available exclusively on classicrockdudes.com
― yo just a couple (Matt P), Tuesday, 8 May 2012 19:36 (twelve years ago) link
keeping my fingers crossed for a giant shitshow
― yo just a couple (Matt P), Tuesday, 8 May 2012 19:39 (twelve years ago) link
An NYT post that sets things clearer:
http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/08/village-people-singer-wins-a-legal-battle-in-fight-to-reclaim-song-rights/
― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 8 May 2012 21:00 (twelve years ago) link
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/11/arts/music/a-copyright-victory-35-years-later.html?_r=0
― Very gud laser controled organ. (Matt P), Wednesday, 11 September 2013 23:48 (eleven years ago) link
Yeah, this could be major.
― Ned Raggett, Thursday, 12 September 2013 01:39 (eleven years ago) link
putting this here where it belongs:
In 1976, an amendment was made to the Copyright Act that permits authors to terminate grants of copyright assignments and licenses that were made on or after January 1, 1978. Under Section 203 of the Copyright Act, artists may reclaim ownership of a work's copyright no earlier than 35 years after the grant was executed. However, artists may give notice of their intent to terminate as early as 25 years after the grant had been executed.[36] In 2006, Steven Greenberg became the first American songwriter to file "notice of termination" under this act, in regard to Funkytown and the album it is a part of.[37][38][39][40][41] Because the song was released in 1980, the earliest that Greenberg would actually have the copyright returned to him is in the year 2015. So far, Casablanca's successor (Universal Music Group) has had little to say on the matter. Their stance legally has been that the song was a "work for hire" which are not protected under the copyright amendment, with Greenberg playing the role of the employee. As the first major hit to be reviewed for termination, many artists across the country are eagerly awaiting the outcome.
― sleeve, Wednesday, 18 December 2013 22:56 (ten years ago) link
re: Lipps Inc.'s "Funkytown"
A new example: Harry Shearer's lawsuit re Spinal Tap:
http://www.billboard.com/biz/articles/news/tv-film/7548915/harry-shearer-files-125-million-spinal-tap-fraud-suit-copyright?utm_source=twitter
Specifically:
With other accounting improprieties alleged such as undocumented marketing expenses and improper deductions, Shearer's lawsuit references the Copyright Act's termination provisions, which allow authors to cancel grants and regain rights after 35 years."Particularly given that Vivendi has offset fraudulent accounting for revenues from music copyrights against equally dubious revenue streams for film and merchandising rights also controlled by Vivendi subsidiaries, Shearer is concurrently filing notices of copyright termination for publishing and recording rights in Spinal Tap songs he co-wrote and co-recorded, as well as in the film itself," states the complaint.That would mean that Vivendi would potentially lose rights to This is Spinal Tap in 2019. Copyright termination has been a big subject in the music industry, but is only beginning to impact the film business.
"Particularly given that Vivendi has offset fraudulent accounting for revenues from music copyrights against equally dubious revenue streams for film and merchandising rights also controlled by Vivendi subsidiaries, Shearer is concurrently filing notices of copyright termination for publishing and recording rights in Spinal Tap songs he co-wrote and co-recorded, as well as in the film itself," states the complaint.
That would mean that Vivendi would potentially lose rights to This is Spinal Tap in 2019. Copyright termination has been a big subject in the music industry, but is only beginning to impact the film business.
― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 18 October 2016 15:46 (seven years ago) link