|
|
|
|
|
|
by cyberferret
2413 days ago
|
|
|
I was surprised to learn recently (my son is just beginning his career in the music industry) that a lot of artists out there don't own the legal rights to their own music once they sign with a label. It is I guess similar to the case where you might get hired as a programmer for XYZ Corp, and while there you use their resources and facilities to create an Uber or AirBnB app which goes on to make billions for the company. If you leave the company, the IP stays with them and they can continue to make money off it and not give a dime to you. However, the corollary to this is that in the music industry, the IP is really not worth anything without the artist themselves performing the music, in most cases. I get that in this case, the owners of the IP want to still make royalties and money from the actual performance of the music, but I don't understand why they would restrict the artist (Ms. Swift) from performing or recording her music in the interim?? They would still get some APRA royalties from the performance. NB: IIRC, Paul McCartney does not own the rights to the Beatles music catalog nowadays. It more recently belonged to Michael Jackson, and now to whoever bought it from his estate. But in this case, there is no 'don't perform' clauses in place, so Paul can still sing those old Beatles hits in public, and the owner of the catalog gets a split of the royalties. |
|
|
Of course you were surprised - the music industry doesn't like to advertise what a bunch of snakes they are, and media consolidation helps, so that what used to be common knowledge/stereotype, is now obscure.