EmailMeForm



Work for Hire: Finding an Alternative Solution to an Industry StandardA Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of theRequirements of the Renée Crown University Honors Program atSyracuse UniversityBrendan PaparellaCandidate for Bachelor of Scienceand Renée Crown University HonorsSpring 2020Honors Thesis in Recording and Entertainment IndustriesThesis Advisor: _______________________ Advisor’s Name and TitleThesis Reader: _______________________ Reader’s Name and TitleHonors Director: _______________________ Dr. Danielle Smith, Director AbstractUnder Work for Hire stipulations, the hired party transfers the copyright of the work being created to the hiring party. This is a problem because Work for Hire strips the original composer of all control over the work and potential royalties it can earn. The objective was to learn why professional composers accept Work for Hire agreements and whether or not an alternative solution existed. Several interviews with people who worked in the entertainment industry explained that although the hiring party is searching for help, they have the power in negotiations because there are an abundance of composers. Adding Artist Morality Rights to United States law would be able to give composers more rights when it comes to Work for Hire contracts. Artist Morality is a series of rights that every artist is entitled to, such as the right to be credited to their work or the right to reject an alteration of their creation if it could harm their reputation. When the United States originally tried to codify Artist Morality in our law, it misplaced the series of rights under a non-copyright section of the law, making it virtually ineffective. Recently, there has been a push by different music industry lobbyists and the United States Copyright Office to recodify Artist Morality Rights in the correct section – under copyright law. If Artist Morality is able to become codified in United States law, composers will retain rights they deserve.Executive SummaryA copyright is an exclusive right to copy, reproduce, and modify an artistic work. Keen artists will copyright their work, so they are the only legal entity who can use it. They also have the right to license out their work to other people, often for a fee. When someone is employed under Work for Hire, the hired person gives up the copyright of their work to the hiring party. This means the work that the hired party creates is exclusively owned by the hiring party. This concept can be explained easier with an example.If a filmmaker wanted an original soundtrack in their film, they may hire a composer under Work for Hire. Once the contract is signed, the composer creates the score. The hiring party (the filmmaker) owns whatever the hired party (the composer) creates because a Work for Hire contract is a sale of the composer’s copyright of the work. Now, the filmmaker is the sole entity that can copy, reproduce, modify, or license out the music that the composer created. The composer has no say in what happens to the music, even though they were the one that created it. Work for Hire contracts often come with a one-time paycheck for the hired party, but the hiring party is able to collect royalty payments from the work because they are the ones that own the copyright.To simplify Work for Hire: a composer gets paid one time to lose control and future financial value of a work they created. As an aspiring composer, I wanted to understand why professional composers seemed indifferent to the idea about owning their music. Additionally, if there was an alternative to Work for Hire contracts, I was determined to find it. Spending a semester in Los Angeles, the heart of the music business, was an incredible way to learn. I was able to interview different people in varied industry jobs to get a balanced idea of the industry’s opinion on Work for Hire.During my consultation sessions, I tried suggesting different contracts that gave composers more favorable terms to gauge how successful my interviewees thought it could be. There were a few different legal terms that allowed transferring a copyright back and forth, but the most flexible option seemed to be Copyright Assignment. This type of contract allowed both parties to decide the terms before handing over the copyright. With this type of deal, a copyright could be temporarily assigned to another party, for however long it is decided. Under Copyright Assignment, a filmmaker would be able to have exclusive rights to the music for a set term, only to return to the original creator of the work once the term ended.Unfortunately, none of my interviewees thought this would work. The main reason seemed to be because the hiring party would be giving up too much power with Copyright Assignment. Why would a filmmaker give up having the compositions forever, even if it was for a smaller flat rate? Even though the hiring party is the one searching for help, they have all of the power in negotiations because there are an abundance of composers. Composers have no leverage when negotiating, which is why professional composers sign Work for Hire agreements without a second thought.I was persistent to change this industry standard, but I was not sure how when composers did not have any leverage. This is when I came across Artist Morality Rights, which is a part of the Berne Convention. The Berne Convention was created in 1886, when several countries wanted to establish mutual recognition for the copyrights held in other countries. Artist Morality is one factor of that convention; it is a series of rights entitled to every artist. This includes the right to be credited to their work, the right to remain anonymous or pseudonymous, and the right to reject an alteration of their creation if it has potential harm their honor or reputation.The United States originally did not want to take part in the Berne Convention because they were making too much money from the copyright laws that already existed in the country. Joining the Berne Convention would have been a serious cut to their cashflow. Eventually, as copyright laws began to change in the United States, we joined the Berne Convention and tried to add Artist Morality to our law. Disappointingly, the House and Senate Judiciary Committees misunderstood and misplaced the series of rights when they put it under a non-copyright section of the law, making it virtually ineffective.Recently, there has been a push to recodify Artist Morality Rights in the correct section – under copyright law. Within the last ten years, music lobbyists were able to get the House of Representatives Judiciary committee to listen to their argument and get the United States Copyright Office to approve of this movement. Karyn A. Temple, the 13th Register of Copyrights and Director of the U.S. Copyright Office, published a 172-page roadmap to revising the codification of Artist Moral Rights?in copyright law. I have also taken action to spread awareness on Artist Morality Rights. I have emailed 5 senators and congressmen explaining the Work for Hire problem and the Artist Morality solution. The more exposure Artist Morality gets, the earlier it will be codified into United States law and the quicker Work for Hire composers will get the rights that they deserve.Table of ContentsAbstract……………………………………………………………………………. iiExecutive Summary………………………………………………………………. iiiChapter 1: Introduction………………………………………………………….. 1Chapter 2: Initial Interviews……………………………………………………... 3Chapter 3: Copyright Assignment………………………………………………. 7Chapter 4: Artist Morality Rights and Its History……………………………... 9Chapter 5: Applying Artist Morality in Modern United States………………..14Works Cited………………………………………………………………………..19Chapter 1IntroductionThe industry standard of contractually obligating freelance composers to sign Work for Hire contracts started when the concept was codified in 1976 (United States). This takes away all power regarding copyrights from the creator and gives them to the company, employer, director, or whoever the hiring party may be. This seems extremely unfair to the composers because the hiring party is taking control of the composition’s copyright benefits. Additionally, the hiring party is profiting off of the artist’s work, while artists are only getting a one-time fee for each Work for Hire contract. I want to learn and potentially change the industry standard for composers. To do this, I need to understand why Work for Hire is a standard industry practice, so I can attempt to find an alternative solution to the Work for Hire practice.The concept of “Work Made for Hire” came from the Copyright Act of 1976. It refers to both parties agreeing to an employer owning all the rights of the original creator’s work. There are two categories under Work for Hire: Work for an Employee’s Hire and Work for an Individual Contractor’s Hire (United States). I am focusing on the problems facing an independent contractor, since I freelance my compositions for films. However, there is an overlap of issues between the two categories.Before I go into my research and what I learned about the Work for Hire practice, it’s important to establish what I believed to be true about Work for Hire for composers at the start of this process. I believed Work for Hire was a way for the hiring party to capitalize on the work of an artist, while the artist does not get to reap the benefits. The hiring party keeps the copyright, writing credit, and both the writer and publisher share the royalties. The one-time fee an artist is paid at the start of the process is no comparison to the recognition and monetization the composition brings to the hiring party.Chapter 2Initial InterviewsTo license established music to a visual work, one needs to obtain a synchronization (sync) license. With this type of license, the original writers and publishers get paid a one-time fee for the license. (CD Baby Artist Services). I did not see the difference between a composer writing music specifically for a movie and a music supervisor granting synchronization licenses. Since they were both ending up in the movie, I didn’t understand why a composer would lose the copyright to their music, but an artist being synched would keep their copyright. A sync license allows the writers to keep the song’s copyright because it recognizes them as the rightful owners of the compositions and allows them to financially benefit for the exposure the visual work brings (CD Baby Artist Services). A Work for Hire contract does not allow the artist to do either of those things. As songwriters continue to get more credit and monetary rights, I felt it was only fair to try and get more rights for composers signing Work for Hire agreements.A majority of my initial research was meeting and conducting interviews with established individuals in the Los Angeles music industry. I wanted to get different perspectives, so I met with people from different areas of the industry, such as a composer, a music supervisor, a lawyer, and a producer.I had two questions from the start of this process. The first was, “Why are the largest companies adhering to this industry standard of keeping Work for Hire?” I needed to know if there is a particular business reasoning behind their employment of Work for Hire, or if it is still practiced because of old habits that need to be updated.The second question was more subjective, depending on the interviewee’s job. “Do you see any area that a composer can negotiate, so they could sign something other than a Work for Hire contract?” As time went on, I was able to start suggesting solutions to my interviewees, but when I was starting out, I had no idea what the hiring party considered valuable. The only area I had to go on was my assumption that the hiring party wanted to keep the copyright so they could control the cash flow of the work.I had the opportunity to meet with the Grammy award-winning composer, Jared Faber. He has composed for productions such as Netflix’s “The Epic Tales of Captain Underpants,” ABC’s “Splitting Up Together,” and most recently “Teen Titans Go! To the Movies.” Discussing Work for Hire with him was important because he is a working composer in the industry. To start out, I asked Faber if there was any way to book jobs without signing a Work for Hire contract. He told me that when a young composer is starting out, there is more room to negotiate because the stakes are not as high. Smaller directors do not have as much to offer, and that is where the negotiation comes in. For the most part, to retain jobs, especially at bigger production studios, he needs to sign Work for Hire documents. Every contract he worked on was Work for Hire, and he felt that getting the job and the experience was more important than keeping the music’s copyright (Faber).Faber felt strongly that the industry would keep its Work for Hire standards. The main reason he gave was the fact that production companies want to keep the music in their catalogue. This way, they can reuse the music for other projects without any hassle. This comes down to who owns the copyright. The copyright owner is the one who can decide to license it out, or allow other people to copy or make derivative works of it.When composers are given a one-time fee as part of the standard Work for Hire agreement, the hiring party is more or less paying for the ownership of the copyright. This is one reason why sync licenses allow the artist to keep the copyright, while Work for Hire doesn’t. My internship boss Jen Ross echoed the same sentiment when I asked her the difference between sync licenses and Work for Hire contracts.Jen Ross is the founder of Grand Plan Entertainment, a prestigious music supervision company. Under her direction, Grand Plan Entertainment is currently working on shows, such as Fox’s “Empire,” NBC’s “Zoey’s Extraordinary Playlist,” and Quibi’s “Don’t Look Deeper.” Ross said, “the production companies are in it to own everything.” They feel a right of entitlement to the work that is created because it wouldn’t have existed without them asking for it to be created (Ross, Jen).She also said the reason Work for Hire is an industry standard is because it benefits the production companies that run the industry. From our conversation, it became clear that the production companies had more power over the composers, even though they are the ones looking for help on their project. There are only a handful of highly established production companies, but a multitude of composers looking for those sought-after positions (Ross, Jen). Since composers are in high supply and the hiring party’s demand for them is weak, composers must sacrifice their music’s copyright to get the job. Otherwise, the hiring party can find another composer who is willing to sign a Work for Hire contract.My next interview was with Mitch Allan. Allan is a songwriter who has had numerous hits on the radio. When I asked him about Work for Hire, he said, “Work for Hire is never going away.” He said, whoever owns the publishing, owns the usage rights. The hiring party is always going to want to keep that. He also gave an example: “Let’s say the TV show has a comeback online 20 years from now. If that happens, no one has to risk asking you for your re-approval for your score. With a “work for hire’, they never have to risk you ever saying “no”… PLUS, they keep 100% of the publishing side of income” (Allan).This example was something that I had not considered from the hiring party’s standpoint. Personally, I would not have a problem with someone relicensing my music if I worked on a show, but not all composers may be as easygoing as I am. If the hiring party didn’t own the work, and a composer did not agree to relicensing the work, the hiring party would have the problem. Even if a composer gave permission for the music to be licensed, the composer could negotiate much higher fees. This would benefit the composer, but the hiring party would have been much better off keeping the music themselves.Tracking down songwriters and publishers to license a song can also be extremely difficult. If there is not 100% approval for a song to be synched, the song cannot be used. Even if every other writer has given approval, and the last writer isn’t able to be contacted, the song would not be able to be used. If the hiring party owns 100% of the song, however, it would be much easier for them. Licensing something internally is considerably simpler than licensing from outside the company.Chapter 3Copyright AssignmentThe common factor between everyone’s answers seemed to revolve around the owner of the copyright. I needed to find a way to temporarily relinquish copyright, but still own it sometime after the current project’s contract has expired. Luckily, I have found a handful of laws in place that allow someone to temporarily transfer or share a copyright with another party. Copyright Assignment falls in this category and it seemed to be a middle ground between composers and the hiring party. From my understanding, a Copyright Assignment solution would fall between Work for Hire (the hiring party owning the copyright) and syncing (the composer/songwriter owning the copyright). The composer would keep the authorship of the work, but the hiring party would be able to use the work like they own the copyright.The best part about this solution is that the terms could be negotiated – there is no set number of years that need to be met for Copyright Assignment. Once the original period is done, both parties have the option to create a new Copyright Assignment contract with different terms (“Copyright Assignment”). I felt with Copyright Assignment, it would be able to give the hiring party a period of exclusivity to the music, but the work the composer created would be able to revert back after the exclusivity period ended.This thought process goes back to something that Bill Werde, the director of the Bandier Program, asked during our first meeting about my thesis. He said, “Since you do not have the leverage in the situation, where is the value in your offer?” (Werde). The benefit for the hiring party is the fact there is often no outright fee under Copyright Assignment. There also isn’t a set timeframe for that this solution is required under law, so the hiring party would be able to negotiate keeping the copyright for many years, allowing them to use the work in other projects (“Copyright Assignment”). With this type of deal, I imagine the composer wouldn’t be able to negotiate much (if any) payment, but I believed there is more value in ultimately owning the copyright. The composer will eventually have the option to sync and use their original song in other ways, after the copyright gets reverted back to them (“Copyright Assignment”).I expressed this idea to some of my interviewees, and unfortunately, they were not enthusiastic that this idea would be a solution. Nobody thought that the value of Copyright Assignment I was suggesting would be anything beneficial to the hiring party. Specifically, Jen Ross informed me that established companies would not go for anything other than Work for Hire, because they have the power in the deal (Ross, Jen). Even though the established companies have the need, they have all of the power in negotiating because the supply of composers are seemingly endless. It also makes sense that the hiring party would not want to give up something beneficial, like a copyright, based on empathizing with the artist alone.Since Copyright Assignment did not seem to be a solution, I reached out to Loren Chodosh, an established entertainment lawyer in the music industry. She has represented several successful clients, such as the Yeah Yeah Yeahs; Shapiro, Bernstein & Co., Inc.; and Nada Surf. I asked her if there was any approach I could take where the artist could negotiate the hiring party’s exclusivity to the compositions. She didn’t completely shut down the idea of a solution to Work for Hire, but she did make it clear that the composer had none of the bargaining power. “The more equal the bargaining positions, the more possible it could be to fashion a deal” (Chodosh).Chapter 4Artist Morality Rights and Its HistoryIf I learned anything from my interviews, I discovered that the industry isn’t willing to budge on negotiating value. I needed to rethink my strategy for finding an alternative solution, one that falls on leveraging the situation. One of Newhouse’s adjunct professors suggested I look into Artist Morality Rights, a concept that exists for the European music industry, but hasn’t been established in the United States music industry.I originally tried to solve Work for Hire by looking at it from an economic standpoint. I felt no one would go for the “ethical route,” but that was my initial mistake. No one is going to willingly give up potential profit if there is no benefit to it. If I were to change Work for Hire on a legal ground, instead of an economic one, contracts would legally have more bargaining power for composers. Sections of a contract are only binding when they are under the law; no contract would be able to break the law, even if both parties sign it.The addition of Artist Morality Rights benefits the hiring party by not changing copyright ownership under Work for Hire. This means the hiring party would still be able to keep full authorship with the copyrighted works they own under Work for Hire. However, with Artist Morality, artists would have a say if a particular use of their work could harm their reputation (Freedman).There are several elements to Artist Morality that were defined by the Berne Convention. The first factor is an artist would get their name accessibly attached to the work under their legal name or a pseudonym. The second factor is an artist is able to get supplementary credit when the hiring party is using the work they created. The third factor is the “Right of Integrity,” which isn’t as easily defined as the other two. The most basic definition would allow an artist to reject any alteration of the work that would cause harm to the author’s honor or reputation (Ross, Deborah). Though this may seem straight forward, each country that recognizes Artist Morality has a different definition of how it applies (Bailey).Artist Morality is the perfect solution to my grievances with Work for Hire. It ensures the artist gets proper credit, if they want it. It also gives the artist more control in where their music is placed, but the hiring party still has a majority of the control (Ross, Deborah). Since Artist Morality is a component to copyright, it belongs on the federal level. All federal level laws supersede any terms in contracts, simply because a personal deal between two parties cannot override what is considered legal. Even if a Work for Hire contract states that the hired party has no control in the use of the work, Artist Morality at the federal level would override the contract. This will give artists a little more leverage in Work for Hire contracts, which is something that many of my interviewees suggested I needed to make a solution work.One reason why Artist Morality doesn’t already exist in United States law is because it originally rejected the clause and the Convention which it came from. The United States has currently progressed to a place where Artist Morality is able to fit cleanly into our law, but this wasn’t the case when the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works was established in Switzerland 1886. The goal for the Convention was to create copyright standards that benefited the worldwide business economically, but protected ethical standards for artists. This convention was the birthplace of Artist Morality Rights, which added this revision in 1928 (Ross, Deborah). The two rights codified for creators were: The right to (or not to) receive attribution in connection with any use of their work; and the right to object to any uses of the work that the creator sees as harmful to their name.Every country in the convention has taken a different interpretation of the rule. Some of the variations are making Artist Morality Rights last into perpetuity, unable to be waived by a contract, or setting them to expire at the same time as the economic rights (Bailey). Regardless of the conflicts, Moral Rights are completely incorporated into the laws of these countries.The Berne Convention introduced the concept that a copyright exists the moment a work is "fixed", meaning a copyright begins as soon as an idea is expressed in a physical medium. The convention also enforced a requirement where countries must recognize copyrights held by the citizens of all other parties to the convention, but only be held to the laws bound by where it was created (“Summary of the Berne Convention”). For example,?a copyrighted work created in Germany is recognized as copyrighted in the other Berne Convention countries, but copyright is only subjected to following the German copyright laws.The United States understood the ideals that the Berne Convention valued, but did not want to take part in it, primarily due to America’s procedures. America has had an evolving copyright system for over one hundred years. In 1783, the earliest copyright statue was created. In 1874, fees relating to copyright were amended and approved into the law (Rudd). By 1886, The United States already had a complex copyright system set up. They didn’t want to have to re-amend this new addition to be in accordance to the Berne Convention.Furthermore, the copyright fees that were introduced were making the American government a substantial amount of money (Ross, Deborah). For example, the country was profiting from high fees in mandatory deposit and registration for copyright for international citizens. Any non-American who wanted to copyright their works in the United States would have to do so in U.S. copyright office. This meant that international citizens had to choose between copyrighting their works twice (they presumably already have a copyright in their home country) or not copyright it in America and risk a high chance of someone else plagiarizing and profiting off of their work.America did not have a problem with resisting the Berne Convention’s worldwide copyright statute, since America’s primary focus for copyright protection was for its own citizens. If the United States joined the Berne Convention, the country would have to put a substantial amount of energy into policing plagiarism. Leading U.S. copyright official Barbara Ringer made note of this isolationism. “Until the Second World War the United States had little reason to take pride in its international copyright regulations; in fact, it had a great deal to be ashamed of. With few exceptions its role in international copyright was marked by intellectual shortsightedness, political isolationism, and narrow economic self-interest.” (Ringer).It took over one hundred years since the foundation of the Berne Convention, but the United States finally decided to be a part of it with the USA Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988, and its implementation in 1989. What prompted the change was an upheaval of the American copyright system in the Copyright Act of 1976.This was the biggest copyright reform in the United States because it added and changed many elements to copyright. Changes, like diminishing many copyright formalities and fees, made US copyright laws align exceptionally similar to countries in the Berne Convention (United States). The shrinking of the amount of fees with copyright meant that America was making significantly less money, so they were more inclined to look at what was in the Berne Convention. America had also corrected the problematic isolationism copyright terms and began honoring copyrights from outside of the United States. America agreed to the Berne Convention as minimally as it could, allowing Artist Morality Rights to slip through copyright laws. Instead of placing Artist Morality where it belongs, the United States placed Moral Rights under Defamation and Unfair Competition laws (Ross, Barbara).The United States’ problem with Artist Morality Rights came from the Berne Convention’s classification of it. Countries in the Berne Convention believed Artist Morality was a copyright issue, and anything related to it was filed under Copyright law. The United States government believed Artist Morality shouldn’t be mixed with Copyright law, which dealt with economics instead of ethics (Ross, Deborah). Both the House and Senate Judiciary Committees felt that other copyright laws covered what Morality Rights was meant to cover. Their reasoning was that the Copyright Act of 1976 gave enough protection to artists. They felt the closest thing to Morality Rights were laws relating to contractual violations, privacy invasion laws, defamation, and unfair competition, so it was misplaced in that section of law (United States Copyright Office). The placement of Artist Morality under Defamation and Unfair Competition laws creates a multitude of problems.The biggest problem case is Franconero v. UMG Recordings, Inc. Connie Francis is an acclaimed singer from the 1960s. In 1974, Francis was raped, tortured, and she suffered psychological trauma from the incident. She filed against her label, Universal Music Group, for emotional distress after they licensed her recordings for explicit films. Her music was used in films that contained scenes that dealt with sex, suicide, prostitution, and rape (Rudell). Unfortunately, the court ruled in favor of the label when it came to Artist Morality. The court stated that Artist Morality isn’t permissible as a standalone case, since copyright law mostly pursues economic relief. Francis had no control over how the music reflected on her reputation or mental state, something that can be amended with the correct application of Artist Morality in the United States.Chapter 5Artist Morality TodayThere has already been significant progress on getting America informed about Artist Morality. In July of 2014, the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the topic?and representatives from both the?Songwriters Guild of America?and the?Future of Music Coalition?gave?testimony (“Hearing: Moral Rights”). On April 18, 2016, the?U.S.?Copyright Office?along with the?George Mason School of Law?and its?Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property,?held a symposium on the topic of Moral Rights?and its application in the United?States. It was a day-long conversation about copyright issues related to Moral Rights (“Authors, Attribution, and Integrity”).The largest, most recent activity to push Artist Morality happened in April 2019. Karyn A. Temple, Register of Copyrights and Director of the U.S. Copyright Office, published a 172-page report on revising the codification of Artist Moral Rights?in copyright law. She suggests three important factors to look at when trying to find how Artist Morality fits into copyright law: First, any potential changes to the U.S. moral rights framework must be harmonized with other critical elements of U.S. law, particularly the First Amendment, fair use, and respect for the constitutional requirement of limited copyright terms. Second, the vital importance to authors of adequately protecting their attribution and integrity interests cannot be overstated. Third, a review of U.S. moral rights protections must recognize that there is broad diversity among creative industries and categories of works, and that, accordingly, effective moral rights protections are not one-size-fits-all. (Temple)The First Amendment and how Artist Morality would fit with Fair Use were the most prevalent concerns in the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee review of the topic. Temple is signifying that any modification of Artist Morality needs to work with the current U.S. laws already in place. Her second factor states that the goal is to protect artists’ attribution and integrity in their own works. This must be the primary goal in mind when fixing Artist Morality in the United States. The third factor Temple positions is the reminder that with ethical concerns, every situation will be varied. While we are amending this section of U.S. Law, we should not write the rules too specifically because we may end up unintentionally “blocking out artists out” of Morality Rights again.Most importantly, Temple ends with “Should Congress wish to strengthen—and/or streamline—the U.S. moral rights framework, this Report provides a roadmap for doing so.” This is an important step in the right direction for Artist Morality Rights. Congress is given a comprehensive guide to the problems and solutions to adding Artist Morality to copyright law, written by the head of the U.S. Copyright Office.The biggest concerns about adding Artist Morality to Copyright Law came from how it could weaken the First Amendment, how it conflicts with Fair Use provisions, and its relationship with Copyright duration. Commenters were concerned that artists would be able to scorn any publisher or hiring party under Artist Morality’s Integrity clause (Temple). For example, if a released film receives bad reviews from the public, the concern is that a Work for Hire composer would be able to claim the movie is damaging their integrity and demand their music be taken out of the film. The problem with this argument is that it sets up a scenario where there are no regulations on Artist Integrity – something that Congress would never allow to happen.In the “weakened First Amendment” scenario that some commenters suggested, free speech would be damaged. To ensure this doesn’t happen, a few points should be set in place. First of all, the author should have the burden of proof when they argue that their integrity has been hurt. This is similar to defamation, but the difference here is that Artist Morality has a stronger ethical power under Copyright Law. Where it is currently placed, Artist Morality is unhelpful in economic defamation law. By setting up Integrity under Copyright Law, we are protecting the free speech of artists, who are often buried under the formidable power of the enormous corporations that employ them.As for Fair Use, the concern is that artists will take all criticism and parodies as damaging to the artist reputation. Fair Use clearly makes this distinction though, and this portion of free speech would trump any Integrity issues.?There is a difference between someone commenting on work, and someone blatantly trying to hurt an artist. Again, in this kind of instance, the burden of proof would fall onto the artist to prove that there was damage to the reputation.There is debate on what to do if there are multiple artists attributed to a single work and one wants to claim Right of Integrity. I believe the solution should be a two-thirds majority rule. That way, the overwhelming majority would be able to act or not act on Right of Integrity. Another solution that could be proposed is an absolute majority, where one hundred percent of the authors must agree to claim Right of Integrity. The problem I have with this solution is that it seems much more difficult to get complete agreement than a majority agreement. Regardless, I would understand if this becomes a part of Artist Morality. As it currently stands in the United States, clearing a song for a synchronization license requires one hundred percent approval from all songwriters and publishers attached to the work.Finally, the issue about copyright term limits was brought to attention. Every country has a different copyright term limit, making some Artist Morality clauses last for the rest of life (Temple). The concern for this issue was making a perpetual Moral Right clause would contradict U.S. copyright law and America’s affinity on the importance of public domain. Both the commenters, the Copyright Office, and I seem to be in agreement that there needs to be a limit on where Artist Morality stops working. The Copyright Office strongly suggested “either limited to the lifetime of the author, or, at the outer edge, coextensive with the economic term” (Temple). This will ensure that Artist Morality and the Integrity portion will have a lifespan similar to that of regular copyright law.When tying this situation directly back to Work for Hire, we might see the hiring party upset that they would not be getting a good deal on Work for Hire agreements. If Artist Morality has taken a place in United States law, it would take precedence over any contract that conflicted its terms. In short, the hiring party might feel they are losing some control over the music because a composer can veto use of their work by claiming their Right of Integrity, and statements or clauses in a contract would be null.The United States is set up to meticulously scrutinize laws to make sure they are fair to all parties before they are locked in place. I think the fairest thing for both parties would be to keep contracts made before Artist Morality intact. This way, both parties can stick to the agreements made on the original deals, but composers can have a more negotiable discussion for future contracts. I am confident the United States would pass a version of this rule because it wouldn’t be the first time they had done so. The Copyright Act of 1976 extended the term that a copyright was considered valid. To make sure it was fair, any works created before the Act was in place on January 1st, 1978 was protected by copyright for a flat seventy-five years. This was a duration that was slightly longer than the protection that was in place at that time. Works created after January 1st, 1978, was protected for the life of the author plus fifty years (United States).After I found answers to the potential problems Artist Morality can pose in U.S. law, I composed a letter and sent it to New Jersey Congressman Andy Kim, New Jersey Senator Cory Booker, New Jersey Senator Robert Menendez, New York Congressman John Kato, New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, and New York Senator Chuck Schumer. I chose these six people because they are the three representatives for the city of Syracuse, and the three representatives for my hometown in New Jersey. The letter explained the problem Work for Hire poses for artists, a brief history of the United States’ relation to the Berne Convention, and a solution to Work for Hire that involves codifying Artist Morality under Copyright Law. Unfortunately, COVID-19 and social distancing policies have kept the government busy. I do not expect a response from them until the virus has been mostly eradicated, public outings become normalized again, and non-vital topics can become a focus again.I learned more about the music industry and caveats of my future career than I ever would have imagined. I am confident that taking on this ludicrously enormous mission statement has helped me grow immensely. Artist Morality will eventually get codified in United States law. There has already been a slow ball rolling for the last few years, and the U.S. Copyright office is in full support of the movement. After my senior year ends, I plan to follow up diligently with the government officials that I have contacted about this matter. The continued conversations about Artist Morality will lead to an earlier codification into United States law and quicker implementation of rights for Work for Hire composers.Works CitedAllan, Mitch. Personal Interview. 22 October 2019.“Authors, Attribution, and Integrity: Examining Moral Rights in the United States.” George Mason Journal of International and Commercial Law, vol. 8, no. 1, 2016, pp. 1-150, , Jen. Personal Interview. 19 November 2019.Bailey, Jonathan. “Future of Music Coalition.”?Moral Rights for Musicians: A Primer, Future of Music Coalition, 10 May 2016, blog/2016/05/10/moral-rights-musicians-primer.CD Baby Artist Services. “What Is Sync Licensing?”?CD Baby, 17 Apr. 2020, support.cdbaby. com/hc/en-us/articles/211093163-What-is-Sync-Licensing-.Chodosh, Loren. Personal Interview. 9 May 2019.“Copyright Assignment.”?Justia, Jun. 2019, intellectual-property/copyright/copyright-assignment/.Faber, Jared. Personal Interview. 16 September 2019.Freedman, Adam. “What Are Moral Rights?”?Medium, Medium, 13 Aug. 2018, @adamcolefreedman/what-are-moral-rights-e53f11ccbf25.“Hearing: Moral Rights, Termination Rights, Resale Royalty, and Copyright Term.” YouTube, uploaded by House Judiciary, 6 Oct. 2015, , Barbara, A., The Role of the United States in International Copyright – Past, Present, and Future, 56 Geo. L. J., pp. 1050-1051.Ross, Deborah. “The United States Joins the Berne Convention: New Obligations for Authors' Moral Rights.” North Craolina Law Review, vol. 68, no. 2, 1990, pp. 363-387, , Benjamin W., ed. Notable Dates in American Copyright 1783-1969. United StatesCopyright Office, , Michael I. “Connie Francis Recordings.” FWRV, Franklin, Weinrib, Rudell & Vassallo, P.C., “Summary of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (1886).” WIPO, World Intellectual Property Organization, wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/summary_berne.html.Temple, Karyn A., “Authors, Attribution, and Integrity: Examining Moral Rights in the United States.” United States Copyright Office, 2019, moralrights/full-report.pdfUnited States, Congress, House.?United States Code. Title 17, Appendix A, p. 283. Dec 2016. States Copyright Office, Library of Congress. “Study on the Moral Rights of Attribution and Integrity.” Federal Register, Vol. 82, No. 13, 2017, pp. 7870-7875. , Bill. Personal Interview. 29 Mar 2019. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download