harimau wrote:This issue of copyright has been debated ad nauseam in various
threads.
As I pointed out earlier, in the US the performers are employees of the sponsor and the
copyright vests with the sponsor. Even if that point is debated in courts of law, the
sponsor can pretty much write into the contract that he will retain copyright to the
concerts. So, the artists have no business telling a local organization not to record as
that is strictly between the sponsor of the P-3 visa and the local organization.
If the local organizers would get up the courage to tell some of these musicians "no
recording, no concert", you will see how the issue resolves immediately in favor of
recording. (I am talking not at the beginning of the concert but at the time of
negotiating with the original sponsor on dates and payment.)
Harimau, I don't think that is correct information!
As clarified in the various threads you refer to, the issue at hand is not copyright, but
performer's rights. There is a big difference between the two. As you say, artists
visiting on P-3 are considered as employees of (or, in some cases, independent contractors
for) the sponsor. However, that does not, in any way, mean that the performer's rights
belong to the employer/sponsor. The rights belong to the performer, and performer alone,
unless he/she has explicitly signed them away (even then, there are certain types of
performer's rights that cannot be transferred).
As you point out, local organizations can insist on "no recording, no concert" to the
sponsor (with whom they sign a contract), but the sponsor cannot agree to this without, in
turn, having that clause in the sponsor contract that they sign with the artist. Any such
clause in the sabha-to-sponsor contract is void without a corresponding clause in the
sponsor-to-artist contract. Even if it is not mentioned in the contracts, the artist can
directly give his/her consent to the local organization. So, eventually, the permission
has to come from the artist.
By the way, the above is not just for artists. I work for a large university in the US,
and for all the lectures that I give in class, I retain both performer's rights as well as
copyright (except for any third party material I have used), even though I am an employee
of the university. My university administrators have confirmed this.
We have recently started trying out the following model in our organization. We ask the
artists upfront if the following model is acceptable to them. So far, no artist has had
a problem with this model, but we have not tried it for long enough to know for sure.
"Concert recordings will be made available to attendees for $5 each (attendees can
purchase a recording option while purchasing their concert ticket at the venue). 50% of the
revenue from recording sales goes to us and 50% of the revenue goes to the artists. The
recordings will be delivered as MP3 to the purchasers within 24 hours of the concert via
a password protected link. Before downloading their purchase, the purchasers first check
a box, confirming that they understand that the recordings are to be treated equivalent to
a commercial recording and no public dissemination or rebroadcast of them is permitted."
The other model that was recommended to us was to purchase the right to sell a fixed number
of copies of the recording. For example, we pay the artist $125 for the right to sell 50
copies of the concert recording (same $2.50 revenue as above per recording to the artist)
using the same dissemination method above. This latter model is somewhat easier to
administer. Neither of the above models is perfect, but I believe a step towards a
solution that is acceptable to all parties involved.
(Mods: If this deviates from the thread too much, pls. feel free to delete or move elsewhere)
