Musicians, Copyright and Creative Commons

January 20th, 2008 by Nico Ramon

Photo taken by Nice Paul at Flickr Internet has changed the way we consume music and thus led to a situation where traditional copyright is violated quite often in the form of illegal file sharing and downloading. Creative Commons licenses offer an interesting alternative for the traditional copyright by providing more freedom to content creators and users. Before we go into any deeper analysis about the subject let’s first take a closer look at UK copyright law.

You don’t need to register your songs to get them copyright protected. A song is legally protected when it is created in tangible form. After you’ve managed to record your song or write it in the form of musical notation you get some exclusive rights to your work. These rights are as follows:

  • To produce copies or reproductions of the work and to sell those copies (including, typically, electronic copies)
  • To import or export the work
  • To create derivative works (works that adapt the original work)
  • To perform or display the work publicly
  • To sell or assign these rights to others
  • To transmit or display by means of digital audio transmission

Now remember that a song and a sound recording are different legal entities with different kind of protections. Sound recording is the actual physical product while the song is the composition and lyrics. When you sign a record deal with a record company you are usually required to sign over the rights to your recording (phonographic copyright). However, when you sign a music publishing deal you give the publisher right to exploit your song’s copyright.

A song remains protected by law 70 years after the death of the songwriter. Phonographic copyright, however, expires in 50 years after the year when the recording was first broadcast or on sale. Like the holder of songs copyrights the holder of records copyrights has also some exclusive rights.

  • The right to object to various forms of use of the sound recording
  • Broadcasting and public performance rights
  • The reproduction right
  • The distribution right
  • The hiring and lending right

Now the thing that Creative Commons licenses do is give away some of your exclusive rights, it’s up to you which ones and how many. It’s good to bear in mind though that you can give away (waive) any of your exclusive rights without involving Creative Commons in the process in any way. You can always just announce on your website how people can use your works. But why would you want to waive any of your precious rights in the first place, with which you possibly make your living?

The big idea behind Creative Commons is to give more freedom to content creators and users. Depending on the type of Creative Commons license the users of Creative Commons licensed content don’t necessarily have to ask permission from the author. This kind of system encourages a free culture where people share, receive and build upon each others’ work.

A really good aspect of Creative Commons is the community. There are already many online music distribution and licensing services that have embraced Creative Commons licenses in various ways. Some good examples are ccMixter, Jamendo, YouLicense, Magnatune, SoundClick, Pump Audio and BeatPick. Although more and more composers, musicians and music related online services are adopting Creative Commons licenses, as a musician you should consider how licensing your songs with a Creative Commons license could affect your income.

If you allow your content to be distributed and shared for free you will be shutting down one possible revenue source, right? Not necessarily. If you are a musician your music is likely to be distributed and shared for free through BitTorrent and p2p networks anyways. Actually, by allowing and encouraging people to share and distribute your music for free you would probably earn some respect from your fans, and get free promotion as your music spreads freely on the Internet.

In my view Creative Commons licenses improve traditional copyright by meeting the demands of Internet Age music consumers. More and more people want music to be free and Creative Commons licenses offer a great way to make it free for consumers while at the same time retaining other important exclusive rights you have. For example by choosing CC Music Sharing License, you allow people to “legally download, file-share, and trade your music but not sell, or make any commercial use out of it. They must also give you attribution when using your music, and cannot make remixes without permission.”

So how can musicians generate revenue while at the same time implementing Creative Commons licenses on their songs? Concerts, music licensing and merchandise. When your music spreads freely on the Internet you will most likely gain more fans, who possibly have now more money to spend to see your concerts, when they don’t have to pay for your songs. There are already many online music licensing services, which plug your music to movies, ads, TV shows etc. and offer non-exclusive deals. I recommend taking advantage of as many of them as you can.

Sources:
Mustard - Music Business Resources For Students
Bemuso - Music Copyright
Wikipedia - Copyright
Creative Commons


Related Posts

One Response to “Musicians, Copyright and Creative Commons”

  1. Hello again,
    After reading your post regarding how free music may help or hinder an artist’s career, I have had some thoughts regarding the future business model’s that will be affected by this new age of file sharing and digital music. For instance, Prince’s first album sold out despite its steep price relative to daily wages, and then some 15 years later the same artist who has accrued millions upon millions of record sales and other streams of income since then, is now giving his CD away for free. This change within the industry is ever exciting and I feel our generation is very exclusive relative to other generations that lived through moments in time such as the compact disc revolution.
    Anyhow, I feel as if there is action; there is an opposite and equal reaction. The action being a business model turned up side its head in the middle of a digital revolution, but the reaction will even out any detriments and the industry as a whole will shift and move on. From a business perspective, although the accounting and income streams will be vastly different, I feel as if a label’s product is failing, something must change. Like the article said, the power is shifting from the producers and into the promoters. After researching 360 deals, I came to a realization that while the label does sign people for their exclusive recording services and puts out a CD as a product to profit from, they should deeply investigate a product switch. Because CD’s and songs can be acquired for free, they almost become promotional tools versus a profitable product. Why not go where the wind takes us? Let’s use that music as promotional material, and let’s go make the bucks connecting with fans at live events, charity events, public appearances, endorsements, and so on. While record and digital download sales tabulate somewhere around the 10 billion range, and the live concert industry somewhere around 3.2 billion dollars, there is still money to be made. With a vastly different business model, a couple legislation changes, and time, I feel that those numbers could be reversed and even doubled.
    Who knows? Maybe one day a decade later, we will be experiencing an influx of live performances and will feel compelled to buy their record once again. Only time will tell.

Trackbacks

Leave a reply