French Letter Music Blog
French Letter
Feb16

Written by:aidan
Saturday, February 16, 2008 

Charlie McCreevy, EU Commissioner, gave the European music industry the perfect Valentine's gift: the extension of performers' copyright from 50 to 95 years. French record companies are mightily relieved.

The most important Irishman in the music industry these days isn't Bono or Paul McGuinness or even Louis Walsh. It's Charlie McCreevy.

Our former finance minister (right, listening to his fave tunes) is the European Commissioner with responsibility for the internal market and services - in other words, how we in the EU trade amongst ourselves.

What has this got to do with the music biz? Well, while you were canoodling with your significant other on Saint Valentine's Day, McCreevy really did the dog on it, and gave the record industry their heart's desire. On February 14 he announced his intention to extend the duration of copyright for a performer's recordings, from 50 years to 95 years.

Under current legislation, a composer enjoys seventy years of copyright protection, while the interpreter's rights lapse after fifty. While composer-performers like The Beatles were not due to lose their writing copyright anytime soon, use of their recordings would have been up for grabs. The situation was even bleaker for non-writing singers and musicians active in the early-'60s and before, who were fearing severe loss of income in the coming years.

French record companies, for instance, are surely fuming that some rights have lapsed on many recordings by Edith Piaf, especially given the renewed interest generated by the current Oscar-nominated biopic. Similarly, there's no copyright on many performances by Maria Callas, still the world's most popular diva, and Django Reinhardt.

Piaf's version of 'La Vie En Rose', for instance, is in the public domain and now appears on many of the cheap Paris compilations touted at tourists nostalgic for pre-war Paris or post-war Saint-Germain. Those compilations also feature tracks by the likes of Josephine Baker, Charles Trenet and Lucien Boyer - perennial favourites who could still make loads of money for record companies were they still in copyright. Those tourists buy the compilations more for souvenir value than listening pleasure, but it still represents a considerable spend on music. Understandably, French record companies are unhappy at the idea of losing the copyright income of ever more established stars.

Imminent on the public-domain horizon (from a French perspective) were lucrative back catalogues by Johnny Hallyday and Charles Aznavour. McCreevy's announcement ensures that Hallyday (still recording and touring to enormous success) and his generation, not to mention their record companies, can continue to reap royalties from a lifetime of recordings.

The extension to 95 years follows the lead of the United States, where the Copyright Term Extension Act (popularly known as the Sonny Bono Act, after the late singer/senator) of 1998 already guarantees a near-century of rights.

Europe's music industry has been lobbying on the issue for some time. On the European Commision website you can even watch a video of a 2006 meeting between Commissioner McCreevy and Lucien Grange, CEO of Universal Music.

Any mention of profit from art and music is always a sensitive and emotive subject, and the music industry's line is usually something like 'we're protecting the rights of smaller artists'. In this regard, McCreevy is certainly on-message: "I am not talking about featured artists like Cliff Richard or Charles Aznavour," he said in his announcement. "I am talking about the thousands of anonymous session musicians who contributed to sound recordings in the late fifties and sixties. They will no longer get airplay royalties from their recordings. But these royalties are often their sole pension".

True, no doubt, but you can be sure that it wasn't nameless sessioners that Grange was seeing McCreevy about. The references to Cliff Richard and Charles Aznavour indicate something more than the Commisioner's listening habits: one English and one French star to (subconsciously, perhaps) represent the biggest record markets (and thus, strongest lobbies) in Europe - if we count out U2 and ABBA, English and French acts sell more internationally than acts from any other EU states (the internal market, as we saw).

McCreevy's proposal is expected to be adopted by the Commission before its summer recess. Cliff Richard can then go on his summer holidays, no more worries for quite a long while.

Tags:

7 comment(s) so far...

Re: A century of copyright?

Nuts, if anything copyright should be reduced to 50 years or less. Copyright exists to reward creators of original material, 50 years is sufficient. This really is more in the interests of a behemoth like Universal who rely on a large back catalogue to prop them up in the face of their inability to cope with the current state of modern music and the fact that their A&R people keep spending money on insipid uninspired acts. I am totall convinced that if Universal music was to die, some real progress could be made in the way music is sold. As it is, they are the biggest stumbling block, messing things up at a retail level by being able to dominate the shelves with the same old CDs, messing things up at a digital level by adopting an over zealous protection of copyright, and thus allowing Sony, Warner and EMI to remain complacent too. To put into perspective how messed up copyright law is. An exclusive patent for an invention, which takes MUCH more effort, time and money to obtain usually only lasts twenty years!

By Binokular on   Monday, February 18, 2008

Re: A century of copyright?

Just a technical point. If this is "adopted by the Commission before its summer recess" it does NOT mean that it becomes law. The proposal needs first to be approved by a) the European Parliament and b) the European Council for it to become part of EU law. So if anyone thinks 95 years is too long (or too short for that matter) you need to start lobbying a) your local MEPs and b) your TDs who are in Government (as it is the Government Ministers who sit in the European Council). This is only a proposal by the Commission to elected politicians representing European citizens.

By admin on   Monday, February 18, 2008

Re: A century of copyright?

But what would be a strong, valid, politically weighty argument against it? That all art should be in the public domain? SOMEONE always profits from art: Shakespeare is public domain (altough editions and modernisations are copyrighted, of course), and publishers profit royally from his popularity. IMO this is another example of how the issue of money in art gets clouded by our instinctive distaste for the idea of art as a commodity. Once we can accept that a work of art IS a commodity, at no detriment to its artistic value, then we can make progress on these sorts of questions. I'd agree with Binok that a patent's copyright should be longer than 20 years; doesn't the same principle apply to works of art?

By aidan on   Monday, February 18, 2008

Re: A century of copyright?

I never said patents should be extended! People get a patent, they have 20 years to capitalize on that advantage, plenty of time to turn a profit, then everyone else can utilise that innovation as they see fit, which allows further innovation. which is for the greater good. If the patent holder wants to make more money they need to get off their arse and create something else or develop the existing invention. How much do you think a vacuum cleaner would cost now if only Hoover had the patent? Would a Dyson have ever come into existence. I think you can apply a similar principle to art, extended restrictive copyright potentially stifles creativity. It says create something, then sit on your bottom. Its not like artists particularly benefit as it is, many don't even hold the rights to their own work. If copyright was less restrictive and the idea of fair use for other creative/personal use was broadened however, I think extended copyright would be less of an issue.

By Binokular on   Monday, February 18, 2008

Re: A century of copyright?

Sorry, Binokular - I misunderstood your point. My fault. I'm quite sure I understand the last sentence of your latest comment, with which I agree - perhaps we need to rethink the concept of copyright and fair use. In art there are plenty of estates who seem needlessly and excessively dictatorial and restrictive about how a work is used (no need to name names of famous Irish authors who lived in Paris).

By aidan on   Monday, February 18, 2008

Re: A century of copyright?

There is a little distinction with regard to copyright durations to be made in your original blog Aidan.
Protection for a composer lasts for 70 years after the composer's death, protection for interpreters lasts for 50 years after the communication of their performance to the public and protection for phonogram producers (ie record companies) lasts for 50 years after the communication of the published phonogram/recording to the public. It is this distinction between the duration extending from either the death of the composer or the publication of the work to the public which is important, and I would hazard a guess that it is record companies which have the most to lose as the lapsing of copyright on recordings reduces the value of their unique catalog

By Rev Jules on   Tuesday, February 19, 2008

Re: A century of copyright?

Jules, you're certainly right - I should have clarified that the composer's seventy years begins after his/her death. Still, the 95 years for the 'mere' interpreter would be a huge additional boost for big record companies still depending on classic/heritage acts for profits.

By aidan on   Tuesday, February 19, 2008

Your name:
Your email:
(Optional) Email used only to show Gravatar.
Your website:
Title:
Comment:
Security Code
Enter the code shown above in the box below
Add Comment   Cancel