Läste för några dagar sedan om Featured Artists Coalition och en artikel om hur de står upp mot skivbolagen och säger att de vill gå deras egna ärenden i fortsättningen. Detta är naturligtvis bra, det säger jag inte emot. Vi får dock inte glömma att FAC också är upphovsrättskämpar och vill ha en förnyad och förstärkt upphovsrätt. Kriget om upphovsrätten har alltså blivit till ett trefrontskrig mellan artisterna som vill äga sina verk själva, skivbolagen som vill äga rätten till artisternas verk, samt givetvis piraterna och några andra liberaler. Allt jag menar är att jag blev lite nervös när jag läste alla lovordande kommentarer om FAC från piratpartister. De är bättre än musiklobbyisterna, ja, men de är fortfarande våra motståndare.
Ovanstående citat hämtat från http://www.featuredartistscoalition.com/
"Our Key DemandsThe Featured Artists Coalition will argue for the future contractual implementation of the following:
- An agreement by the music industry that artists should receive fair compensation whenever their business partners receive an economic return from the exploitation of the artists’ work. Record and technology companies are signing agreements to deliver music to fans in new ways. Artists are not involved in these negotiations and their interests are likely to be overlooked. Artists should receive fair compensation as part of these new deals.
- All transfers of copyright should be by license rather than by assignment. Artists lose the ownership of their copyrights because they are assigned in most agreements to record companies, publishers and others to exploit. In Germany artists can only license rather than assign these rights by law and thereby they retain ultimate ownership of their own material. This precedent should be followed elsewhere. Any such license should be limited to a maximum 35 years, as is the case for recording agreements in the United States.
- The ‘making available’ right should be monetized on behalf of featured artists and all other performers. Whilst enshrined in law, artists have been obliged to assign this right in recording and other agreements, and this assignment has been generally non-negotiable. In most cases the making available right has not been monetised and artists need to be fairly compensated for this new interactive right.
- Copyright owners to be obliged to follow a ‘use it or lose it’ approach to the copyrights they control. Despite new technology, many copyright owners fail to release recordings to the public. As a result many artists lose out and fans can only access such material illegally. A ‘use it or lose it’ contractual provision should automatically apply so that an artists’ work is always available for legal purchase by the public, digitally and physically.
- The rights for performers should be improved to bring them more into line with those granted to authors (songwriters, lyricists and composers). Author’s rights are much stronger because their rights model was developed 100 years before performers' rights. Some key differences:
- if an artist’s recording is used in a TV advertisement in the UK, the author gets paid (via PRS) every time it is broadcast but the performers do not
- if an artist’s record is played on free-to-air radio in the US the author gets paid public performance income (via ASCAP or BMI) but the performers do not
- if an artist’s recording is used in a feature film, the author but not the performer gets paid public performance income every time the film is shown in a UK cinema.
- A change to copyright law which will end the commercial exploitation of unlicensed music purporting to be used in conjunction with ‘critical reviews’ and abusing the UK provisions for ‘fair dealing’. Several companies are producing DVDs in the UK which use artists’ audio visual footage and place a review at the end of the DVD. By doing this they claim that the DVD is a work of 'critical review' and therefore no permission or payment is required to any of the stakeholders. "