Keith Harris on copyright extension, DRM etc.
www.theregister.co.uk/2007/01/25/keith_harris_interview/

Harris:

Clicky no work This one should

Keith Harris interview

Session musicians are hired for the session and that is it.

Somebody like Cliff or Elvis usually get a royalty percentage that's on the 50 year limit.

The actual writers of the song get their percentage for life plus 70 years after they die - usually, some people have been known to sign that away though.

James Brown pulled a fast one by giving his daughters a co-writing credit to effectively extend the period. (I think he sued them to remove it at some point too, make your mind up Mr Brown )

Anyway, I think Cliffs main concern is that he loses control over the use of his recordings, so your local Satanic Massage Parlour can use it in their radio jingle and all that sort of thing.

But having somebody conspicuously well off complaining about losing income didn't really win any hearts and minds did it.

<<< your local Satanic Massage Parlour >>>

Never tried one of those .... do you have the address?

Maybe they wouldn't be so conspicuously well off if they began to lose income.

Don't forget performance royalties...session musicians would get these.

SS wrote:
Don't forget performance royalties...session musicians would get these.

Not necessarily, much more likely a flat session fee.

I don't know of any examples either way but in the 50s and 60s there were far more jobbing "day" musicians, they'd turn up, record, go home. Often it being the one and only time they saw the music - unsung heroes some of them.

JK may be able to shed light on this, at least regarding his own early recordings. (?)


(PS. I am wondering when Keith Harris made the statement if he was using Orville or the money?)

All of my session musos were on total buy outs (and made fortunes from all the flops I don't mention!).

Even "featured" artists were very often on buy-out-deals in the 50s & 60s.

Buy-outs are still very prevalent in Africa, where even the featured artist would much prefer the cash in hand than a contract - "oh yeah, like you'll pay me in six months". On the one hand, it's a very simple situation to administer. Everyone knows where they are. But it actually hinders overall growth, as neither the artist nor the manager has any vested interest in making the record a hit. So it's hard to get "the team" pulling together.

In America, this is called "work for hire" and is prevalent in movie scripts, for example.