The music industry has always been on the frontline of change within the copyright realm. The fast-developing and ever-changing landscape has always been an issue to try and pinpoint the specific mechanism that should exist within the United States to protect this type of art. When trying to determine the protection a song receives, two different copyright points need to be included:
1. As per section 102(a)(2) of the Copyright Act, musical works, including any accompanying words that include the lyrics, melodies, and harmonies are protected by themselves. This means that anything that can be fixed in writing (notes, lyrics, etc.) is protected by this section.
2. As per section 102(a)(7) of the Copyright Act, sound recordings by themselves are protected. This means that the actual song that any person can listen to is protected in this regard. Generally speaking, the sound recordings are considered the “masters” of the songs.
To understand this more specifically, here are two examples:
1. Dolly Parton in 1973 wrote and recorded the song “I Will Always Love You”. She, here, thus has the copyright over the song composition and the song recording that she produced. In 1992, with the film The Bodyguard, Whitney Houston released a cover version of the song. The song recording of Whitney, thus, is separate from the song composition and the original recording and is protected separately.
2. Taylor Swift became the face of this separation when she started to re-record her original albums to get ownership of her recordings as she was only the owner of the songwriting portion of the songs as per the contract she signed when she was just starting. The “Taylor’s Version” albums have become massive hits for the singer and are solely owned by her.
With the development of different technologies, it has become more complicated to try and get the protection the copyright allows for these creations. Most recently, Spotify – the streaming giant – was sent a cease-and-desist letter from the National Music Publishers Association (hereinafter “NMPA”) and other songwriters’ groups over the newest video function and podcasts use of lyrics and the remix feature that enables subscribers to edit songs they like and, as a result, create a derivative work. The NMPA is accusing Spotify of copyright violations and should be paid for this type of use because they are using the lyrics – a separate copyrightable work – when using the recordings. Spotify has denied wrongdoing and has mentioned that they are a platform for licensed content and that they have a process for anyone to contact them if there is a belief that there is an unlicensed song.
This has gone a step even further as the NMPA has sent a letter to the leaders of the Judiciary Committee in the Senate and House of Representatives requesting a complete update on the Copyright Act on the topic of statutory license because according to them it “prevents private negotiations in a free market”. They mention that although the Music Modernization Act (MMA) has been very beneficial in certain updates based on the new landscape of the music business there are still changes that need to be done to protect songwriters.
It will certainly be interesting to see the position the House of Representatives and the Senate will take on this and whether there will be a new addendum to the Copyright Act in the near future.
Sources:
· https://variety.com/2024/digital/news/spotify-copyright-violation-claims-lyrics-remixes-1236003575/
· https://variety.com/2024/music/news/music-publishers-congress-overhaul-copyright-act-1236012128/
· https://www.billboard.com/business/publishing/nmpa-copyright-act-overhaul-spotify-bundling-full-letter-congress-1235687539/
· https://www.smoothradio.com/features/the-story-of/i-will-always-love-you-whitney-houston-facts-video/
· https://www.today.com/popculture/music/taylors-version-meaning-swift-rerecording-albums-rcna98513
José Portabella Villela, Abogado, BridgehouseLaw LLP, Charlotte
No comments:
Post a Comment