreements...I wanted our company to serve the musician and not the other way around. While increasingly such a clause is a part of the agreement, this has rarely been the case in the past.
   
  As I may have mentioned, an artist I know wants her past recording released. It was financed by sources other than the record company, yet, to get it released originally, she had to sell her rights. Now, to rerelease it, I have to pay the record company, not the musicians involved. It seems crazy to me. Even if she had signed off for a percentage, I doubt it would have been very much. So she would have been paid a small percentage of the license I pay...assuming the record company kept up with her mailing address, etc. 
   
  Having my own record company has increased my appreciation for every recording I encounter. Just about every time I buy a CD I think to myself that it is a miracle it exists. The thought that anyone other than the big names could make a living from recording seems remarkable to me.
   
  Karl

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Error during command authentication.

Error - unable to initiate communication with LISTSERV (errno=111). The server is probably not started.

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager