How does copyright permission work in the UK?
April 10, 2017 9:59 PM Subscribe
There's quite a bit online about how to request permission to license a copyrighted work in the UK, but much less about how to grant permission. Could this be as simple as sending an e-mail giving written confirmation that it's okay to use your work or must there be more to it? A specific scenario inside.
A small record label in the UK recently released a music compilation. The works on the comp were originally recorded between 1960 and 1990 and the artists are from many different countries throughout Europe and the Americas.
Most of the tracks on the release are licensed as orphan works, even in several instances when Googling the names of the artists turns up contact info for them. The owner of label admits that he was in contact with several of these artists despite the fact that he certified that he was unable to find the rights holder on his applications for orphan licenses. He claims that these artists gave him the go ahead to use their work but said that because the compilation was released in small quantity that it wasn't worth their time to "do the paperwork" and told him to seek an orphan license instead.
Upon looking into the matter, I can't figure out what paperwork he could be referring to. I imagine that if money were exchanged, one might need to sign a contract. Of course, the artists receive no compensation from having their work orphan licensed. If an artist wanted to grant permission to use their track for free, what would they have to do? Digging through UK websites on copyright I can't find evidence that there's a formal method that one has to go through to grant rights. Is there one? And is it really plausible that someone could have reason to seek an orphan license if they had the permission of the rights holder?
Bonus: What protections might an orphan license give you that could outweigh the risk of lying on the application?
A small record label in the UK recently released a music compilation. The works on the comp were originally recorded between 1960 and 1990 and the artists are from many different countries throughout Europe and the Americas.
Most of the tracks on the release are licensed as orphan works, even in several instances when Googling the names of the artists turns up contact info for them. The owner of label admits that he was in contact with several of these artists despite the fact that he certified that he was unable to find the rights holder on his applications for orphan licenses. He claims that these artists gave him the go ahead to use their work but said that because the compilation was released in small quantity that it wasn't worth their time to "do the paperwork" and told him to seek an orphan license instead.
Upon looking into the matter, I can't figure out what paperwork he could be referring to. I imagine that if money were exchanged, one might need to sign a contract. Of course, the artists receive no compensation from having their work orphan licensed. If an artist wanted to grant permission to use their track for free, what would they have to do? Digging through UK websites on copyright I can't find evidence that there's a formal method that one has to go through to grant rights. Is there one? And is it really plausible that someone could have reason to seek an orphan license if they had the permission of the rights holder?
Bonus: What protections might an orphan license give you that could outweigh the risk of lying on the application?
Response by poster: Oh yeah, I should have been clearer about that. For simplicity's sake, assume the artist holds the rights. In at least a few cases the original versions of these tracks were privately pressed by the artists and hadn't otherwise been issued before this release, so it seems unlikely that the rights now belong to someone else.
posted by vathek at 5:11 AM on April 11, 2017
posted by vathek at 5:11 AM on April 11, 2017
This “orphan licence” you refer to sounds more like “I couldn't be bothered to look”: there wasn't much (any?) recognition of the term in the 1990s. Almost all of these works would still be in copyright (unless the author was Canadian and died more than 50 years ago). There's also the matter of mechanical copyright terms, which vary wildly worldwide.
The rights may not be with the performer, as jacquilynne said. I know of two people from the 1960s freak folk scene who: 1) gets charged approximately retail CD price by their rights-holding label (ironically, named after the artist's band, but now part of Concord) for copies the artist wishes to sell, and 2) another just sells CD-Rs of their vinyl even though Sony licence his catalogue to boutique labels and eat all royalties in admin charges.
Lying on the application isn't a great way to support the artists you want to promote, though it's a fine old tradition going back to the very first days of records.
posted by scruss at 7:02 AM on April 11, 2017
The rights may not be with the performer, as jacquilynne said. I know of two people from the 1960s freak folk scene who: 1) gets charged approximately retail CD price by their rights-holding label (ironically, named after the artist's band, but now part of Concord) for copies the artist wishes to sell, and 2) another just sells CD-Rs of their vinyl even though Sony licence his catalogue to boutique labels and eat all royalties in admin charges.
Lying on the application isn't a great way to support the artists you want to promote, though it's a fine old tradition going back to the very first days of records.
posted by scruss at 7:02 AM on April 11, 2017
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by jacquilynne at 3:58 AM on April 11, 2017