The money for the funds would come from McCreevy's proposed
extension of the term of copyright in performances from 50 to 95
years. McCreevy said that a percentage of record companies'
increased revenues from this change should be paid into the fund to
go directly to session musicians.
"I have no concern for the famous names – although they too will
benefit – the measure is aimed at the thousands of anonymous
session musicians who have contributed to much loved and listened
to sound recordings," said McCreevy.
Session musicians are hired hands who, unlike members of bands,
are generally paid a flat fee for a recording session and do not
benefit from any publishing royalties unless they have helped to
write a song. Though they are entitled to performance royalties,
these tend to be far lower.
McCreevy wants extra money earned from a copyright extension on
performances to be earmarked for them. He said it was to prevent
the sudden withdrawal of royalty income late in a musician's life
after the 50 year period has elapsed.
"This is particularly hard as it happens at a time in life when
they are getting older and probably not working as much," said
McCreevy. "And the music business is not the type that comes with a
pension scheme."
One of the objections to the extension of performance copyright
is that most recordings that are 50 years old or more have fallen
into disuse and are earning performers no income. Keeping them in
copyright protection prevents other people from benefiting from the
recordings by, for example, using the material in new ways. It also
prevents an artist releasing his own material if a record label has
neglected it.
McCreevy has found a partial solution to that problem by
proposing that new "use it or lose it" clauses be inserted into
contracts.
"This means that if the record company does not make the sound
recording available on the market for a certain time, performers
can get their rights back," said McCreevy. "Not only will this give
performers another chance to earn money on their performances, it
will also mean that more music is on offer to the public."
McCreevy has also proposed a fundamental change to the nature of
the recording contracts after a 50-year period. Under normal
contracts a record company will pay for recording a record,
promoting it and some of the costs of a tour. They will also often
pay artists an advance on royalties.
The company will recoup that investment from a performer or
songwriter's royalties before any are paid to the musician. In some
cases the musician never sells enough copies of a record to pay all
that money back, and so never receives any royalty payments.
McCreevy said that this should change once 50 years has elapsed.
"Once the extended period kicks in, the performers who have not
managed to reimburse the record company for its investments in them
will benefit from a 'clean slate'," he said. "In this way they will
enjoy all the royalties for the extended period even if they did
not ever qualify for them in the initial period."
Recent UK Government intellectual property policy has been
heavily informed by the Gowers Review of intellectual property
which was carried out on behalf of HM Treasury by former Financial
Times editor Andrew Gowers.
He rejected the extension of copyright in sound recordings to 50
years. In face he told podcast OUT-LAW Radio that he considered
reducing it to less than 50 years.
"Our conclusions were roundly criticised by the music industry
in particular for actually doing the non-revolutionary thing of
leaving the status quo in place, i.e. 50 years' term protection for
sound recordings," he said. "I could have made a case for reducing
it based on the economic arguments."
"We certainly considered it, and if you look at the report that
came from the academics that we commissioned to examine the
arguments and examine the evidence they also argued very robustly
that 50 years could be arguably more than enough," said Gowers. "In
the end we took the politically prudent course. To be honest
reducing it in any case would be a very big international debate.
It would stand very little chance of making headway in Europe."
McCreevy said that he was backing an extension to protect the
interests of performers and the cultural life of Europe.
"Performers deserve respect for their huge contribution to
European culture. They also deserve to finally accede to their just
position in the hierarchy of intellectual property rights," he
said. "To encourage innovation and promote respect for intellectual
property … we have to ensure that the economic benefits of
creativity and entrepreneurship go to those who are innovative,
creative and show entrepreneurial spirit," he said.
Disclaimer: We hope you find OUT-LAW’s content useful. It’s prepared by the lawyers at Pinsent Masons. Please remember, though, that it’s intended as general information only. It’s not legal advice. If that’s what you’re seeking, please
contact us. See also: our
full disclaimer
