Re: Performers Right in Sound Recordings

Seth Greenstein wrote:
>
>Scott, what makes you believe that the performance right would be
>exercised by performers, rather than the record companies that
>contractually own the rights to administer to the recording on behalf of
>performers?

Excellent question. I believe that because it seems to be the way income from similar rights are traditionally administered in the US. As I understand it, in the US the performing rights societies traditionally split income from public performances into two payments: a "writer's share" and a "publisher's share". The ASCAP's of the world then write two separate checks, one to the publishing company administering the works AND one directly to the composer/writer. Additionally, monies received by the publisher from mechanical licenses (for manufacture of copies) traditionally is also split 50/50 with the songwriter.

This means that while both performers and writers get royalties from the record company, the writers also have these other income streams entirely separately. It seems as though writing a song is treated as more important than performing one, to the extent that songwriters seem to receive a quasi "moral right" in their work and don't have to alienate it although the rest of the band does have to give up their contributions (the performance).

I recognize that this "tradition" is rather unusual given a contract law paradigm (and the negotiating leverage you would expect a record company to have over artists) and that is why I've been pursuing it.

Given this tradition, I'm wondering if people think that a performance right would be administered in a similarly odd fashion or if anybody knows why writers/composers have been given such deference relative to musicians?

Scott Fedewa
<fedewacs[_at_]leland.stanford.edu> Received on Mon Dec 26 1994 - 08:01:00 GMT