The Hook: Copyright extension in sound recordings: will this really help artists?

18 October 2011

by Lars Brandle

John Smith
General Secretary, Musicians' Union
This represents a major step forward that will be welcomed by all recording musicians. It provides some acknowledgement of the important contribution that performers make to the European creative industries, as well as recognising the current discrepancy that exists between the copyright regime and performers rights. We have campaigned for this not on behalf of a handful of extremely rich, well-known artists, but on behalf of a huge number of highly skilled session musicians who were being short changed under the current system.

Martin Kretschmer
Professor of Information Jurisprudence, Bournemouth University
On September 12, Europe decided to extend the term of copyright for sound recordings from 50 to 70 years -- the initial proposal had been 95 years, to match the US works for hire -- to be transposed into national laws by 2013. The Term Extension Directive was sold, again and again, as a measure to support aging performers, facing “an income gap at the end of their lifetimes”. The truth is that on our calculations based on the Commission’s own figures, 72% of the financial benefits from the new Directive will accrue to four record labels. Of the 28% that will go to artists, most of the money will go to superstar acts, with only 4% benefiting ordinary musicians.

Under the high scenario -- which also implies maximal loss to the rest of society -- the bottom 80% of performers would each get €58 a year (or a one- off payout of €387). Under the low scenario they would receive approximately €4 a year (or a one-off payment of €24). Over time, term extension will also lead to a redistribution from the living to the dead. The same royalty pot from airplay will be distributed to more right holders who are now often estates. Following a term extension for music copyright by 20 years in Sweden, the distribution of performing royalties in favour of dead composers increased from 2.4% in 1995 to 14.1% in 2006. So why have so many musicians supported the measure?

Fran Nevrkla
Chairman/CEO, Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL)
This copyright change will mean that the PPL income streams will continue to flow through to the whole community of recording artists, orchestral players, session musicians, backing singers and other performers for an additional period of 20 years which is so important, especially when those individuals reach ripe old age and are no longer able to exercise their profession. The enhanced copyright framework will also enable the record companies, big and small, to continue investing in new recordings and new talent. (PPL has a reciprocal agreement with Australia’s PPCA).

Jim Killock
Executive Director of the Open Rights Group

Term extension is a cultural disaster. It means that it will be harder to publish older works, and many will remain out of print. EU research shows that around 90% of the cash windfall from copyright levies will fall into the hands of record labels. Despite the rhetoric, small artists will gain very little from this, while our cultural heritage takes a massive blow by denying us full access to these recordings for another generation.

The campaign against term extension showed that copyright policy can no longer be a deal done in darkened rooms: the public has a strong interest in the cultural impact of excessive copyright and damaging restrictions. The Open Rights Group ran a strong campaign against term extension, with around 15,000 EU citizens signing the Sound Copyright petition against term extension. This helped reduce the proposal from 95 to 70 years and delayed its passing, as many small countries realised they were liable to export capital to US-based companies for no real gain.