What happens to deceased musicians album $?
1 - 5 of 5 Posts
Joined
·
8,535 Posts
My understand of this is that sales proceeds, what there are of them, go first to the record label or publisher. If there are royalties due, and it's not a given depending on the rights signed away during the player's life or by the heirs, then they go to the estate of the player and could be divided between many heirs. If there's no rightful heir to be found (which could include just about anyone designated in a will including a charity), then they go to the government.
However, and I am not an attorney although I played one in a HS production 30+ years ago, I do believe that copyrights expire after a certain period of time unless renewed, and in that case, the work enters the public domain and anyone that wants to sell a copy of it reaps whatever profit comes from it. Some of those you cite may be in this category, though I have no real way to tell.
However, and I am not an attorney although I played one in a HS production 30+ years ago, I do believe that copyrights expire after a certain period of time unless renewed, and in that case, the work enters the public domain and anyone that wants to sell a copy of it reaps whatever profit comes from it. Some of those you cite may be in this category, though I have no real way to tell.
Grafton + TH & C alto || Naked Lady 10M || TT soprano || Martin Comm III
Joined
·
30,061 Posts
I would think that once copyright expires, the record company would stop paying royalties to the estate and keep them.
Regarding public domain of recordings, I believe that to legally publish a public domain recording yourself, you must be the legal owner of an original copy. I know this is true of films. A production company who were making a promo video of me once needed some out of copyright footage. Although in public domain, they still needed to licence the right to use the footage from a collector who owned an original print.
Imagine this situation: a record label owns an old public domain master tape, or even just a pressing. They then spend money on cleaning up the tape or disc, mastering it and press CDs. What is to stop any Tom, Dick and harry from taking one of those CDs and copying it for their own label, thus cashing in on the work the original company did?
I know of a label who do reissues of public domain material, and they digitally "sign" the CDs so that if the CD is copied, they can take legal action. So "public domain" does not mean a free for all to copy anything out there that appears to have an expired copyright.
Joined
·
1,395 Posts
In the US, no major Bird or Coltrane recordings are in the public domain.
The master royalties, if the artist's account is recouped, would be paid by the record company to a lawyer that represents the Artist's estate (most likely.) And that lawyer would know how to distribute the royalties collected.
The record company would also pay mechanical royalties to the artist's music publisher for the songs that the artist wrote (probably collected by The Harry Fox Agency on behalf of music publishers.)
This law firm specializes in representing Artist's estates: SHUKAT ARROW HAFER WEBER & HERBSMAN, L.L.P. and they represent John Coltrane, Miles Davis, Charles Mingus...and a few living jazz guys like Pat Metheny.
Regarding Bird and the songs he wrote that were recorded on Savoy and Dial: It is possible that his estate does not receive mechanical royalties (or master royalties) for this stuff (I think I read that somewhere)...however his estate would still receive ASCAP/BMI money for when his songs are played in public.
The master royalties, if the artist's account is recouped, would be paid by the record company to a lawyer that represents the Artist's estate (most likely.) And that lawyer would know how to distribute the royalties collected.
The record company would also pay mechanical royalties to the artist's music publisher for the songs that the artist wrote (probably collected by The Harry Fox Agency on behalf of music publishers.)
This law firm specializes in representing Artist's estates: SHUKAT ARROW HAFER WEBER & HERBSMAN, L.L.P. and they represent John Coltrane, Miles Davis, Charles Mingus...and a few living jazz guys like Pat Metheny.
Regarding Bird and the songs he wrote that were recorded on Savoy and Dial: It is possible that his estate does not receive mechanical royalties (or master royalties) for this stuff (I think I read that somewhere)...however his estate would still receive ASCAP/BMI money for when his songs are played in public.
Joined
·
313 Posts
US copyright law has been continually updated since the 1970's, with a primary aim of keeping Mickey Mouse from entering the public domain. As a result, not many works since the mid-1920's have entered the public domain. The current length of a copyright is the life of the creator plus 70 years. Before 1978 the copyright period was 28 years, which could be extended another 28. Imagine that someone made a recording in 1949. It would have come up for copyright renewal in 1977. If they renewed it, then the copyright would have still been in force when it crossed the magic date of 1978, getting an extension to life plus 50 (at that time). But if the copyright holder did not renew the item in 1977, then it entered the public domain that year, and copyright would not re-attach in 1978 when the law was changed.
The creator can sign away all rights to a work, in which case the copyright period is still tied to that person's life, but all royalties go to whoever bought it. This most often happened in publishing, such as some magazine publishing, but may have occurred in music, for all I know. Tracing the provenance of copyright to a work can be a daunting task; I recall reading a brief the length of a novella tracing the copyrights of H. P. Lovecraft's fiction, coming in the end to the conclusion that it had all entered the public domain.
Once a work enters the public domain, it means that anyone can re-release it and make money off it. This is why you can easily get a collected works of Sherlock Holmes, but not of Kurt Vonnegut: anyone can publish the Holmes stories (and anyone can make a movie about the character, which also entered the public domain long ago), and if they sell their copies, they keep the money. Vonnegut's stuff is still under copyright. If you want to reprint it, you have to get permission from Vonnegut's heirs and pay royalties.
Assuming the rights still belonged to the musician at the time of death, the royalties go to the estate and are handled according to the artist's will. They are divided among the heirs in the will. If the heirs die, then their royalties are distributed according to the terms of their wills, unless the creator's will limited the transfer to the person named and not their heirs or assignees. If the artist had no will, then the artist's royalties are divided up according to the State's rules regarding those who die intestate. So a great deal depends on when the work was created, when the person died, and where they lived (the state whose laws will govern the execution of a will). To my knowledge, there is no state that simply keeps the money. Record companies may very well try to do so, but they'll be in deep trouble at their first audit. Law, after all, was originally created to protect property, not people, and protection of property is still one of its main functions.
In the final analysis, you're probably best off deciding to retract your question and leave it all up to the attorneys.
The creator can sign away all rights to a work, in which case the copyright period is still tied to that person's life, but all royalties go to whoever bought it. This most often happened in publishing, such as some magazine publishing, but may have occurred in music, for all I know. Tracing the provenance of copyright to a work can be a daunting task; I recall reading a brief the length of a novella tracing the copyrights of H. P. Lovecraft's fiction, coming in the end to the conclusion that it had all entered the public domain.
Once a work enters the public domain, it means that anyone can re-release it and make money off it. This is why you can easily get a collected works of Sherlock Holmes, but not of Kurt Vonnegut: anyone can publish the Holmes stories (and anyone can make a movie about the character, which also entered the public domain long ago), and if they sell their copies, they keep the money. Vonnegut's stuff is still under copyright. If you want to reprint it, you have to get permission from Vonnegut's heirs and pay royalties.
Assuming the rights still belonged to the musician at the time of death, the royalties go to the estate and are handled according to the artist's will. They are divided among the heirs in the will. If the heirs die, then their royalties are distributed according to the terms of their wills, unless the creator's will limited the transfer to the person named and not their heirs or assignees. If the artist had no will, then the artist's royalties are divided up according to the State's rules regarding those who die intestate. So a great deal depends on when the work was created, when the person died, and where they lived (the state whose laws will govern the execution of a will). To my knowledge, there is no state that simply keeps the money. Record companies may very well try to do so, but they'll be in deep trouble at their first audit. Law, after all, was originally created to protect property, not people, and protection of property is still one of its main functions.
In the final analysis, you're probably best off deciding to retract your question and leave it all up to the attorneys.
1 - 5 of 5 Posts
