money.cnn.com— Unless the UK extends the life of copyrights similarly to the US, copyrights to Beatles songs will start to expire in 2012. Just call him Sonny Bono!
Dec 7, 2006View in Crawl 4
Paul only owns rights to the original recordings. The music was lost when Apple made shares public in an effort to shelter themselves from taxes. They lost controlling shares of the music, Thanks Michael. Michael owns more shares than Sony, so Sony bails out Michael from time to time rather than Bank of America getting control. Sony/Michael Jackson own the sheet music, performance rights etc. That is why if a Beatles song is used in a movie it is a cover band because Sony does not have rights to the recordings. Since Sony owns the music they get a pinch of the original recording sales.
A lot of people seem to be under the impression that in 2012 you'll be able to copy the Beatles music 'willy nilly' - this is NOT the case. What is does mean is that a) anyone can perform it without paying royalties.b) you can flog it in a book of music and words and not pay royalties.You can't legally just start copying CD's, because the CD (performance) is copyrighted around it's release date. In other words a remastered performance, put onto a CD is a new work an thus obtains 50 years of copyright protection...All that's being made available is the music/words
First off there seems to be some confusion amongst diggers about what exactly this means.To clarify, this is about the "mechanical" copyright on the actual recording of a song. This is currently 50 years from creation of the recording.Every time a recording (that is still under copyright) is played on the radio, a flat fee is payed to the artist. A fee is also payable to the writer of the piece, that's where the real money is.Copyright on the song's music/lyrics remains unchanged and is still set at Death of Author + 70 years.When these artists recorded their music, they understood at the time that they would have a period of 50 years to exploit it for their personal gain. Trying to change the rules after the fact, by people who don't need any more money smacks of greed and avarice.Paul and co will still get royalty payments for public performances of songs they have written, and their dependents will continue to receive that for 70 years after they die. This measure is only to do with an actual recording, nothing more.
There's two copyrights. There's the copyright on the -recordings-, then there's the copyright on the song. Last I heard, MJ bought the ones for the song, giving him control over covers of Beatles songs.
@GiglestickHAHA Only the biggest fans will catch that comment. That is great. Btw, word is that McCartney's latest breakup was precipitated bc she could not stand his continued use of the chronic as an aged man's tonic. Stuffy old english bird, fly away!
Originally there was no copyright and it was introduced to ENCOURAGE THE CREATION OF NEW WORKS. By making it possible to profit from your creations you had an incentive to go on and create more. Get your head around the idea that originally anyone was free to copy anything you did quite freely. In fact the vast majority of art is built upon what went before including a lot of blatant copying by younger artists imitating their elders and betters. The introduction of copyright was a boon to give exclusive rights to a work after which it would pass, naturally, into the public domain where it would once again be fair game. What's happening now is a concerted effort by creators and publishers to abolish the public domain. And without the public domain you are basically giving up on your culture.
the way Disney and some others like PM act, they may as well abolish copyright expirey entirely, heck, 50 years isn't good enoughpersonally, if it were up to me, I would abolish copyright.
"Paul McCartney has a copywrite problem"Corrected......"Paul McCartney has a greed problem"I don't think he holds the copywrite for "Apple corp", which owns the Beatles back catalogue anyway. So whoever wrote that article is stupid. Last I remember Michael Jackson owns the Beatles rights. I'm thinking he sold it recently though.The greed of the music industry is disgusting. If the copywrite runs out on all this material then they can still sell it and make money from it.The only thing they are trying to stop is other people having access to our cultural heritage.
cdreilingDec 8, 2006
Paul only owns rights to the original recordings. The music was lost when Apple made shares public in an effort to shelter themselves from taxes. They lost controlling shares of the music, Thanks Michael. Michael owns more shares than Sony, so Sony bails out Michael from time to time rather than Bank of America getting control. Sony/Michael Jackson own the sheet music, performance rights etc. That is why if a Beatles song is used in a movie it is a cover band because Sony does not have rights to the recordings. Since Sony owns the music they get a pinch of the original recording sales.
fuzzycatDec 8, 2006
A lot of people seem to be under the impression that in 2012 you'll be able to copy the Beatles music 'willy nilly' - this is NOT the case. What is does mean is that a) anyone can perform it without paying royalties.b) you can flog it in a book of music and words and not pay royalties.You can't legally just start copying CD's, because the CD (performance) is copyrighted around it's release date. In other words a remastered performance, put onto a CD is a new work an thus obtains 50 years of copyright protection...All that's being made available is the music/words
thefrenzyDec 8, 2006
First off there seems to be some confusion amongst diggers about what exactly this means.To clarify, this is about the "mechanical" copyright on the actual recording of a song. This is currently 50 years from creation of the recording.Every time a recording (that is still under copyright) is played on the radio, a flat fee is payed to the artist. A fee is also payable to the writer of the piece, that's where the real money is.Copyright on the song's music/lyrics remains unchanged and is still set at Death of Author + 70 years.When these artists recorded their music, they understood at the time that they would have a period of 50 years to exploit it for their personal gain. Trying to change the rules after the fact, by people who don't need any more money smacks of greed and avarice.Paul and co will still get royalty payments for public performances of songs they have written, and their dependents will continue to receive that for 70 years after they die. This measure is only to do with an actual recording, nothing more.
vholdDec 8, 2006
There's two copyrights. There's the copyright on the -recordings-, then there's the copyright on the song. Last I heard, MJ bought the ones for the song, giving him control over covers of Beatles songs.
joebluntDec 8, 2006
@GiglestickHAHA Only the biggest fans will catch that comment. That is great. Btw, word is that McCartney's latest breakup was precipitated bc she could not stand his continued use of the chronic as an aged man's tonic. Stuffy old english bird, fly away!
Closed AccountDec 8, 2006
Originally there was no copyright and it was introduced to ENCOURAGE THE CREATION OF NEW WORKS. By making it possible to profit from your creations you had an incentive to go on and create more. Get your head around the idea that originally anyone was free to copy anything you did quite freely. In fact the vast majority of art is built upon what went before including a lot of blatant copying by younger artists imitating their elders and betters. The introduction of copyright was a boon to give exclusive rights to a work after which it would pass, naturally, into the public domain where it would once again be fair game. What's happening now is a concerted effort by creators and publishers to abolish the public domain. And without the public domain you are basically giving up on your culture.
noseemeDec 8, 2006
You win for having Elvis Costello as your icon.
zhulienDec 9, 2006
the way Disney and some others like PM act, they may as well abolish copyright expirey entirely, heck, 50 years isn't good enoughpersonally, if it were up to me, I would abolish copyright.
joeydooDec 9, 2006
"Paul McCartney has a copywrite problem"Corrected......"Paul McCartney has a greed problem"I don't think he holds the copywrite for "Apple corp", which owns the Beatles back catalogue anyway. So whoever wrote that article is stupid. Last I remember Michael Jackson owns the Beatles rights. I'm thinking he sold it recently though.The greed of the music industry is disgusting. If the copywrite runs out on all this material then they can still sell it and make money from it.The only thing they are trying to stop is other people having access to our cultural heritage.
nextgenxboxSep 30, 2007
It's his work, he should collect his royalties!