Music copyright laws

Musical copyright laws refer to an international network of legal codes that provide content creators with the exclusive rights to control the distribution of their work for a set time. Musical copyrights protect both compositions and sound recordings. They are created as soon as a musical work is recorded, either through musical notation or by recording a finished track. Works do not have to be published to be protected by copyright laws. In the twenty-first century, musical copyright laws have become controversial because of the widespread use of peer-to-peer file-sharing networks. These networks make it easy for Internet users to upload and download copyrighted material, such as musical works, television shows, and films, without the permission of the copyright holders.

Background

Copyright laws date back to the introduction of the printing press in England during the late fifteenth century. The printing press revolutionized the literary world, allowing businesses throughout the country to quickly and accurately reproduce written works. Prior to this, the process of writing and copying a book was time-consuming and expensive. Initially, only a few book manufacturers had a printing press. This enabled them to undercut and outproduce their competitors, giving them a monopoly on book production throughout England. The government confirmed this monopoly with the Licensing Act of 1662, which established a register of licensed books that could be produced. It also allowed the Stationers’ Company, an official group in London that oversees newspapers, to censor publications.

Authors complained that the Licensing Act of 1662 removed their legal control over their work. To remain in effect, the act had to be repassed every two years. After widespread protests, the Licensing Act was not repassed in 1662, so it went out of effect in 1664. Though the Stationers’ Company repeatedly attempted to convince Parliament to renew the act in subsequent years. However, the group eventually decided to partition Parliament to create a legal framework that would allow them to grant authors temporary licenses to print their work.

Parliament passed the Statute of Anne in 1710. This landmark act granted authors a copyright and a time when a work could only be legally published by an author or a publisher that the author permits to publish the work. Under the Statute of Anne, authors were granted a copyright of fourteen years after their work was completed. If the author was still alive when the initial copyright expired, they could apply for a second copyright period of fourteen years. After the copyright period expired, the works passed into the public domain, which meant that they could be published and sold by anyone.

The Statute of Anne is credited with legally defining the modern concept of copyright. It was popular among both authors and publishers, remaining in effect in England until it was replaced by the Copyright Act of 1842. The Statute of Anne heavily influenced American copyright laws, which were first mentioned in the US Constitution. The Constitution granted Congress the power to grant authors and inventors exclusive rights to their writings and discoveries for a limited time.

The US government elaborated on its constitutional copyright laws in the Copyright Act of 1790. Inspired by the Statute of Anne, this act granted American authors fourteen years of exclusive publication rights with the option to apply for one fourteen-year renewal. The government sought to incentivize authors, scientists, and artists by granting them a temporary monopoly over their own work, which allowed them to profit from the sale of their achievements. However, by ensuring that the period of exclusivity expired, it allowed the rest of society to eventually gain greater access to important cultural works and scientific discoveries.

Congress continued to modify American copyright law throughout the coming centuries. In 1831, the initial copyright period granted to authors was extended to twenty-eight years to match similar extensions in Europe. In 1870, Congress moved the administration of copyright registrations from individual district courts to the Library of Congress Copyright Office, creating a single, centralized authority on copyright claims. In 1886, the nations of Europe came together under the Berne Convention to create a single, unifying set of copyright laws. In 1891, the International Copyright Act extended limited copyright protections to foreign authors from certain nations.

Copyright terms in the United States were extended once again in 1909, this time allowing for two protected terms adding up to fifty-six years. Copyright law then avoided major revisions until 1976, when Congress extended the copyright term to the life of the author plus an additional fifty years. This act also solidified fair use and first sale doctrines, extended copyright protection to unpublished works, and clarified that library photocopying for the purposes of interlibrary loan, scholarship, and preservation did not violate copyright law. In 1988, the United States joined the Berne Convention, unifying copyright law between the United States and Europe.

In 1998, President Clinton signed the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) into law. This act updated copyright law to allow for the creation of temporary copies of digital programs and rules for Internet broadcasting. The following year, Congress passed the Digital Theft Deterrence and Copyright Damages Improvement Act of 1999, which significantly increased the minimum monetary penalties for digital copyright infringement.

Overview

Copyright law affects music uniquely. Copyright protection exists from the moment an original work is solidified in a tangible medium. Regarding music, this can include sheet music or other forms of musical notation showing that a composition has been created. It also includes audio files or other types of recordings. Musical copyrights do not need to be submitted to an agency or published in any way to be created. However, if a copyright is called into question, its owner may have to provide documentation showing that they created the work. 

Although it is not required, musicians and composers can choose to register their work with the US Copyright Office. This creates a public record of the work’s ownership, significantly strengthening the author’s claim if the author is ever challenged in court. Additionally, registering a work with the US copyright office allows authors to access federal courts if their copyright is infringed upon.

When solidifying the copyright of a piece of music, it is possible to create two similar but distinct copyrights at the same time. Under copyright law, a musical work is defined as a song’s underlying composition and accompanying lyrics. A sound recording is considered a series of musical or spoken sounds fixed in a recorded medium. By creating a recording of an original work, an artist may create a copyright for both the musical work and the sound recording itself. Additionally, it is possible for different people to hold ownership of the two copyrights. For example, under a distribution agreement, a musical artist may maintain ownership of the copyright to their musical work. However, a recording company or producer may own the copyright for the sound recording, allowing them to distribute it for monetary gain.

Artistic copyrights, including musical copyrights, are often complicated by the issue of inspiration. Artists are often inspired by the works of others, leading to similarities between two different works. Additionally, artists may often include references to other works within their own. Musicians may include specific pieces of musical composition created by someone else within a larger original composition without claiming ownership of that piece. They may seek to capitalize on the success of the original piece or pay tribute to a composition they deem noteworthy.

Artists should not assume that they can use the works of others, including both musical compositions and sound recordings, without facing legal consequences. It is typically safe for musicians to use sound recordings and compositions that have fallen into the public domain. The copyright protection on these pieces has expired, allowing anyone to distribute them as they see fit. They may also seek permission from the copyright holder in the form of a licensing contract. The copyright holder may set conditions on the use of their work, including both attribution and monetary compensation.

In certain cases, musicians may be able to utilize and publish copyright materials under the “fair use” doctrine. Fair use refers to a number of cases defined in Section 107 of the Copyright Act in which copyrighted materials may be utilized without expressed permission from the copyright’s owner. These cases are intended to protect teachers, critics, news reporters, and researchers as they carry out their work.

When deciding whether the use of copyrighted material falls under fair use doctrine, courts examine the incident from four perspectives: the purpose and character of the use, the nature of the copyrighted work, the amount of the copyrighted work used in relation to the work as a whole, and the effect of the use on the potential market value of the copyrighted work. When examining the purpose and character of the use of a copyrighted work, courts are more likely to find that nonprofit, educational, or satirical uses of a work are acceptable, while uses from which someone intends to profit are unacceptable. However, it should be noted that this does not mean that all nonprofit use of copyrighted works is legal. When examining the nature of a copyrighted work, the courts may consider whether avoiding referencing a copyrighted work was possible. For example, the author of a novel can take significant care to ensure that all parts of their work are original. However, the author of a scientific publication may be required to reference copyrighted works as context for their own ideas.

When considering the amount of a copyrighted work used in relation to its whole, courts often find that the use of smaller percentages of a copyrighted work falls under fair use. Similarly, they find that using larger percentages of a copyrighted work does not fall under fair use. However, this guideline is considered subjective, as there is no clearly defined percentage of copyrighted work that can be used without violating the law. Courts considering the impact that the publication of new material might have on the value of a copyright are more likely to rule that an incident is fair use when the impact is minimal. Any use that could cause significant harm to the value of a lawfully held copyright is unlikely to be considered fair use.

Musical copyright law became controversial in the early twenty-first century. Though musical copyright law is both clear and thorough in its protection against unauthorized distribution of recordings, the digital age made it much more difficult to enforce. The existence of decentralized peer-to-peer file sharing networks, such as Gnutella and BitTorrent, make it extremely difficult for any regulatory agency to stop Internet users from illegally sharing copyrighted content. Additionally, it may be impossible to prosecute individuals who illegally upload copyrighted content to these services if they reside in a country with copyright laws different from those of the United States and Europe. Though it is possible for prosecutors to target individual Internet users for illegally downloading copyrighted material, Internet service providers are often reluctant to share their customers’ personal data for fear of harming their reputation.

Bibliography

“Combatting Music Piracy.” Stanford.edu, 2010, cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/cs201/projects/2009-10/music-and-copyright/enforcing.html. Accessed 15 Apr. 2024.

“Copyright Timeline: A History of Copyright in the United States.” Association of Research Libraries, www.arl.org/copyright-timeline/#Top. Accessed 15 Apr. 2024.

Luk, Ann C. “How Does the Public Perceive Music Copyright Law? A Content Analysis of YouTube Videos on the Flame v Perry ‘Dark Horse’ Case.” Oxford Academic, 2022, academic.oup.com/jiplp/article/17/9/704/6647991. Accessed 15 Apr. 2024.

Priest, Eric. “The Future of Music Copyright Collectives in the Digital Streaming Age.” The Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts, 2021, journals.library.columbia.edu/index.php/lawandarts/article/view/8953. Accessed 15 Apr. 2024.

“US Copyright Office Fair Use Index.” US Copyright Office, www.copyright.gov/fair-use/. Accessed 15 Apr. 2024.

“What Musicians Should Know About Copyright.” US Copyright Office, www.copyright.gov/engage/musicians/. Accessed 15 Apr. 2024.