Public Domain Day 2024
By Jennifer Jenkins
Director, Duke Center for the Study of the Public Domain
CC BY 4.0
Note: Please note that this site is only about US law; the copyright terms in other countries may be different.
On January 1, 2024, thousands of copyrighted works from 1928 will enter the US public domain, along with sound recordings from 1923. They will be free for all to copy, share, and build upon. This year’s highlights include Lady Chatterley’s Lover by D. H. Lawrence and The Threepenny Opera by Bertolt Brecht, Buster Keaton’s The Cameraman and Cole Porter’s Let’s Do It, and a trove of sound recordings from 1923. And, of course, 2024 marks the long-awaited arrival of Steamboat Willie – featuring Mickey and Minnie Mouse – into the public domain.
Here is just a handful of the works that will be in the US public domain in 2024. They were first set to go into the public domain after a 56-year term in 1984, but a term extension pushed that date to 2004. They were then supposed to go into the public domain in 2004, after being copyrighted for 75 years. But before this could happen, Congress hit another 20-year pause button and extended their copyright term to 95 years. Now the wait is over. (To find more material from 1928, you can visit the Catalogue of Copyright Entries.)
Click the PDF Link below for full article.
Written by Jennifer Jenkins.
Public Domain Day 2024 by Jennifer Jenkins, Director of Duke Law School’s Center for the Study of the Public Domain, is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Note on Changes: Excerpt taken from Public Domain Day 2014 by Jennifer Jenkins, Director of Duke Law School’s Center for the Study of the Public Domain. Certain segments, in particular “Why Celebrate the Public Domain?” have been reordered. Original footnotes have been removed.
This website is not official legal advice. Instead, it is a summary of United States law relevant to the public domain and a guide to some of the works entering the public domain in 2024.
So You Want to Create a Cover Song?
By Sierra Whitfield
So, you want to create a cover song?
Or, you already have created it, and are looking to release your newest creation out into the world?
Either way, there are some things that you’ll have to take into consideration, and that “thing” is copyright. I know, copyright may seem like it has little to do with music, or the arts in general, but these protections are far more relevant than you might think. It is important to adhere to copyright laws, for not only the artist’s benefit, but also your own. Copyright is all about protecting the value of a creator’s work, by giving the originator of the work the ability to protect it from unlicensed or uncredited usage. This leads to the prevention of their work being copied to the degree where they cannot sell it effectively or receive credit for it. In this way, copyright fosters intellectual creativity as it provides an incentive for a creator to work freely, allowing them to gain recognition for their work as well as protecting their livelihood.
So, an artist holds the rights to his work, to print, publish, reproduce, film etc. this material over a period of years, though they may give this right to others at their discretion or by allowing others to reuse it when other people ask for the owner’s permission. This process of getting consent from a copyright holder to use their creative work is called obtaining copyright permissions. Obtaining permission is often called “licensing”; when you have permission, you have a license to use the work.
And this is how, legally, music covers can exist!
The thought of licensing music may seem like a doozy, especially to someone who’s not used to the copyright permissions process, but once you understand the in’s-and-out’s of the different types of music licenses, you’ll be able to navigate licensing with little challenge.
Types of Music Licenses
Public Performance License: this license is self-explanatory. As one of the most common types of music license issues, the public performance license covers any broadcast of any artist’s work; scenarios include radio broadcasts, background music in public spaces (malls, restaurants, waiting rooms), or live covers in front of an audience.
Print Rights License: this license refers to the musical composition that the artist has written.
Master Recording License: the master right is held by the person or entity who owns the recording of the song. The master license gives the user permission to use the original recording of the song for an audiovisual project, but does not allow the user to use a re-recorded version of the song (i.e. a cover).
Mechanical License: this license covers any physical or digital reproduction of an artist’s work. Though original catered toward physical reproductions such as CD’s, cassettes, and vinyl’s, the existence of the internet and download focus stores like iTunes and Amazon Music has broadened this umbrella to include digital reproductions as well.
Synchronization (Sync) License: this license is necessary when you want “synchronize” music with an audiovisual project such as a YouTube video, music video, commercial, film, and television shows.
So, how do you go about getting licensing for releasing a cover song?
The first question you need to ask yourself is: where do you plan to post it?
Physical/Digital Downloads
If you plan on releasing a cover song on either a physical and/or digital records, then you will need to obtain a mechanical license. This ensures that both the copyright holder is paid and you aren’t sued!
Streaming Platforms
You can upload your cover song directly to streaming platforms utilizing the exact copyright information provided by the original songwriters and publishers. Services like Spotify, Apple Music, and YouTube Music license songs and pay royalties to copyright holders through THE MLC (Mechanical Licensing Collective). Cover artists releasing songs through these platforms do not need to worry about royalty payments.
Playing a Cover on YouTube
You may get away with not acquiring a license to a song posted on YouTube, but if you want to make money off your video, then you need to acquire a sync license. Elsewise, you will put yourself, and your video, at risk of getting a copyright strike. In addition, if you plan to release the song on digital, then the above rules and licenses will also apply.
Now, you are equipped with everything you need to know about cover music licensing. Go forth and release your song onto the platform of your choice!
References
Institute of Art, Design + Technology Dun Laoghaire, Copyright: Why copyright matters and important concepts related to copyright; Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial 4.0 International License (CC-BY_NC 4.0)
The original purpose of copyright in Victorian England was not to protect authors’ (or even publishers’) rights, but to raise revenue for the government, as well as giving them the primary power over the ability to censor literary works. Many of these restrictions were authorized by the Licensing of the Press Act in 1662, and were enforced by the Stationers’ Company, a guild of printers that was regulated by the Court of Star Chamber, that held the exclusive power to print. These stifling modes of censorship (and press restrictions) did not sit well with authors and the public alike. As such, these regulations led to widespread protests that eventually ended the reign of the censors.
The Statue of Anne, named for the reigning Queen Anne, which was passed on April 5, 1710, was a milestone in copyright law. The bill was the first of its kind, as it advocated for the protection of an author’s intellectual property by emphasizing that the author – or creator – should be the primary beneficiary of copyright law, rather than the publishers. The new bill granted a prescribed copyright term of 14 years from the inception of the law, and 21 year to any published work, that was already in print. A provision for renewal was included in its terms, during which only the author and the printer, to whom their work was licensed, held exclusive rights to publication. Should the copyright be left to expire, the work in question would then fall into the public domain.
Though the Statue of Anne would later be replaced by the Copyright Act of 1842, the law would forever more be considered a “watershed event in Anglo-American copyright history.” Within the written provisions of this statue, included a myriad of first such as copyright protections that favored authors over publishers or guilds and the legal deposit schema (and precursor, one could say, to the modern day institutional repository). This statue, also, had an influence on copyright laws that were enacted in other countries – Denmark in 1741, the United States in 1790 (and later the Chase Act nearly a hundred years later in 1891), and France in 1793 (a tous la liberté!).
References: Nineteenth-Century British and American Copyright Law by Philip V. Allingham
How are the Taylor Swift Re-recordings Legal?
Source: iHeartRadioCA
This file licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license.
Prior to 2019 American Music Awards (AMA, for short), Taylor Swift claimed that her former label, Big Machine records, has blocked her from performing any of the songs on her old catalogue (prior to the release of the 2017 album, Reputation).
Do they have a right to do this?
Absolutely!
As the company owns the exclusive rights to her music, they are able to “reproduce, prepare, distribute, and publically perform” in any way they see fit (Exclusive rights in copyrighted works).
Music copyright is typically comprised of two different licenses – a composition license and a master license. The master license or master recording license is the right held by the person or entity who owns the recording of the song. The master license gives the user permission to use the original recording of the song for an audiovisual project, but does not allow the user to use a re-recorded version of the song (i.e. a cover). The composition license or prints rights license refers to the musical composition that the artist has written.
As Swift is the primary songwriter listed on all of her songs, she retains the copyright for the composition. And so, she is able to create a new recording, of whose master copyright she fully owns. The advantage of this is that Swift can now retain a good chunk of the income by making sure that her fans, companies, and other vendors, purchase rights to her new improved recordings – which she has called “Taylor’s Version” – rather than the rights to the original versions, that are still owned by Big Machine Records.
So, the biggest question that many are asking is: why is she doing this?
Besides the financial benefits, many have speculated that the true motivations behind Taylor’s decision lay in her contentious relationship with music manager, Scooter Braun.
Taylor has been signed under Big Machine Records since starting her career at the age of 15, and finally left a little more than ten years later, in 2018. Whilst she was there, she was barred from making any re-records of her previous albums.
When Taylor Swift switched record companies, one of her required stipulations was that she would own her own masters. This, however, only applied to her new material.
The masters for all of her old music now belonged to Scooter Braun.
Scooter Braun’s company, Ithaca Holdings, LLC., acquired Big Machine, and all of its “recorded music assets,” in a deal made with Scott Borchetta. Scott and Taylor had a friendly, though professional, relationship as Big Machine Records was a small, independent recording label at its start. Swift’s father, Scott Swift, was also a major shareholder for the company. Though the final vote on the pending deal was passed with 3 out of 5 of the major shareholders voting in favor, Swift claims that that deal was done without her knowing, and that the company never gave her a chance to buy back her own masters.
She further portrayed Borchetta has a “traitor” for selling her master rights to Braun, and called the manager a “bully.” However, Borchetta, in a written response posted on the label’s website, contends this accusation by explaining that her management team and attorney went over the deal in detail and reported the terms back to her.
Whether that is true or not remains to be seen.
But what is not up for speculation is that 17 months after the deal, Scooter Braun sold the rights to Taylor’s masters to an investment fund. The deal reported closed north of $300 million, though some speculate it could be as high as $450 million (some have reported $480 million).
Swift’s main issue with Scooter Braun is not personal, but rather due to his professional ties to Kanye West. Their rivalry is a well-known one, dating all the way back to 2009, when Kanye West infamously interrupted Taylor’s Swift acceptance speech for Music Video of the Year. He snatched the mike away from her, and publically announced that Beyoncé, who had also been nominated for the category, had “one of the best videos of all time.” Then, later in 2016, Swift entered into a big fight with Kanye over his song, Famous. At the time, Braun was West’s manager, and he was working with the artist when the song was released. Taylor Swift kicked up a storm over the lyrics of the song: “I feel like me and Taylor might have s**. Why? I made that b**** famous.” The conflict was further amplified when the music video for the song was released, and at one point in the video model figures that were made in the likeness of several celebrities, which included Swift, appeared in the nude.
Regardless of the celebrity drama that permeated the situation, Taylor Swift has – unintentionally – given us a unique look into the world of music copyright. Armed with her own creativity, and immense social sway, Taylor Swift has managed to outsmart and wrestle control of her intellectual property away from the record labels and industry leaders, and has returned the power of the copyright holder back into the hands of the artist and creative. Don’t believe me? Case in point: when asked which version of Swift’s music they listen to, any die-hard Swiftie will say with a loyal assuredness: “Taylor’s Version!”
Sources:
https://hls.harvard.edu/today/how-taylor-swift-changed-the-copyright-game-by-remaking-her-own-music/
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=98b85aef-2092-4098-a36d-98302218271f
https://variety.com/2020/music/news/scooter-braun-sells-taylor-swift-big-machine-masters-1234832080/
https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-67237220
https://www.bigmachinelabelgroup.com/so-its-time-some-truth/
https://www.vox.com/culture/2019/7/1/20677241/taylor-swift-scooter-braun-controversy-explained