Permission error

From Copyright Evidence
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with "{{MainSource |Source={{Source |Name of Study=Aguilar (2017) |Author=Ananay Aguilar |Title=Distributed Ownership in Music: Between Authorship and Performance |Year=2017 |Full C...")
 
(No difference)

Latest revision as of 15:02, 12 June 2019


Advertising Architectural Publishing of books, periodicals and other publishing Programming and broadcasting Computer programming Computer consultancy Creative, arts and entertainment Cultural education

Film and motion pictures Sound recording and music publishing Photographic activities PR and communication Software publishing (including video games) Specialised design Television programmes Translation and interpretation

1. Relationship between protection (subject matter/term/scope) and supply/economic development/growth/welfare 2. Relationship between creative process and protection - what motivates creators (e.g. attribution; control; remuneration; time allocation)? 3. Harmony of interest assumption between authors and publishers (creators and producers/investors) 4. Effects of protection on industry structure (e.g. oligopolies; competition; economics of superstars; business models; technology adoption) 5. Understanding consumption/use (e.g. determinants of unlawful behaviour; user-generated content; social media)

A. Nature and Scope of exclusive rights (hyperlinking/browsing; reproduction right) B. Exceptions (distinguish innovation and public policy purposes; open-ended/closed list; commercial/non-commercial distinction) C. Mass digitisation/orphan works (non-use; extended collective licensing) D. Licensing and Business models (collecting societies; meta data; exchanges/hubs; windowing; crossborder availability) E. Fair remuneration (levies; copyright contracts) F. Enforcement (quantifying infringement; criminal sanctions; intermediary liability; graduated response; litigation and court data; commercial/non-commercial distinction; education and awareness)

Source Details

Aguilar (2017)
Title: Distributed Ownership in Music: Between Authorship and Performance
Author(s): Ananay Aguilar
Year: 2017
Citation: Aguilar, A. (2017) Distributed Ownership in Music: Between Authorship and Performance. Social & Legal Studies, 27(6), pp776-798
Link(s): Definitive
Key Related Studies:
Discipline:
Linked by:
About the Data
Data Description: Data were collected from 36 in-depth interviews with participants identified via snowball sampling as music performers, composers, producers or combination thereof. This tranche of interviews was supplemented with two further interviews from a separate study, involving industry and government representatives. Interview responses were thereafter processed using MaxQDA11 software to conceptualise themes.
Data Type: Primary data
Secondary Data Sources:
Data Collection Methods:
Data Analysis Methods:
Industry(ies):
Country(ies):
Cross Country Study?: No
Comparative Study?: No
Literature review?: No
Government or policy study?: No
Time Period(s) of Collection:
  • 2014-2016
Funder(s):
  • The Leverhulme Trust

Abstract

“Following criticisms of British copyright law that it is influenced by Romantic ideals of authorship, I ask whether it makes sense to distinguish between music composers and performers in law. Drawing on interviews with classical and popular music performers and relevant case law, I examine how performers negotiate and exploit different rights in order to determine ownership. Evidence suggests that rather than a binary, musicians’ creative work can best be represented as moving along a continuum between composition and performance with both concepts socially much in use. Musicians position their work on this continuum according to three motifs: composer–performer discourses and careers, genre and power relationships. I argue that the legal categories of joint or individual authorship, adaptation and performance protect most contributions to a musical work and align with the social understandings of different types of contributions. Yet I also note that, viewed more normatively, a recasting of the rights could help shift those social understandings and alter the inequalities inherent in both musical practices and the law.”

Main Results of the Study

The study finds that whilst composers and performers benefit from flexibility through a combination fo statutory and contractual mechanisms, copyright law is perceived as lacking legitimacy due to its complexity. This may result in power imbalances between parties, and is particularly likely to adversely impact younger and less experienced artists.

Three main themes are noted in regards composer-performer relationships:

• The music industry replicates and reinforces the primacy of the romantic author, characterised by a strong sense of ownership, even at the expense of performers. Composers are understood to be the creator or originator, and performer as executor/externaliser, a fact which is often reinforced throughout an artist’s education. As such, buy-out contracts are common, with only unwaivable equitable remuneration rights for performers remaining.

• Perceptions of composer-performer relationships vary across genres, with classical musicians more likely to follow the strong ownership discourse. Members of urban and dance genres are less likely to view these relationships as such, with performers contributions percieved as being of equal value.

• Relationships of power are also significant, with artists’ contributions measured in financial and social capital. As such, where large financial gains are made from a particular musicians contribution (e.g. Elvis as performer), joint authorship may reflect the value of this contribution.

Policy Implications as Stated By Author

The study does not make any explicit policy recommendations.

Coverage of Study

Coverage of Fundamental Issues
Issue Included within Study
Relationship between protection (subject matter/term/scope) and supply/economic development/growth/welfare
Green-tick.png
Relationship between creative process and protection - what motivates creators (e.g. attribution; control; remuneration; time allocation)?
Harmony of interest assumption between authors and publishers (creators and producers/investors)
Green-tick.png
Effects of protection on industry structure (e.g. oligopolies; competition; economics of superstars; business models; technology adoption)
Understanding consumption/use (e.g. determinants of unlawful behaviour; user-generated content; social media)
Coverage of Evidence Based Policies
Issue Included within Study
Nature and Scope of exclusive rights (hyperlinking/browsing; reproduction right)
Green-tick.png
Exceptions (distinguish innovation and public policy purposes; open-ended/closed list; commercial/non-commercial distinction)
Mass digitisation/orphan works (non-use; extended collective licensing)
Licensing and Business models (collecting societies; meta data; exchanges/hubs; windowing; crossborder availability)
Green-tick.png
Fair remuneration (levies; copyright contracts)
Enforcement (quantifying infringement; criminal sanctions; intermediary liability; graduated response; litigation and court data; commercial/non-commercial distinction; education and awareness)

Datasets