Not sure, I know “blurred lines” used the same tone as Marvin Gaye and his family got millions plus 50% of future royalties.
Prepare derivative works based on the original work. For example, a new original product that includes aspects of an existing song. This consists of a cover song, remix, or any altered version of an existing song.
Seems from this should have to pay royalties on certain aspects. If she owns the lyrics she only had to pay for the music etc.
I’m not a jew so the page is confusing as hell.
Who would she pay those royalties to?
These are her songs and her albums that she re-recorded.
I do believe that she still owns the publishing which means that she owns those songs
Ok I just looked, she gave up rights to her first 6 albums and they were eventually sold. She’d pay royalties to the new owners like when Michael Jackson bought the Beatles masters.
But according to the article she waited until the “sunset clause” kicked in and could record them again royalty free and hopes to cut into the profits of the owners of the original masters which she does not own.
I don't think it mattered whether she recorded the same songs as a previous album, or wrote an entirely new one and recorded that. After her deal is up, she is able to record whatever she wants and sell it. In this case, it made sense for her to record some old material in order to make more money selling it herself. Plenty of bands record songs that they have recorded before and put them on new albums. I guess it was somewhat unusual for her to release albums with identical content.
What McCartney did or is doing is different. He is reclaiming songwriting copyrights under a section of copyright law that apparently only applies to music. Since he assigned copyright for the songs in the past, he would actually have to pay royalties to the owner if he recorded his own stuff -- that is in addition to the 50% he has to pay to apparently Yoko Ono since he never owned 100% of those songs in the first place.
In 2009, Sony cut a deal with Yoko Ono to retain ownership of John Lennon’s authorship rights until 2050.
In 2017, Paul McCartney entered into negotiations with Sony to “reclaim” his authorship rights. The thing is, there is a little loophole in US copyright law that allows the authors of songs (or any other copyrighted work, for that matter) that were published before 1978 to regain control of their works after 56 years.
This means that starting in 2018, Paul McCartney was able to start reclaiming his ownership over the songs he wrote while with the Beatles in 1962.
Every year until 2026, in theory, McCartney would have been able to reclaim more and more songs until regaining control over the whole collection of the Beatles songs he authored.
https://musicnerdshq.com/do-the-beatles-still-get-royalties/
The beatles songs were sold.
Swift never sold her songs, only the master recordings that were used on the old record that she has since re-recorded.
I don't get why this is so hard for you to understand
(post is archived)