Jump to content

Your Ad Could Be Here

Copyright Extended In Eu


Recommended Posts

The European Court has finally reached a decision to extend recording copyright from 50 years from the date of recording to 70 years from the date of recording.

The UK music industry has campaigned for a change in copyright protection for a long time with European musicians looking for the same protection that American performers currently enjoy - 95 years. The UK Government has rejected calls for 95-year protection before but this compromise will make the new law be adopted by all 25 EU member countries within two years.

It's good news for performers including jobbing / session musicians.

Just thought I would share :)

:jumping30:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While it can't be bad news for performers, isn't the recording copyright already owned by some business in most cases (rather than the performer)? It could still be helpful, especially for smaller, struggling labels.

Or have I got that wrong?

Going forward, of course, more performers may own the recording copyright, anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While it can't be bad news for performers, isn't the recording copyright already owned by some business in most cases (rather than the performer)? It could still be helpful, especially for smaller, struggling labels.

Or have I got that wrong?

Going forward, of course, more performers may own the recording copyright, anyway.

I'd agree... It sounds like bad news to me. I don't think this is being done to protect artists.

I think copyright should end when the artist dies... If I write a song and die tomorrow, I think it should go into the public domain tomorrow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think this is being done to protect artists.

Nope, it isn't - it's mainly to protect the record companies, and 'estates'.. The Stones and Beatles album were running out of 'protection'.

From what I've read, 15 years would be more appropriate, since most artists have made good on their investment by then.

Don't forget this also means *recordings* of classical music cannot be republished if the holder of the copyright refuses to cooperate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope, it isn't - it's mainly to protect the record companies, and 'estates'.. The Stones and Beatles album were running out of 'protection'.

From what I've read, 15 years would be more appropriate, since most artists have made good on their investment by then.

Don't forget this also means *recordings* of classical music cannot be republished if the holder of the copyright refuses to cooperate.

I think fifteen years would be acceptable. If a company genuinely does invest in an artist, they deserve a chance to get some kind of return on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

Your Ad Could Be Here



  • Current Donation Goals

    • Raised $1,040.00
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By continuing to use our site you indicate acceptance of our Terms Of Service: Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy: Privacy Policy, our Community Guidelines: Guidelines and our use of Cookies We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.