We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.
Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.
322
that all contracts are unfair. That's not the case, and some record companies /publishers are revising old contracts to give artists a better deal.^ Authors need publishers, and publishers need authors. I have an excellent, long term relationship with my publisher, and I am an avid purchaser of both books and sheet music. I appreciate the efforts publishers undertake to get a work to market and make it successful, and I agree they should get the full benefit of their bargain. But I don't agree that contracts entered into decades ago should govern a situation neither side bargained for ~ a grant in 1995 of a new term of 20 years copyright. It is only reasonable and fair to grant the new copyright to authors, thereby permitting the author (or his heirs) to sit down in 1995 and say to the purchaser of copyright: "We now have a new right, how do we fairly negotiate a deal in 1995?"
No one can refute Mr. Bono's observation at the Pasadena hearing that 99% of songwriters or their faunilies would want the copyright back if given the chance. It is my understanding that music publishers may not support a bill that does not give them the copyright. Indeed, music publishers may also seek to delay the termination of transfer provision in Section 203 of the 1976 Act for copyrights assigned on or after 1978. This section says that the author can get his or her copyright back 35 years after it was assigned. Music publishers are supposedly seeking to make the songwriter wait even longer. But there is no connection between extending the term of copyright and Section 203.
This proposal will place songwriters in a worse position than they are under today's law. For this reason, the Nashville Songwriters Association has said that they would rather have no bill than a bill that includes the music publishers' proposal.
But the unintended negative effects of the bill as drafted aren't limited to assignments made from 1978 on. For works that were first published between 1920 and 1933 and for which a termination of transfer notice under Section 304 of the Act has not been filed, the author cannot get his copyright back for the new 20 year term, even if he wants to. because the 5 year window for termination is past. As ASCAP's lawyer testified at the Pasadena hearing, in response to a question from Mr. Becerra, barring these authors from getting their copyright back was deliberate. The reason given was that if the work was valuable, the author would have already terminated. This response blames the victim. If a work is commercially valuable for the publisher, it is valuable for the composer. And, of course, how could a composer have known in 1978 that he was supposed to file a notice with the Copyright Office because 17 years later Congress was going to grant an additional 20 years copyright?
^ See attached March 4, 1995 Billboard article.