Re: Performers Right in Sound Recordings

Scott Fedewa:
>
> I take it that [it] is legally true [that composers' or writers'
> rights are alienable]. My question is, then, why does it seem to
> be custom in the music industry not to ever "alienate" them?
> Performers on a record routinely give up all rights in the master
> to the record company in exchange for royalties, yet
> writers/composers get to cash in on "publishing" royalties which
> they could have just as easily turned over to the record company,
> as well. (A real world example: Mick Jagger and Keith Richards,
> who write most of the songs performed by the Rolling Stones, are
> multiple times richer than Bill Wyman or Charlie Watts.)

    Don't know much about the industry, but the scheme you describe does sound like a sale of rights, in exchange for royalties. The copyright is transfered from the composer to the record company, and the record company promises royalties in exchange.

    (Actually, this technically means that the composer remains a "beneficial owner," able to sue for copyright infringement; but the legal owner of the copyright will be the record company.)

    Of course, other business arrangements are entirely feasible.

• Eugene Volokh, UCLA Law <volokh[_at_]law.ucla.edu>