Indeed. And I do get paid for my master recordings, through PPL. Most recently, by the BBC.
HAAAA! Sorry. Thank you Stan! Good catch!
Right, so thatâs a kind of âpublishingâ payment for your master recordings, because they have been âpublishedâ, i.e. broadcast. Itâs the master recording equivalent of a song copyrightâs owner being paid by a publisher for the use of the song.
@Stan_Halen think of copyright like one big package of rights. As soon as a track is recorded, there are automatically parts of said copyright. The sound recording and the musical work. Copyright does indeed refer to (and protect) both song ownership and sound recording, but in this case, weâre just talking about the sound recording aspect.
[quote=âAJ113, post:57, topic:1135â]
Pretty much correct as far as I know. But this is licensing of the master recording, nothing to do with copyright. [/quote]
It certainly does have to do with it. You can not authorize any license for a copyright I control. The permission to license a master recording is a right of ownership that must be transferred by the copyright holder. If that wasnât the case I could license @bozmillarâs plugins to Waves! But, licensing of a master recording, right to duplication a master recording, right to distribute a master recording, can all be attained owning without owning other parts of the copyright in their entirety.
This is all copyright. Specifically, the right to allow someone else to use YOUR copyrighted material exists in 3 forms - Assignment (general and implied), exclusive, and non-exclusive. So you could transfer exclusive right to reproduce and distribute a CD to one party, but authorize another party non-exclusive rights to create a derivative work.
No, thatâs not correct. The sound recording doesnât have a copyright, there is nothing to protect from copying. It is a one-off product, a unique specific item. Assigning it copyright status would be like assigning the Koh-i-Noor diamond copyright status. The only thing that matters about the diamond is who owns it and therefore, who can sell it. So it is with master recordings.
Thatâs why the right is differentiated by calling it master rights, or sometimes recording rights, or master recording rights - it just means âownership rightsâ but definitely not copyright - that is a term reserved for intellectual property.
In theory, if the label were to upset the artist big style, the artist could go off and create another recording. It may sound very similar to the one owned by the record company, but as long as it could be clearly shown that it was in fact, an entirely separate recording, it could be sold separately, without any recourse to the label.
In fact something is nagging away at my memory that George Michael did just that when he had his disagreement with Sony.
@AJ113 I truly donât understand. My PPL contract tells me that I own the Master Recording rights, and the BBC payment was paid âunder master recording rightsâ (that from the payment record.)
Genuine question: how does that match up with it just being = to songâs copyright.
My point is this. I got paid for the broadcast of the song through PRS. It licensed the BBC to use it. But I also got paid (for the same broadcast) by PPL.
I mean, I donât care so long as they both pay, but how come?
Does it help to know that we are registered at PPL as a Record Label (Coquet-Shack).
Yeah I think youâre getting a bit confused. There is no copyright involved with a master recording. Just ownrship.
But that doesnât explain. We hold 100% rights. What rights? What ARE those rights.
Iâm absolutely certain at this point there are differences between the way the US code defines and protects copyright and the way you understand them.
What? The unique identity of the Koh-i-Noor diamond isnât a matter of intellectual property. Its an object that was found in India, not the original creation of an artistic work such as a copyright, trademark, or patent.
John, you own:
- The actual recording. So you have master recording rights.
- The song itself, so you also own the copyright to the song.
Master recording rights:
You can sell copies of the recording, on CD, by download, and yes, even by streaming. Any way you want to.
Further, if anyone broadcasts your master recording, they have to pay for the privelege, after all, itâs your recording, right? (pardon the pun).
Copyright ownership:
Anyone who records your song and prints it (on a CD usually) or sells it on iTunes or elsewhere, owes you money. The PRS collects that for you. Anyone who performs your song in public owes you money. Again, the PRS collects that for you. When I say âanyoneâ, that includes you.
So your payment from the BBC via PPL has been made to you because:
a)You own the master recording rights
b)They have broadcast your master recording
The BBC donât pay directly, they just pay a blanket licence fee to PPL, and PPL redistrbute it to their members. As I said, this is usually a record company, like your own for example.
In addition, PRS has paid you for the broadcast of the song itself, because you own the copyright. This is a mechanical royalty, the same type that would be paid if you signed a deal and the record company printed off some CDs.
Again, the BBC just pay a PRS blanket licence and PRS does the rest, just like PPL.
PRS and PPL do pretty much the same thing. PPL for master recording ownership, and PRS for song copyright ownership.
1 Like
Precisely. Now youâre getting it. 
Now Iâm getting it.
âPPL collects and distributes money on behalf of performers and record companies for the use of their recorded music. PRS for Music collects and distributes money on behalf of songwriters, composers and music publishers, for the use of their musical compositions and lyrics.â
-
You own the master recording. So your rights are that you can sell it on CDs etc, you can sell the ownership outright, you can license the ownership (which usually means handing over all those rights to a label for a couple of years). You can also demand payment when it is used outside of domestic private use.
-
You also own the intellectual property of the song itself. So your rights are that you can record it and perform it without asking permission, you can allow others to record it and/or perform it for money, you can sell the ownership outright, you can licence it (which usually means signing over all those rights for a couple of years) .
Thatâs correct. Thatâs why you got two separate payments.
Iâm absolutely certain that my understanding of copyright and master recordings is universal. Everything I have written can be checked up easily on the internet.
[quote=âAJ113, post:65, topic:1135â]
No, thatâs not correct. The sound recording doesnât have a copyright, [/quote]
Yes it is. And yes it does. The copyright ownership and ALL NATURAL RIGHTS THEREIN are assumed by the writer the moment it is fixed in a tangible expressible form. Here you donât even have to register it with the Library of Congress to legally possess all rights. What youâre saying may be true in the UK but its irrelevant here. This is in our 1976 copyright act which still stands under current precedent, and has been codified under Title 17 US code §102. In case that wasnât clear enough, hereâs the exact wording form the Library of Congress:
âoriginal works of authorshipâ eligible for copyright protection⌠is protected by copyright from the moment it is âfixed in any tangible means of expression.ââŚcopyright protection exists regardless of registration of a copyright claim or publication of the work.
The transfer of right/permission MUST EXPLICITLY BE TRANSFERRED and acquired via one of the three methods of ownership assignment which I listed for Stan. The song writer HAS TO forfeit those rights to the label pursuant to Title 17 Sections §202-204. It is illegal to duplicate, publish, distribute, reproduce or print anything without them and once you have relinquished them it then becomes illegal to do any of the above yourself.
[quote]
Thatâs why the right is differentiated by calling it master rights, or sometimes recording rights, or master recording rights - it just means âownership rightsâ but definitely not copyright - that is a term reserved for intellectual property. [/quote]
No!! Thatâs wrong! Ownership rights?? Thereâs no such thing. There are many different types of rights that are related to someones ownership, but thereâs no such thing as ownership rights. If I stole Killer Home Recording, and Brandon took me to court on the basis of I violated his ownership rights or âgeneral ownership rightsâ, he has no protection on the basis of ownership rights because that concept doesnât even exist in our legal framework. He has to specifically argue on the basis of something that does. What Iâm getting at is you canât possess right/privilege/permission to do ANYTHING with the âmaster copyrightâ if the copyright holder owner has fully transferred ownership of that copyright.
Well then shouldnât the different sections of the DMCA and the 17th title of the US federal code align with yours?
[quote=âJonathan, post:76, topic:1135â]
Yes it is. And yes it does. The copyright ownership and ALL NATURAL RIGHTS THEREIN are assumed by the writer the moment it is fixed in a tangible expressible form.
[/quote]Thatâs the song itself, not the recording.
âKiller Home Recordingâ is a book, itâs intellectual property, it is copyrighted. Itâs not a master recording.
A master recording is a recording. You canât copyright a recording, itâs just a recording, a thing, an item. All you can do is own it like you would a car, and sell it like you would a car, or hire it out like you would a car.
I think youâre getting confused between intellectual property and master recordings. They are two different things.
Did you follow think I posted? I even posted the important part. Iâll post it again:
The owner of the Master Rights owns the actual recording of the songâs sound.
See those highlighted words? The OWNER of the recording has the RIGHTS. In other words the rights of ownership, or ownership rights. If you own a car, you donât hold its copyright, you just have the right to sell it, or hire it out. You donât stop people from copying it - it canât be copied, itâs a thing.
But the master copy is!? As is the right to do anything and everything with said master copy. Iâll show you where: Its in section 107-122. The SPECIFIC section of our law that address the âmaster copyâ as a part of the copyright is Title 17, Chapter 1 § 106. This defines five copyright rights automatically attached to the master copy because we in the US consider this intellectual property and afford it full copyright protections.
Please understand if I donât care what internet sources tell people about copyright. Thereâs only one authority on this that really matters and its all going to come down to U.S. Code Title 17. If anyone here thinks Iâm reading statutory law incorrectly, out of context, or failing to account for dissenting judicial precedent, do speak up. I donât know if I can show anymore specifically than citing the exact section of the US code, why this works exactly as I say it does (at least in the US).
Iâm not a lawyer, but I know you canât copyright a physical thing. Thatâs a ridiculous concept. You can only copyright intellectual property, and a recording is not intellectual property.
I mean, if you think a recording can be copyrighted, how would you actually violate that copyright?
Dude! No it isnât! Itâs a recording! Come on now, at least check it out.