When music is sold does it still belong to the artist?

[gregjohnson1229]

I was having an argument with my wife about this very question. She is a much more complete artist than i am(tattoo artist, singer, songwriter,multi instrumentalist). She chooses not to play shows, sell drawings, make albums or sell tattoos. This is because she say if she does none of these things belong to her anymore, they belong to the person(s) who buys it. I disagree, I think that when I play a gig or sell a CD the music still belongs with me, but I am sharing it to the public.
What do you guys think? Please help settle this argument that has been going on for a week now in my house.

 

[Lynch]

I'm not an expert on this, far from it actually. From what I understand, at least as far as music goes, just because you sell a copy of YOUR own music, doesn't make it someone elses. They simply own the COPY that they purchased, but they don't own the music. (does that make sense)

As for art, I would say that whoever owns the original piece of art, is just that, the owner of it. Having reproduced copies means you own that copy, but you don't own the art itself.

As for tattoos, I think it would fall into the same realm as art. The artist is basically a hired contractor, paid to do a job and once the job is completed, that contractor is nothing more the one the responsible for the finished product, but they don't own the canvas (skin) or the ink put into the art, that is owned by the person who paid for the service.


I am not sure if any of that answers your questions, or even if my perception is correct, but that's how I look at it.

 

[Lynch]

Now one thing that I do NOT understand is bootlegs of live performances. The music is copyrighted, the studio recordings are copyrighted ... yet if you can get your hands on a live performance of those copyrighted songs, that is ok to sell, trade or freely give away ... as long as it's no the "official" recording company's released live show. How this works is beyond me (but there are a number of bootleg extraordinaires around here that have far more knowledge on the subject than me).


I just don't understand how recording an artist that is performing live versions of copyrighted material is ok... whether it's on a small level (an artist that doesn't do anything more than small local/club appearances) or on the grand scale "Rock in Rio" type of thing in front of 200,000 people. Either way, it is something I've never gotten a good grasp on.

 

[LyricalLaurel]

I have to think that the artist who wrote the lyrics is the owner of the lyrics. Same with the song - it belongs to the person who came up with the tune. I don't know where the vocalist fits in, if he/she neither wrote the lyrics nor wrote the song. Often it is a collaborative effort and both/several parties are credited. There have been many "disagreements" about song ownership over the years, many recently. Didn't this very subject come up when Michael Jackson died? The creativity will always belong to the artist, at least in my mind.

Art: The original belongs to the artist until he/she decides to either sell it or gift it. That speaks to the canvas and the paint or chalk or whatever medium was used. The idea, the concept, the creative part of it will always belong to the artist. If the artist chooses to have duplicates made, those belong to him/her or whoever footed the bill for said duplicates - and when they are sold, that particular poster or reprint ---- piece of canvas or paper --- belongs to the purchaser, but the rights to the art belong to the artist. In other words, the purchaser can't, legally, (or ethically for that matter) say that this piece of art was created by himself/herself. Again, I think in terms of the "creator" of the art - that person who's creative genius made that canvas come to life.

No idea on tats.

Boy I hope this makes sense...I'm getting weary. :/

 

[gregjohnson1229]

Now one thing that I do NOT understand is bootlegs of live performances. The music is copyrighted, the studio recordings are copyrighted ... yet if you can get your hands on a live performance of those copyrighted songs, that is ok to sell, trade or freely give away ... as long as it's no the "official" recording company's released live show. How this works is beyond me (but there are a number of bootleg extraordinaires around here that have far more knowledge on the subject than me).


I just don't understand how recording an artist that is performing live versions of copyrighted material is ok... whether it's on a small level (an artist that doesn't do anything more than small local/club appearances) or on the grand scale "Rock in Rio" type of thing in front of 200,000 people. Either way, it is something I've never gotten a good grasp on.

some artists and bands are banning cell phones from their concerts for that very reason.

 

[gregjohnson1229]

I have to think that the artist who wrote the lyrics is the owner of the lyrics. Same with the song - it belongs to the person who came up with the tune. I don't know where the vocalist fits in, if he/she neither wrote the lyrics nor wrote the song. Often it is a collaborative effort and both/several parties are credited. There have been many "disagreements" about song ownership over the years, many recently. Didn't this very subject come up when Michael Jackson died? The creativity will always belong to the artist, at least in my mind.

Art: The original belongs to the artist until he/she decides to either sell it or gift it. That speaks to the canvas and the paint or chalk or whatever medium was used. The idea, the concept, the creative part of it will always belong to the artist. If the artist chooses to have duplicates made, those belong to him/her or whoever footed the bill for said duplicates - and when they are sold, that particular poster or reprint ---- piece of canvas or paper --- belongs to the purchaser, but the rights to the art belong to the artist. In other words, the purchaser can't, legally, (or ethically for that matter) say that this piece of art was created by himself/herself. Again, I think in terms of the "creator" of the art - that person who's creative genius made that canvas come to life.

No idea on tats.

Boy I hope this makes sense...I'm getting weary. :/

You are making great sense. My wife happens to give people tattoos for free. She has done of all mine. I never realized how addicting tattoos were until she did my first one a year ago. Now I have 15.

 

[oscar gamble]

I just don't understand how recording an artist that is performing live versions of copyrighted material is ok...

I think it's only ok, so long as the artist doesn't object. Otherwise, you still have copyright issues.

 

[LG]

It's a complicated question. If you are a massive famous artist with a recording contract, your music is owned by the record label. That was common business practice for decades.(They would still give the author royalties if the song/music was used in movies commercials etc., but keep a large share of any revenues for themselves.)

The great composers, the majority of their music rights ended up in the hands of Publishing companies which in turn paid an agreed upon royalty to the author when it was performed, some of which still hold the rights to this day.(BMG is one that can trace it's history back to the 18th century I think, have to look it up to be sure.)

For an independent artist who records and distributes his own material, then you own everything lock stock and barrel no question. And if anyone used your songs/lyrics for a commercial enterprise then you are entitled to reparations. The only use of your music you are selling is for their personal entertainment, that is common sense.

Maybe some smaller record labels have a different approach now, or a time limitation when the music they distribute for one of their artists belongs to the artist after a year or something like that.

 

[Slip'nn2Darkness]

I'm not an expert on this, far from it actually. From what I understand, at least as far as music goes, just because you sell a copy of YOUR own music, doesn't make it someone elses. They simply own the COPY that they purchased, but they don't own the music. (does that make sense)

As for art, I would say that whoever owns the original piece of art, is just that, the owner of it. Having reproduced copies means you own that copy, but you don't own the art itself.

As for tattoos, I think it would fall into the same realm as art. The artist is basically a hired contractor, paid to do a job and once the job is completed, that contractor is nothing more the one the responsible for the finished product, but they don't own the canvas (skin) or the ink put into the art, that is owned by the person who paid for the service.


I am not sure if any of that answers your questions, or even if my perception is correct, but that's how I look at it.

I agree with what Lynch say's here.. I think music and art fall into two different categories. Both are perfected crafts by a individual but music is something that there seems to be more of and can be purchased alot cheaper.
Truth the amount of work varies in making and cutting a song, but say a picture, NOT a Lythograph is one of a kind. It is pretty much purchased for that reason for some..
You can have copy cats in music as well as art but in the end you want the original copy if your a collector..
Now Tatoo's fall under commissioned art work because most of the time you have a picture that someone wants tatooed to their body.. I would take offence if tatoo artist started signing their signatures to their work just to use you as a promotional tool.
So tatoo artist to me use their talent to pretty much give someone something they like for a cost.
But what Lynch said about the music business and owning a "copy' pretty much is the way it goes.. Copywriting a song is a big deal these days because there will always be a war over who wrote it first...

 

[gregjohnson1229]

It's a complicated question. If you are a massive famous artist with a recording contract, your music is owned by the record label. That was common business practice for decades.(They would still give the author royalties if the song/music was used in movies commercials etc., but keep a large share of any revenues for themselves.)

The great composers, the majority of their music rights ended up in the hands of Publishing companies which in turn paid an agreed upon royalty to the author when it was performed, some of which still hold the rights to this day.(BMG is one that can trace it's history back to the 18th century I think, have to look it up to be sure.)

For an independent artist who records and distributes his own material, then you own everything lock stock and barrel no question. And if anyone used your songs/lyrics for a commercial enterprise then you are entitled to reparations. The only use of your music you are selling is for their personal entertainment, that is common sense.

Maybe some smaller record labels have a different approach now, or a time limitation when the music they distribute for one of their artists belongs to the artist after a year or something like that.

I like your answer LG. Sorry for the complex question but, I though it would make good discussion. It sure has in my household.