,
17 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
1. In light of this recent suggestion, I'm going to go over some basic principles about copyright law, "master" recordings, musical works, and recording contracts.
Note: assume ever tweet below has asterisks because there are almost always complications and exceptions.
Note: assume ever tweet below has asterisks because there are almost always complications and exceptions.
2. When we talk about control of the "masters" we really mean two different things:
The tangible, physical master recordings, from which all later copies are made - and -
The copyright in the sound recordings, or the performance of those songs.
The tangible, physical master recordings, from which all later copies are made - and -
The copyright in the sound recordings, or the performance of those songs.
3. When we say a record label owns the "masters", we often mean both of those things. But industry people often blur the distinction.
4. The copyright in the sound recordings would most often belong to the performers. But for years, the common industry practice is those rights were assigned to the record company by contract.
5. Having assigned the copyrights in the sound recordings - her performance - to the record company, Swift no longer has those rights. ***
6. The copyright in the compositions - what copyright law calls the musical works - are entirely different. Swift still owns the copyright in her compositions.
7. The rights to the compositions, or musical works, usually aren't assigned in a recording contract, although they can be assigned to a publisher.
8. In fact, the record company has to pay the artist for the compositions. For reasons that are best left to another thread, artists to tend to get a bad deal on this.
9. Under 17 USC 115 of the Copyright Act, anyone can record someone else's song without seeking permission from the owner of the composition. You have to follow the notice provisions of the statute.
10. So copyright law doesn't prohibit Taylor Swift from rerecording her songs, whether or not she owns the rights to the compositions.
11. For instance, Ryan Adams wasn't restricted by copyright law in recording all the songs from Swift's 1989 album on his own.
12. In fact, under 17 USC 114 of the Copyright Act, you're not prohibited from independently recording someone else's songs and sounding exactly like another recording.
13. So does that mean Taylor Swift can rerecord her own songs? Under the Copyright Act, she's not prohibited from doing that. BUT...
14. But, often a recording contract restricts the artist from going off on their own and rerecording their songs.
So if an artist did that, it wouldn't be copyright infringement but it would breach the contract.
So if an artist did that, it wouldn't be copyright infringement but it would breach the contract.
15. As pointed out by @sidmanlaw, the contractual restriction often isn't perpetual. It might only be for a limited time.
16. I'm aware of Def Leppard independently rerecording their albums for these reasons.
17. Any questions?
