Bob Dylan, Cliff Richard and UK Copyright Law

I have been reading some interesting articles lately about the changes in English and European copyright law and how different copyright owners have dealt with them.  Until recently, British law provided that sound recordings entered the public domain 50 years after their initial release.  I sort of noticed that the last time that I was in the HMV Store in London and saw a number of dodgy-looking CDs featuring early jazz artists and rock and roll from the 1950s.

            It appears that artists and record companies led an appeal to change the law.  Their symbolic leader was Sir Cliff Richard, who became a figurehead for the new law much like Walt Disney did for copyright extension in the United States.  As Evan Marshall writes in Record Collector "and so it came to pass that Cliff's law is about to take effect and this year should see a change to the legislation governing copyrights which extends the protection to recordings from 50 years to 70 years."

            To dig a little deeper, artists like the Beatles, Bob Dylan and the Rolling Stones essentially escaped by the skin of their teeth.  For example while the much bootlegged Beatles recordings from the Star Club, the Decca auditions from 1962, the Beat Brothers recordings and even the single "Love Me Do" and "P.S. I Love You" are technically in the public domain in the United Kingdom, the remainder of their catalog is safe for another 20 years.

            The most interesting development from this UK copyright law change came from the Bob Dylan camp.  Recognizing that the new law would protect only recordings that were released within the last 50 years – and was not retroactive, Bob Dylan's label Sony released what looks to be its own bootleg, called The 50^th Anniversary Collection (in France and Germany it's called the Copyright Extension Collection Volume 1).  The collection is apparently comprised of four CD-R's with a paper insert listing the tracks.  I haven't seen a complete track listing but the set appears to include 24  outtakes from the Freewheelin' Bob Dylan plus some well-known live recordings like the Finjan Club and the so‑called Minneapolis Hotel Tape.  Dylan fans know that there is a treasure trove of this stuff floating around out there.

            This collection was allegedly limited to 100 sets per country so the purpose was not to make money.  Also the very process of releasing the material (some of which was truly unreleased and unavailable before) makes it available to the legendary enormous Bob Dylan bootleg audience.  Thus Sony must have felt that the security of copyright protection for these songs was worth letting them get into the hands of Dylan enthusiasts.  As such, this is a fascinating example of a copyright owner taking a calculated risk to be able to secure the benefits of copyright law.  I'm sure there will be more developments in this area.

Advice for (Truly) Independent Artists

survival guide for indie rockers.  Catchy idea.  I did a lot of preparatory work on the subject but for some reason could not pull it off.  After a lot of thought, I have decided to analyze why the concept was flawed.

            The reality was that I was trying to promote myself as an attorney to artists in an environment where the traditional record deal and publishing deal was rapidly changing. In essence, I was saying to artists, “even though you’re doing everything on your own, you still need a lawyer.”

            It’s a problem of classification. It’s hard to know how to define an independent artist these days. From what I see, artists who are signed to what we once called “independent labels” have the same problems as any artists who signs a record deal – except that the money is smaller these days and the terms more potentially more draconian.  .  What drove the point home to me was a recent article about the band Grizzly Bear in New York magazine.  This piece showed in dry economic terms what the business of being a moderately successful artist in 2012 is like. It’s really worth searching out.  So, of course, artists like this need lawyers; the game is the same.

           

            So what about artists who are not tied to one particular company or who are truly releasing everything on their own?  What do artists like these need from a legal standpoint.  I have come up with several ideas:

            1.         If you are in a band you need a band partnership agreement.  I have said it before and young bands hate to deal with these things – but they are extremely important in avoiding problems and potential lawsuits down the road.

            2.         You need to register with BMI, ASCAP or SECAC.

            3.         If you are touring it is a good idea to incorporate (and investigate umbrella insurance).

            4.         If you’re a band, trademark your name.

            5.         Don’t sign anything without having a lawyer review it.  These days I have seen that even the simplest agreements are taking on crazy unnecessary dimensions.  Spend a little money to educate and protect yourself.

            6.         Register with Sound Exchange

            7.         If you are working with outside producers and musicians, make sure you get an agreement or at least a release from each of them.

            8.         Listen to the Rolling Stones (I threw that in but it’s still a good idea).