Quote:
Originally Posted by ombudsman
No, that's the atypical example. More often than not the performer or their (very small) "publishing company" (an entity that exists for the sole purpose of receiving publishing funds while giving the writer flexibility to not have to report that income directly on their personal tax return) retain the rights to their publishing. Whatever company name you see next to "ASCAP" or "BMI" on a record or CD is the publishing company, typically it is not the record company or any large company. Sometimes it will be another songwriters publishing company or one that works with many writers, taking a cut in exchange for handling the paperwork, which makes sense if the publishing income is small.
|
Apparently either I was not clear or you misunderstood the context of my statement which was inclusive with the portion of my statement that you left out of the quote. And I agree what your saying is often true in terms of royalty splits, unfortunately it does not actually apply to the context my statement.
My entire paragraph was directly under and in direct response to Berny's first paragraph. Where he was talking about continuing royalty collection
after the death of the songwriter, but was unclear as to the particulars of posthumous copyright collection and thinking that ASCAP must have purchased the rights.
Berny's statement:
"On the one hand we are told that ASCAP are collecting the dues for songwriters, but now I see that even after the songwriter has passed on, ASCAP are still collecting fees because, I assume, they have claimed/secured [I assume purchased] the rights to the music and will require royalties for....ever? Now this seems just a tad ridiculous to me".
My full statement:
You are partially correct. In general Copyrights for the songwriter extend 70 years after death ( for songs written after 1978 when the law was rewritten and I believe songs prior to 1978 had a 50 yr time frame) . However the typical situation is, upon death the ownership of the Copyrights transfers to the rightful heirs of the songwriter.
Except where the songwriter has prior to death transferred or sold those rights to a third party. Which is typically not the PRO, (generic acronym for Performing Rights Organizations like ASCAP BMI and SESAC)that handles the collection of royalties for those rights. But as far as I know it is typically a third party (not the PRO) that has purchased the rights to a songwriters catalog. The most famous of these situations was when Michael Jackson ended up purchasing the rights to aprox 250 Beatles songs. Which He ended up selling to SONY.
(not the PRO) not in my original statement included for better clarity
Note: I did not say 3rd party purchases were typical. What I said was that
when royalties are being paid posthumously to someone or a business entity,
other then direct heirs of the original copyright holders it is typically a third party and is not The PRO paying itself.
Quote:
|
The Beatles got some characteristically bad advice from Brian Epstien in the early 60s and set up Northern Songs as a tax shelter because of post war capital gains tax rates that were still in effect in the UK at that time. However they made it a publicly traded company, and then they lost control of it because they hadn't bothered to secure controlling interest.
|
Yes I am aware of the particulars, If this is what you are calling not typical I completely agree
Note:. I did not say the Beatles/Jackson situation was typical of 3rd party purchases
I said the Beatles/Jackson was the most famous (i.e the most press) situation, where a third party has purchased the rights.
I hope this is more clear.