" funkyTown " disco song legal notice.

[HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP]

HI guys, I need help understanding in plain english the following legal notice about this song.
According to Wiki :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funkytown

Quote:

In 1976, an amendment was made to the Copyright Act that permits authors to terminate grants of copyright assignments and licenses that were made on or after January 1, 1978. Under Section 203 of the Copyright Act, artists may reclaim ownership of a work's copyright no earlier than 35 years after the grant was executed. However, artists may give notice of their intent to terminate as early as 25 years after the grant had been executed.[19] In 2006, Steven Greenberg became the first American songwriter to file "notice of termination" under this act, in regard to Funkytown and the album it is a part of.[20] [21] [22] [23] [24] Because the song was released in 1980, the earliest that Greenberg would actually have the copyright returned to him is in the year 2015. So far, Casablanca's successor (Universal Music Group) has had little to say on the matter. Their stance legally has been that the song was a "work for hire" which are not protected under the copyright amendment, with Greenberg playing the role of the employee. As the first major hit to be reviewed for termination, many artists across the country are eagerly awaiting the outcome.

Can anybody please explain this to me ?

[geni]

Originally Posted by HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP

Can anybody please explain this to me ?

It would help if you explained which bits you don't understand.

[Cylinder]

I write a song and sell it to you for money. You publish it and make a gagillion dollars and make it the most popular song since Safety Dance. 35 years from now (2047) I can reclaim ownership of the rights. You no longer have rights to record, produce, publish, etc...

If an artist wanted to perform the song, they's have to negotiate rights with me, not you, even though they were the ones who made the song popular.

S-S-S-S
A-A-A-A
F-F-F-F...

[DragonLady]

I'm no lawyer, but my guess is that if an artist sells the copyright to a piece of music, he can reclaim that copyright after 35 years.

[Francesca R]

Gotta move on. Rumour is that song was lippsinc'ed anyway.

[Greedo]

Originally Posted by Francesca R

Gotta move on. Rumour is that song was lippsinc'ed anyway.

But we could still talk about it.

[alfaniner]

I have a super-extended-special-edition-12-inch-single-extended-remix of it that is 12 minutes and 40 seconds long.

Keeps it movin' with some energy.

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by DragonLady

I'm no lawyer, but my guess is that if an artist sells the copyright to a piece of music, he can reclaim that copyright after 35 years.

There's also the factor that he can give notice that he intends to reclaim the copyright 25 years after assigning it to the other party. That gives the other party up to a 10-year warning, in case they're actually using the work as a part of some larger project. This gives them the lead time to come up with alternatives.

Of course, the question of whether or not this particular song was a "work for hire" could mess things up.

[MG1962]

For anyone to comment we really need to see the original contract and how the songs were handled

[BStrong]

The simple explanation is that a music copyright that is sold has a fixed termination date, where the rights revert to the creator.

This case is interesting as many of the labels back in the day had staff musicians and staff writers.

The label told (for instance) Carole King and Gerry Goffin to write a song, they did, the song was recorded and released - in their particular case, they received a portion of the writers royalties, but many writers (less known) did not.

In this particular case, Funkytown has been used in so many movies the royalties and use rights must have been huge, and the writer(s) missed out on a lifetime of income.

[crimresearch]

Originally Posted by HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP

HI guys, I need help understanding in plain english the following legal notice about this song.
According to Wiki :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funkytown


Can anybody please explain this to me ?

There is a large 'work for hire' controversy in the IP community.

Universities are trying to claim total ownership of anything and everything that faculty may produce, invent, create, even if it has nothing to do with the subject they were hired to teach.

Record companies, publishers et al. would love to be able to ignore copyright, and pay pennies for something that could go on to be profitable for decades. Ask Del Shannon.... Oh, wait, you can't.

Corporations see it as a big pile of free money, people who create things see it differently.

[WildCat]

I was going to make a long post to talk about it, but I gotta move on.

[HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP]

Originally Posted by Cylinder

I write a song and sell it to you for money. You publish it and make a gagillion dollars and make it the most popular song since Safety Dance. 35 years from now (2047) I can reclaim ownership of the rights. You no longer have rights to record, produce, publish, etc...

If an artist wanted to perform the song, they's have to negotiate rights with me, not you, even though they were the ones who made the song popular.

S-S-S-S
A-A-A-A
F-F-F-F...

Thanks. Now I understand what's going on.

By the way, was Safety Dance more popular than FunkyTown ?

[HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP]

Originally Posted by alfaniner

I have a super-extended-special-edition-12-inch-single-extended-remix of it that is 12 minutes and 40 seconds long.

Keeps it movin' with some energy.

It's on youtube. someone complained that it didnt have enough cowbells....

Where's CowBell hero when you need him/her?

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Cylinder

I write a song and sell it to you for money. You publish it and make a gagillion dollars and make it the most popular song since Safety Dance. 35 years from now (2047) I can reclaim ownership of the rights. You no longer have rights to record, produce, publish, etc...

If an artist wanted to perform the song, they's have to negotiate rights with me, not you, even though they were the ones who made the song popular.

S-S-S-S
A-A-A-A
F-F-F-F...

Originally Posted by DragonLady

I'm no lawyer, but my guess is that if an artist sells the copyright to a piece of music, he can reclaim that copyright after 35 years.

I'm pretty sure "sell" is the wrong word to use here.

A copyright owner can grant you a license to use his material, for an agreed-upon price, for a specified amount of time. But he still retains ownership of the material. It is fundamentally, ultimately, his to give away or not as and when he chooses.

The thing being argued in the OP's quote seems to be whether or not Greenberg even owns the copyright in the first place. He says he does, but Universal disagrees. He says he owns the copyright, so he is entitled to revoke Universal's license after 35 years.

Universal says he doesn't own the copyright, and that the song (and its copyright) were purchased from Greenberg at the time of creation.

I don't think anybody is actually confused about copyrights being revocable after 35 years--the law seems pretty clear on that point. What's in dispute is whether this particular law actually applies to this particular claim by Greenberg.

[HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP]

Originally Posted by WildCat

I was going to make a long post to talk about it, but I gotta move on.

I'll give you something to talk about IT :

The Italians according to the same Wiki page, HEAR it differently :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funkytown

Quote:

In Italy, the song is known because of a case of acoustic pareidolia, sometimes mistaken for a subliminal message. The first sentence
Gotta make a move to a town that’s right for me sounds similar to an Italian sentence:
Caro amico mio, culattone, aspettami. This can be translated as:

My dear friend, faggot, wait for me.

[jimtron]

Originally Posted by crimresearch

There is a large 'work for hire' controversy in the IP community.

Universities are trying to claim total ownership of anything and everything that faculty may produce, invent, create, even if it has nothing to do with the subject they were hired to teach.

Record companies, publishers et al. would love to be able to ignore copyright, and pay pennies for something that could go on to be profitable for decades. Ask Del Shannon.... Oh, wait, you can't.

Corporations see it as a big pile of free money, people who create things see it differently.

I make my living as a photographer, and my understanding is that by default, I own the copyright to my photos unless I have signed a work for hire agreement. For photographers, WFH is common if you're a staff photographer working full time for a company, but not common with freelancers. I don't know how this works with record contacts, but I would think by the 70s most recording artists would have figured out not to let the labels own their publishing.

[SezMe]

I'd note, HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP, the risks of taking legal advice - or even commentary - from anonymous posters on the interwebz.

[Brainster]

My interpretation is that the law, like many other laws, is mostly intended to provide continuing income for lawyers by guaranteeing years of litigation.

[crimresearch]

Originally Posted by jimtron

I make my living as a photographer, and my understanding is that by default, I own the copyright to my photos unless I have signed a work for hire agreement. For photographers, WFH is common if you're a staff photographer working full time for a company, but not common with freelancers. I don't know how this works with record contacts, but I would think by the 70s most recording artists would have figured out not to let the labels own their publishing.

Work for hire is common and mutually agreeed on in certain areas. Recent court rulings have opened the door for other employers to redefine it to their advantage, in the absence of an explicit WFH contract.

All part of 'protecting' the bottom line.

[Beerina]

Congress and the courts might take a jaundiced eye at companies that claim WFH absent an explicit contract, especially decades after the fact.


IIRC, William Gaines of Mad Magazine demanded all his stuff work for hire, owning it lock, stock, and barrel. He paid well and took The Boys on big trips every year, but they got nothing per se when the stuff was sold (and re-sold and re-sold and re-sold). That's why Don Martin left for Cracked, so he could retain the copyright and attendant resale profits.



OH ****, NOOOOOOOOO! Kelly Ripa is talking to that ****in' fatass Sylvia Browne right now on TV on their "psychic week".

[Damien Evans]

Originally Posted by HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP

It's on youtube. someone complained that it didnt have enough cowbells....

Where's CowBell hero when you need him/her?

Playing this, of course:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[crimresearch]

Originally Posted by Beerina

Congress and the courts might take a jaundiced eye at companies that claim WFH absent an explicit contract, especially decades after the fact.


IIRC, William Gaines of Mad Magazine demanded all his stuff work for hire, owning it lock, stock, and barrel. He paid well and took The Boys on big trips every year, but they got nothing per se when the stuff was sold (and re-sold and re-sold and re-sold). That's why Don Martin left for Cracked, so he could retain the copyright and attendant resale profits.



OH ****, NOOOOOOOOO! Kelly Ripa is talking to that ****in' fatass Sylvia Browne right now on TV on their "psychic week".

It isn't that cut and dried:

Quote:

The (Supreme) court ruled that Roch is a co-owner with Stanford of patents for testing kits to detect the HIV virus because a Stanford researcher signed a visitor confidentiality agreement that contained an assignment of patent rights when he was doing work at a company later acquired by Roche...

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2011/j...ng-060711.html

Quote:

to ensure that the Government obtains sufficient rights in federally supported inventions to meet the needs of the Government and protect the public against nonuse or unreasonable use of inventions...

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/200


While these apply to patents/inventions, there are those who say it makes 'work-for-hire' at the discretion of people other than the inventor... and they are claiming it extends to any employee who creates anything, even unrelated to their job.

That has thrown the traditional legal tests back into the ring.

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by Brainster

My interpretation is that the law, like many other laws, is mostly intended to provide continuing income for lawyers by guaranteeing years of litigation.

FTW