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.