Copyright term in Europe moves to the Cliff’s edge

Posted by Simon Dyson Wednesday, March 4th, 2009

Add a comment

Although you may not know it, there’s a debate going on across Europe at the moment about how long performers and producers (record companies) should be paid music royalties for tracks they have either performed on or are owners of. This shouldn’t be confused with performance revenues that are paid to songwriters following the broadcast or ‘performance’ of a track. They remain entitled to rights for life plus a good number of years into the afterlife. With music sales on the slide and forecast to remain down for a good few years, anything that affects a musician’s income has become quite a hot topic.

Last month the European Union’s Legal Affairs Committee recommended that the copyright term for sound recordings should be extended to 95 years from the current level of 50 years. This would bring Europe in line with the US, which has offered a copyright term of 95 years from release since 1998. Although the UK government originally wanted to stick with the current 50 years, it has now changed its mind and is willing to move to 70 years. Assuming performers begin performing at the age of 20, a 70 year term would pretty much cover their whole life.

Opinions across Europe are divided. France and Germany are up for 95 years, while the big guns of Belgium, Denmark, Finland and Latvia have all stated they are opposed to any extension. The UK backed a limited extension even though a review conducted by Andrew Gowers MP a couple of years ago concluded that any extension would negatively impact upon consumers and the music industry in general. Apparently, Gowers actually considered shortening the term to less than 50 years but decided against this as it wasn’t thought to be politically prudent.

The change in the EU’s position would also fly in the face of academic advice. Previously, the EC had commissioned a number of studies which had rejected arguments for an extension beyond 50 years. It would appear that the decision to extend the term appears not to have been based on economic arguments but more on the less quantifiable basis of fairness. The change in the UK’s stance confirmed by the culture minister Andy Burnham was due to unease in the difference between the copyright term for composers in the UK (life plus 70 years) and the performers 50 year rate, particularly as this may not cover the performers’ lifetime. Notable performers that fit into this category include the Informa favourite Sir Cliff Richard, whose releases have already begun to lose copyright, as well as the Beatles, whose early releases will lose protection in 2013.

The music industry is, unsurprisingly, a strong supporter of an extension. However, several rights groups are campaigning for no change. They argue that any change flies in the face of all research and the only beneficiaries of a change would be music companies and well-off artists, both of which are doing OK already. They also state that although copyright in the short term “fuels innovation by bringing an income to creators”, in the long term it can have the opposite effect. At worst, music can end up hidden away in a vault of unpublished creations. According to the Open Rights Group around two thirds of the money made from a recording is generated in the first few years after publication and by 50 years, income on most music is negligible. It suggests that if music companies are that concerned about ‘older’ artists’ welfare they should make sure they invest in a good pension plan.

Either way, an issue that has largely gone unnoticed to most is drawing considerable comment and dividing governments across Europe. The ‘poor retired musician’ argument worked in the US a few years ago and pretty soon a select few of us will know if it has been successful in Europe. Cliff fans watch this space.