According to UK copyright law a musical work is copyrighted as soon as it is recorded in a tangible form whether this be on paper, tape, CD or any other physical medium.

 

Certain international treaties require that, in order for the copyright to be recognised in signatory countries, the work must also display the international copyright symbol (©) and the year of the copyright, although technically this is only required on visual forms of the work such as lyric sheets and scores.

 

The UK has no formal registration procedure  (although if there is likely to be significant use of the work in the US it is worthwhile registering with the library of congress). However, in the event of a dispute it is advisable to have independent proof of the date at which the work was copyrighted. Methods for this include sending a copy to yourself registered post and retaining the unopened package, depositing a copy with your lawyer or bank and now several companies are setting up services to register and hold copies of your works on your behalf.

 

As a copyright owner I am able to copy freely, issue such copies to the public, perform or broadcast the work or make an adaptation of the work.   I am also allowed to pass on these rights to other such as a record company or music publisher.

 

Where another company or individual makes and distributes copies or my works I will receive an agreed rate of payment for the use of these works.

 

Copyright comes in three forms.

 

Mechanical copyright concerns the making of physical copies of a work. Record companies are obliged to pay a percentage of their income for every copy of a work they manufacture. These royalties are collected by the Mechanical Copyright Protection Society (MCPS). Technically every time I make a copy of one of my own works I should pay a royalty to the MCPS,  which they should in due course pay back to me. This is obviously impractical and some are calling for copyright laws to change to catch up with the proliferation of home studios and CD writers.

 

Performance copyright concerns performances of the work. These royalties are collected by the Performing Rights Society (PRS). T.V. and radio stations and venues that wish to play music (including shops, etc. that wish to play taped background music) must apply to PRS for a license. The cost of this will depend on the way the music is to be used (e.g. background music, primary entertainment) and the size and location of the venue. The total collected for all of these licences is divided proportionately amongst the copyright owners.

 

Because it is impractical to monitor every piece of music performed nationally, these proportions are normally calculated by a formula. Selected radio and television stations are electronically monitored to identify which songs are played. Selected venues have to fill in returns stating what songs were performed when. These figures are logged, weighted according to size of outlet/use of music, and assumed to be common to all other venues and radio stations.

 

Phonographic copyright concerns the sound recording rather than the composition. For example, The Rolling Stones have recorded the Buddy Holly song “Not Fade Away”. Every time a copy of this record is played in public. Buddy Holly’s publishers receive a royalty for the performance element i.e. the composition, but the Rolling Stones record company will also receive a payment for the use of the sound recording which they initially paid for in the studio. An element of this will then go on to the Rolling Stones for their services. Phonographic Performance Ltd (PPL) collects these royalties. (http://www.ppluk.com/) Songwriters generally get no benefit from phonographic royalties (unless they are also the performing artist on the recording).

 

Some year ago McDonald’s used to play their own, “lift music” versions of popular hits in their restaurants. This meant that there were no phonographic royalties to pay as McDonald’s owned the sound recordings being used. In time it seems that they realised their customers preferred hearing the original recordings and that the cost of a PPL license was a worthwhile investment and today the hits we are used to hearing on the radio play in McDonalds.

 

In addition to the financially oriented copyrights stated above a copyright owner also has the moral right to be recognised as the creator of the copyright. As a copyright owner I have the right to decide who may make the first recording of my songs. Once any given song is commercially released however, anyone may do a cover recording without my permission subject to all relevant royalties being paid.

 

However, if someone makes an adaptation of one of my songs I can exert my moral right to prevent them from releasing this if I feel it may be derogatory to my reputation.

 

Once commercially released recordings of my work may be freely played without my permission again subject to payments of royalties.

 

If my copyright is infringed I may take steps to remedy this.  However, in reality the value of a copyright lies in the ability of the owner to pay for its enforcement. If the infringement generates significant royalties this may be realistic but if my cousin’s band performs an unreleased song without my permission in a local public house it would be frivolous to pursue this through the courts. And however aggrieved the writer (who may have an emotional attachment) may feel it is unlikely that his publisher is going to finance such a claim.

 

Also, if a company decides to broadcast my work on a digital, internet, radio broadcast, and someone here in the UK records it, he has a digital quality recording. If a million people worldwide do this, that’s a million missed mechanical royalty payments. And providing the transmitting company pays their broadcast royalty there is little chance of anyone getting prosecuted.

 

In reality the large majority of music copyrights are assigned to music publishers who perform royalty collections duties and attempt to gain cover recordings, film placements, etc. in return for ownership of the copyright and a percentage, typically 40%, of the royalties. Personally I would like to form my own music publishing company and place my songs with recording artists. I do not have the contacts or the level of access to artists that an established publisher will have. Unlike the large publishers however, I only have my songs to promote with no competition from a thousand other writers. Also unlike larger publishers I will not let my older songs get lost in a back catalogue that never gets touched in favour of the latest creation.

 

The Beatles set up their own publisher, Northern Songs. However, this was not as great as it seems in that 55% of Northern Songs was owned by Dick James Music (a music publisher) with the rest being divided between Brian Epstein, John Lennon and Paul McCartney.  I intend to own 100% of the company and if I attain any level of success may try for an administration only deal with a publisher. This would involve my retaining ownership of the copyrights while the administrator would take 10-20% of royalties for the duration of the contract only.

 

Copyright laws are there to protect the rights of the creator of non-tangible (or intellectual) properties such as music. It is designed to see that the creator gets control of and fair remuneration for use of his/her idea and that no one else can take it from him or her. However, the 1988 act is now falling behind the technology and needs to be updated.