Factors That Determine Joint Authorship - Coursework Example

Factors that determine Joint hip Ownership of copyrights in the music industry in the United Kingdom has had some controversies, which stems from the definition of music recognized by the copyright act. Since music production involves a collaborative process, the contributors have been seeking a fair share of the gains. Some contributors have sought legal assistance to enable them exploit copyrights in the same way the songwriter does. This paper will discuss the arguments that surround the ownership of music copyrights. Background Information According to the copyright act in the United Kingdom, music denotes the notes that give rise to a rhythm, and the term music in real life application denotes a mixture of the notes and accompaniments to make it pleasing to the ear (Arnold, 2009:1-2). In most cases, songwriters assign their composition to publishing companies who solicit for potential performers, but only in a few cases do composers go beyond composition to performance. The performers play a critical role because they introduce a song to the market, but it takes the efforts of a team of artists according to Frith for the song to stand in the market (2002:205). In order to understand to appreciate the role played by the performer, it is essential to examine the stringency of the songwriter. Some stringent songwriters attach conditions to their composition, which usually determine the level of creativity and autonomy that the performer can use to make the masters stand out in the market (Kohn, and Kohn, 2010:193). Composers who leave a performer with little space for creativity often limit the uniqueness of the song (Gammons, 2012:56). If composers allow the performers to exercise creativity and alter the composition, the performer can produce a unique performance (Gowers, 2006:50). For this unique performance to result, the performer relies on the expertise of multiple artists including guitarists, drummers, and pianists (Talbot, 2000:88). Music recording has moved from the traditional composer to performer chain with the emergence of electronic recording altering the scenes in recording (Arnold, 2009:4). Electronic recording has brought new realms of possibilities enabling the release of a performance into the market before transcription of the composition. In this process, different artists work together to produce the piece. The collaborative process brings new challenges to the front (Arnold, 2009:5). The author’s piece becomes subject to rearrangement by the artists. Further modifications to the piece occur with the addition of creativity from the guitarists, drummers, pianists, and other artists (Macmillan, 2005:69). The greatest challenge that arises involves determination of whether the contribution of these artists has the significance required to qualify them as joint authors with the composer. An analysis of current music reveals music authorship cannot fall under the ownership of one individual. Authors such as Bentley (2009:1-4) acknowledge that music is the outcome of a collaboration. This collaboration involves the work of lyricists, songwriters, singers, instrumentalists, arrangers, producers, engineers, set designers, video directors, and others. All these contributors bring the difference between music pleasing to the ear and noise (Katz, 2009:154). The UK copyright act has to measure the level of value of contribution in order to determine whether these other players in the production of music deserve to gain some benefits of the royalties (Hangreaves, 2011:5). In the past, overvaluation or undervaluation of the value of an artist’s contribution has occurred (Harrison, 2011:151). Undervaluation involves classifying the contribution under categories of music not subject to copyright. For example, when the performance involves lyrics, they may fall under the category of performance rites because they are majorly oratory. In other instances, the difference between composition and performance becomes very essential in determining the level or value of contribution (Sterling, 2002:211). In such cases, creation and performance of any musical work falls under different categories of the copyright act (Rahmatian, 2009:568). An intensive analysis of the copyright act in solving claims of joint authorship will shed light on the factors that qualify an artist to exploit the copyright alongside the composer. In the UK, definition of joint authorship denotes contribution of distinct authors. However, the actual contribution of the different authors should not be subject to separation (Schlesinger, 2009:262). This aspect determines whether each of the authors deserves ownership of the copyright (Arnold, 2004:7). Case Studies Analysis of cases that the law has handled in the past will provide insights concerning the rationality used in determining whether contributing artists deserve to receive part of the ownership rights (Arnold, 2009:6). In 1995, judge Blackburne considered the case of Godfrey versus Lee. The claimant of the case demanded the right of co-authorship of six different pieces of work. According to him, he had made immense qualification to the six compositions. Fact sheets from the case present more insights into the case that the pianist also worked as an orchestral arranger for the pop group involved. The judge established that it took him fourteen years to raise his claims, a fact that worked against him in the case. Godfrey had worked for the group for a remarkably long time but had never enrolled as part of the group. The fact that he was not a member excluded him from access to the royalties from the songs. The judge recognized that he contributed a worthwhile value that would make him qualify as a joint author had he sought his legal rights in time. This case highlighted the importance of a level of originality in one’s contribution to the music. Godfrey’s contribution did not necessarily have to prove of equal quantity or quality to that of the author, but it was of crucial importance. Contrary to his expectations, Godfrey could not exploit the copyright of the songs because the licenses had expired. This made it clear that snoozing of claims eventually leads to loss even when there is a proof of joint authorship. In a different case, that of Kemp versus Hardley, the judge highlighted a different point of view that changed the entire picture of the case (Arnold, 2009:7). In this case, there were several claims, but Norman’s claims are more important in this context. Norman was a saxophonist and guitarist and he demanded joint ownership of songs produced by Spandou Ballet in that season. Norman felt that his contribution was sufficient to qualify him as a joint author. The judge handling this case established that, despite Norman’s contributions to these songs, Kemp was the sole author. The judge made his conclusions based on several considerations. He admitted that Norman‘s guitar improvisation held a level of uniqueness and attractiveness. Although he recognized Norman’s creativity, there were several attributes disqualifying him from joint authorship. He mentioned that the improvisation was only a fill that served to complement the author’s work (Hull, Hutchison, and Strasser, 2010:49). This fill followed the rhythm of the song in a version that indicated it was not significantly original. Therefore, the judge questioned Norman’s originality to the work. The judge further mentioned that the type of skill involved in the improvisation belonged to a category of skills not subject to copyright protection (Arnold, 2009:8). This argument presented a critical issue in the awarding of copyright to some categories of musical skills (Walde, and Schlesinger, 2011:260). One wonders whether some categories are less important than others are. In his judgment, he explained that the loops of drumming and piano tunes did not amount to any significant difference in the author’s original musical material. The improvisation was very distinct from Kemp’s material, and this distinction made Norman’s contribution separable from that of the author. This emphasized the importance of the contributions of the two authors being completely inseparable. The case of Beckingham and Hodgens received a different ruling (Arnold, 2009:10). Beckingham was a violinist and claimed that he deserved joint authorship due to the contribution that, in his opinion was sufficient to qualify to exploit the copyrights. The case highlighted the song ‘young at heart’ that Hodgens authored with his girlfriend. The initial performance of the song was in a northern soul style by Banarama. Later, Hodgens considered recording the song in country style. It was at this point that Hodgens contribution proved significant. Although the author gave the violinist hints of the work that he needed, the violinist did his unique work. The judge granted the violinist the freedom to exploit copyrights of the song after his analysis of the case. The judge considered the satisfaction of the requirements of joint authorship described above, but unlike Norman’s case, he made different judgments. It was evident to him that there was a level of collaboration by the author and violinist. This form of collaboration, that took place during the recording process, satisfied one of the requirements. He also noted that both the claimant and the author had contributed significantly to the final song. The contribution from the violinist contributed to the success of the song because it made it different from the banarama version. In addition, the judge highlighted that the contributions of the violinist and the author were inseparable (Stmatoudi, 2002:12). According to him, the relevance of the violinist’s work appears only if it is part of the entire recording (Zemer, 2007:203). Concerning this case, the judge was fair and recognized the contribution of the violinist. Judge Blackburne handled another case involving Fischer and Brooker (Arnold, 2009:11). Fischer had made worthwhile contribution in the form of a solo that consisted of 8-bar repeats as an organist. Fischer felt that his contribution to the ‘work’ was sufficient to qualify him to exploit the rights of the song. Brooker had made a tape recording of himself as he accompanied the song with a piano prior to his involvement with Fischer. Although Brooker had composed the original words of the song, the lyrics were a product of Keith’s creativity. The judge identified that the contribution of Fischer was significant according to 5RB case reports. He observed that Fischer qualified as a joint author; he had delayed in making claims and could not exploit the rights of the work in question (Derclaye, 2010:62). It became evident that Fischer’s contribution was a product of his labor and skill, irrespective of the fact that Brooker had offered Fischer some hints. Fischer’s contribution proved inseparable from Brooker’s original work. These factors qualified Fischer as a joint author but having waited for 38 years before making claims, he could not exercise the right of ownership. Judge Braeburne was in charge of three of these cases and highlighted three crucial issues concerning the requirements of joint ownership. There must be evident collaboration between the authors through which they must make contribution that presents significant originality (Bently, 2010:204). Moreover, the contribution of each of the authors must prove inseparable. According to Davies (2001:98), it is important for different authors to pursue the cases before the expiration of the licenses involved. From the background information presented above, it becomes evident that the production of music involves a collaborative process (Longhurst, 2007:78). This process includes different categories of labor and skills that often characterize music, making it stand out from noise (Montgomery and Threlfall, 2007:5). Therefore, it is only reasonable that the copyright act recognizes the value of contribution. According to the 1988 version of the copyright act in the UK, the contribution the recording artists must satisfy three criteria before the granting of joint authorship. The contribution of each of these authors must present a significant level of originality and creativity in the collaborative process. The collaboration must produce work that proves inseparable. Without meeting these criteria, claims of joint authorship are irrelevant. Bibliography 5RB. 2006. Fisher v Brooker & Onward Music Ltd. Available from: http://www.5rb.com/casereports/detail.asp?case=568 [accessed on 29 October 2012]. 5RB. Godfrey v Lees. Available from: http://www.5rb.com/case/Godfrey-v-Lees [accessed on 29 October 2012]. Arnold, R. 2004. Performers rights. London: Sweet & Maxwell. Arnold, R. 2009. Reflections on The Triumph of Music: Copyrights and Performers’ Rights in Music Oxford Intellectual Property Invited Speaker Seminar on 20 October 2009. Available from: http://www.oiprc.ox.ac.uk/papers/Mr%20Justice%20Arnold%27s%20paper.pdf [accessed on 29 October 2012]. Bently, L. 2009. “Authorship of Popular Music in UK Copyright Law”, Information, Communication & Society, 12(2) 179. Bently, L. 2010. Copyright and piracy: an interdisciplinary critique. Cambridge [u.a.], Cambridge Univ. Press. Davies, S. 2001. Musical Works and Performances: A Philosophical Exploration Oxford:Clarendon. Derclaye, E. 2010. Copyright and cultural heritage: preservation and access to works in a digital world. Cheltenham, UK [u.a.], Edward Elgar. Frith, S. 2002. Performing rites: on the value of popular music. Cambridge, Mass. [u.a.]:Harvard Gammons, H. 2012. The art of music publishing: an interpreneurial guide to publishing and copyright for the music, film, and media industries.CRC Press. Gowers, A. 2006. Gowers review of intellectual property. Norwich, HMSO. Available from: http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/583/91/pbr06_gowers_report. Hargreaves, I., 2011. Digital Opportunity: a Review of Intellectual Property and Growth, Hargreaves Review. Available from: http://www.ipo.gov.uk/ipreview-finalreport.pdf [accessed 29 October 2012]. Harrison, A. 2011. Music--the business: the essential guide to the law and the deals. London, Virgin Books. Hull, P., Hutchison, T., and Strasser, R. 2010. The Music Business and Recording Industry: Delivering Music in the 21st Century. Oxford: Taylor & Francis. Kohn, A., & Kohn, B. 2010. Kohn on music licensing. [Frederick, MD], Aspen Publishers. Longhurst, B. 2007. Popular music and society. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Macmillan, F. 2005.New directions in copyright law. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar. Montgomery, R., & Threlfall, R. 2007. Music and copyright: the case of Delius and his publishers. Aldershot, Ashgate. Parker, A., 2006. “A Raw Deal for Performers: Part 1 – Term of Copyright” Entertainment Law Review, 17(6), 161-166. Rahmatin, A. (2009) The Concepts of Musical Work and Originality in UK Copyright Law - Sawkins v. Hyperion as a Test Case. International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 40 (5), pp. 560-591. Schlessinger, P. 2009. “Creativity and the experts: New Labour, Think Tanks and the Policy Process” International Journal of Press Politics, 14(3) 3-20. Shuker, R. 2001. Understanding Popular Music. London: Routledge. Stamatoudi, I. A. 2002. Copyright and multimedia products: a comparative analysis. Cambridge, Cambridge Univ. Press. Sterling, J. A. L. 2008. World copyright law: protection of authors works, performances, phonograms, films, video, broadcasts, and published editions in national, international and regional law. London, Sweet & Maxwell. Talbot, M. 2000. The musical work: reality or invention? Liverpool, Liverpool University Press. Univ. Press. Talbot, M. 2000. The musical work: reality or invention? Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. Walde, C., and Schlesinger, P., 2011. Music and Dance beyond Copyright Text? SCRIPTed, 8(3), 257-291. Zemer, L. 2007. The idea of authorship in copyright. Aldershot Hants England, Ashgate Pub. Co. Read More