14 December 2008
Newsdesk
Culture Secretary, Andy Burnham, has today signalled an unexpected change in the Government’s attitude towards copyright protection for performers and producers, recommending that the term be extended to 70 years. The announcement was made at the UK Music Creators conference this morning.
At present, UK musicians get 50 years of copyright protection for the recordings they make. However, the Government has come under increasing pressure to make public its support for an increase, following proposals tabled by EU Commissioner Charlie McCreevey to extend copyright term to 95 years for artists.
The reasoning behind McCreevey’s proposal is to secure royalties for artists throughout their lifetime. Increasing longevity has resulted in many artists – most famously Cliff Richard – facing the prospect of outliving rapidly dating works that will fail to qualify for royalty fees.
In addition, some argue that any extension would also be of benefit to session musicians. However, session artists typically earn flat fees and enjoy very little revenue from royalties. In recognition of this, McCreevey has proposed that a fund be set up for session musicians, into which record companies will pay a fraction of the money they make from any extension in copyright term. However, analysis has suggested that in reality the kinds of sums raised for session artists would be minimal.
Gregor Grant, Partner at intellectual property law firm Marks & Clerk Solicitors, suggests that today’s victory may fail to deliver significant benefit to the music community. He comments:
“Any victory will be felt by big-name artists who tend to benefit the most from royalty fees. Whilst few would argue that musicians deserve to be rewarded for life, for the contribution they make to UK music, they are already more than adequately protected. The real innovation – the creation of musical content and lyrics – is already protected for the lifetime of the composer and a further 70 years.
“Europe is in fact suggesting, with a term as long as 95 years, that the rights of those who perform other people’s works are put on a very similar footing to those of artists who produce their own original material. For performers, the existing 50 years probably represents the lifetime of the song itself, and in many cases will approximate to the remaining lifespan of the performer. A term of 50 years should be sufficient. It looks as if the UK Government is trying to take a middle-path in suggesting a more moderate increase from 50 to 70 years because of pressure from the music industry. At least the Government thinks that stretching it to 95 years is a bridge too far.”
The UK Government’s previous insistence that performers’ and producers’ copyright was sufficient at 50 years resulted from a Treasury-commissioned examination by Andrew Gowers, former Editor of the Financial Times, into UK intellectual property. His 2006 report recommended the current copyright term be upheld. The report said “The evidence suggests that extending the term of protection for sound recordings or performers’ rights prospectively would not increase the incentives to invest, would not increase the number of works created or made available, and would negatively impact upon consumers and industry”.
