Page 1 of 1
New Songs - Copyright EMI
Posted: 31 Mar 2010, 16:32
by Being645
... might have been expained elsewhere in the forum or on The Sisters' official site before, but I just couldn't find it ...
Lyrics of most songs after WEA are
© 1997.
Lyrics reproduced by kind permission of EMI Music Publishing Ltd. All rights reserved. Not yet released on record.
This has always made me wonder
a) how comes EMI have the rights to these lyrics without an actual album release?
b) what are the legal effects of such an agreement for any future release of these songs?
Posted: 01 Apr 2010, 01:05
by stufarq
Publishing deals are separate from recording deals. The songs are published by EMI's publishing division, which is separate from their records division. Shouldn't really have any effect on future releases. They still won't get released no matter who publishes them.
Posted: 01 Apr 2010, 08:21
by paul
stufarq wrote:They still won't get released no matter who publishes them.
Posted: 01 Apr 2010, 11:25
by Being645
stufarq wrote:Publishing deals are separate from recording deals. The songs are published by EMI's publishing division, which is separate from their records division.
So what is the purpose of such publishing deals then?
stufarq wrote:
Shouldn't really have any effect on future releases. They still won't get released no matter who publishes them.
well, just in case if ... wouldn't EMI then get any returns from that?
Posted: 01 Apr 2010, 12:16
by Bartek
publishing the lyrics on the Net (for ex.) and demaning rolaylities from that.
Posted: 01 Apr 2010, 13:44
by moses
Being645 wrote:stufarq wrote:Publishing deals are separate from recording deals. The songs are published by EMI's publishing division, which is separate from their records division.
So what is the purpose of such publishing deals then?
They would get a cash advance on presumed future sales and gives the publishers the right to offer the tracks to someone else to record.
Posted: 01 Apr 2010, 16:45
by Being645
moses wrote:
They would get a cash advance on presumed future sales and gives the publishers the right to offer the tracks to someone else to record.
So anyone could buy them and record whatever songs under whatever label with these lyrics ... aha.
And in case The Sisters recorded these songs where ever and how ever, EMI would get a share of the sales?
Posted: 01 Apr 2010, 20:33
by Sita
Being645 wrote:moses wrote:
So anyone could buy them and record whatever songs under whatever label with these lyrics ... aha.
That's new to me, and I used to work at a record company so I should know
I can't explain too well what the function of a publisher is (very tired right now). But there's the record company, the publisher, and the distributor. We were working with different publishers, so that a rock band would be with a rock publisher and not one reknowned for their minimal house
Now this is too technical and in no way I can explain it in English tonight - @ Being: Der Verlag überwacht die tatsächlichen Verkäufe, also was letztlich an Chart Control gemeldet wird, wertet die GEMA-Bögen von DJs und Radiostationen aus, und leitet das an die Plattenfirma weiter, damit die dann aufgrund der Daten die Abrechnungen für die Künstler machen können. Anfragen ob ein Song gecovert werden darf, auf einen Sampler darf, usw., leitet der Verlag an die Künstler weiter. Usw. etc.
Sorry my English is deteriorating after a long day
Posted: 01 Apr 2010, 20:53
by paul
Fortunately my German ain't that bad. Thanks Sita!
Posted: 01 Apr 2010, 21:04
by Sita
I guess you can say, the legal effect is that the songs are protected.
It seems the coffee helped and my brain starts working again!
Posted: 01 Apr 2010, 23:03
by Being645
Thank you
Sita ...
...
So, in case of a recording and release the publishers seem to do a lot of work, and surely not without getting paid.
But I can hardly imagine they are receiving anything now that these lyrics are merely used by The Sisters live ...
At least, I can see three or four reasons in the past to have lyrics copyrighted to EMI instead of holding the copyrights oneself ...
...
Posted: 02 Apr 2010, 00:38
by stufarq
Sita wrote:Being645 wrote:moses wrote:
So anyone could buy them and record whatever songs under whatever label with these lyrics ... aha.
That's new to me, and I used to work at a record company so I should know
It's almost correct though. If you want to record a cover of a song then you would contact the publisher.
Publishers also promote the songs for use in TV shows etc. Obviously the record company actually owns those recordings and has final say but it can be an important source of revenue.
And they collect royalties on behalf of the songwriters.
These links might be of interest:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictiona ... Publishing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_publ ... lar_music)
Posted: 02 Apr 2010, 04:35
by Being645
Thanks for these links,
stufarq ...
...
...
Your quotation looks a bit inferior, though ...
...
(I've never worked with a record company, otherwise be sure I needed not ask such questions ...)
Posted: 02 Apr 2010, 16:16
by stufarq
Being645 wrote:Thanks for these links,
stufarq ...
...
...
Your quotation looks a bit inferior, though ...
...
(I've never worked with a record company, otherwise be sure I needed not ask such questions ...)
You're welcome.
Not sure what went wrong with the quote. Must have deleted an important character somewhere by accident.
Posted: 02 Apr 2010, 18:32
by Randall Flagg
stufarq wrote:Sita wrote:Being645 wrote:
That's new to me, and I used to work at a record company so I should know
It's almost correct though. If you want to record a cover of a song then you would contact the publisher.
Publishers also promote the songs for use in TV shows etc. Obviously the record company actually owns those recordings and has final say but it can be an important source of revenue.
And they collect royalties on behalf of the songwriters.
These links might be of interest:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictiona ... Publishing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_publ ... lar_music)
I gather the control the artist has differs depending on the contract.
Michael Jackson licensed a Beatles track for use in an advert as he owned the publishing rights. The surviving Beatles were less than impressed. I think the Stones have had issues here too with their early songs.
More recently a UK company wanted to use a version of Sweet Child O' Mine in a TV advert. Permissions for that had to come from Mr Rose, and it took forever!
Flagg
Posted: 02 Apr 2010, 19:47
by Being645
stufarq wrote:Being645 wrote:Thanks for these links,
stufarq ...
...
...
Your quotation looks a bit inferior, though ...
...
(I've never worked with a record company, otherwise be sure I needed not ask such questions ...)
You're welcome.
Not sure what went wrong with the quote. Must have deleted an important character somewhere by accident.
... as you can see above it's lives on, like in this children's game ...
Posted: 03 Apr 2010, 16:46
by stufarq
Randall Flagg wrote:I gather the control the artist has differs depending on the contract.
Michael Jackson licensed a Beatles track for use in an advert as he owned the publishing rights. The surviving Beatles were less than impressed. I think the Stones have had issues here too with their early songs.
More recently a UK company wanted to use a version of Sweet Child O' Mine in a TV advert. Permissions for that had to come from Mr Rose, and it took forever!
Flagg
The Beatles case is complicated (and covered in that Wiki link I posted) but basically publishing contracts involve ascribing some of the copyright to the publishing company. When the Beatles lost their majority share in Northern Songs due to their partner in the company selling his stock, Lennon & McCartney decided to sell their shares too, although they kept their songwriters' royalties. Michael Jackson ended up buying the shares at auction many years later as far as I remember.
Posted: 03 Apr 2010, 17:53
by Big Si
Randall Flagg wrote:I gather the control the artist has differs depending on the contract.
Michael Jackson licensed a Beatles track for use in an advert as he owned the publishing rights. The surviving Beatles were less than impressed. I think the Stones have had issues here too with their early songs.
More recently a UK company wanted to use a version of Sweet Child O' Mine in a TV advert. Permissions for that had to come from Mr Rose, and it took forever!
Flagg
ATV publishing. It's all
here.