Introduction : This article explores the tension between the Romantic concept of authorship and its influence on copyright law, particularly in relation to composers and performers. Scholars such as Goehr (1989, 2007) and Toynbee (2006) argue that the legal idea of musical authorship is rooted in aesthetic and philosophical ideals, while Barron (2006a) contends that it originated from common law property reasoning. However, Barron also acknowledges that copyright law carries biases from Romanticism, which favor the composer over the performer, particularly in terms of originality and score-based works, sidelining performance and orality.
Bently (2009) critiques how these Romantic ideals are reinforced in legal proceedings, where judges and experts educated in elite, Romantic-influenced institutions maintain this divide. The legal distinction between composers’ full copyright protection and performers’ more limited neighbouring rights raises the question of whether this imbalance is socially justifiable.
Drawing on the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 and case law, the article examines the differences between composers’ and performers’ rights. Through interviews with performers and managers, it identifies three main factors influencing musicians’ legal strategies: composer–performer discourses, genre, and power dynamics. Performers with greater bargaining power often secure joint authorship rights, while those with less power rely on performers’ rights. However, many performers are unaware of their legal rights or find the existing legal framework flexible enough to handle their needs. The article argues that this legal ignorance, stemming from Romantic biases, harms performers’ ability to fully advocate for their rights.
Ultimately, the article examines how the historical and legal separation of authorship and performance in copyright law, shaped by Romantic ideals, continues to impact performers’ understanding of their rights and the challenges they face in the music industry.
Legal Distinctions : Musical Works, Sound Recordings, and Performers’ Rights : This section outlines the distinctions between UK copyright protections for musical works and sound recordings, highlighting how musical works are considered “content” and protected for their creativity, while sound recordings are seen as “signals” and protected primarily for the investment in their production. The legal framework gives performers certain rights, such as permission for recordings and equitable remuneration from public performances, but these rights are generally less comprehensive than those of composers. Performers’ rights are primarily focused on the protection of the sound recording, not the content of the performance itself, and they do not have the same depth or breadth of protection as musical works. The concept of joint authorship in music is complex, requiring significant, original, and collaborative contributions, and legal cases demonstrate the challenges in defining authorship, particularly regarding adaptations and arrangements of musical works. Ultimately, the distinction between authorship and performance in law is influenced by both legal frameworks and the social discourse about music, with performers often relying on more limited legal protections based on their rights to sound recordings rather than the original compositions.
Musicians’ Practices and Ownership Discourses :
This qualitative research project, based on 36 in-depth interviews conducted between 2014 and 2016, explores musicians’ practices and their conceptualization of ownership in musical works. The study investigates how musicians’ roles (performer, composer, producer) interact with the legal and cultural understandings of ownership, copyright, and remuneration. It finds that musicians’ self-identification and expectations about ownership are heavily influenced by their educational backgrounds, particularly within classical music, where the composer–performer divide is entrenched. Classical musicians, especially those with formal training from prestigious conservatories, are more likely to view themselves as performers whose role is defined by the score, with ownership traditionally reserved for the composer. However, some expressed a desire for shared ownership in collaborative projects, particularly when their creative contributions were substantial.
In contrast, musicians in popular and experimental genres, particularly those with less formal training, approach ownership more flexibly. In genres like pop and rock, where collaboration is the norm, ownership is often negotiated after the fact, with multiple contributors (musicians, producers, etc.) sharing royalties. However, the distribution of royalties is not always equitable, with more famous individuals (such as established artists or producers) often receiving larger shares, regardless of their creative input. This “Nashville style” collaborative process can lead to complex and sometimes messy negotiations, where contributors’ marketability and commercial value, rather than just their creative contributions, play a significant role in determining their share of royalties.
In the commercial music industry, power dynamics are crucial to the negotiation process. Successful performers and producers with strong commercial appeal can secure larger shares of royalties, sometimes even when their creative input is minimal. This highlights how ownership and royalty distribution are often driven by financial and social capital, with influential figures holding significant bargaining power. Overall, the research underscores the complex interplay of creativity, power, and marketability in shaping how ownership is defined and negotiated in the music industry.
Legal Framework Meets Musical Practice :
The interplay between composer–performer discourses, genre, and power dynamics in music often overlaps, creating a complex relationship that is difficult to map onto the legal framework. Key factors such as the score (especially in classical music), the emphasis on either original outlines or final products, and preemptive agreements shape musicians’ roles and ownership in a musical work. While legal frameworks—especially copyright law—offer mechanisms to legitimize a musician’s position, they may not always align with industry practices or reflect the nuanced contributions of musicians. Legal rights, particularly around joint authorship, are governed by statutory and contractual mechanisms, which Bently and Biron (2014) argue offer flexibility while containing the complexities of various musical practices.
However, for many musicians, these legal structures may not feel encouraging. Copyright law has faced criticism, with some arguing that it has lost legitimacy among the public, a concern Bently and Biron also highlight. The application of the legal framework in real-world music practice may not always be clear or fair, especially for musicians with less bargaining power.
The Role of Performers’ Rights in Joint Authorship : The article argues that musicians should always seek authorship or joint authorship of a musical work. While composers often claim authorship due to the legal and discursive norms of their genre, performers may also negotiate joint authorship when collaborating with composers or when their contributions are valued for their commercial impact. However, in cases where performers lack the opportunity to claim authorship—either due to genre norms or a lack of bargaining power—performers’ rights play an essential role. These rights protect performers who cannot secure authorship or joint authorship, ensuring recognition and legal protection for their contributions.
Justifying the Complexity of Copyright Law for Musicians : The complexity of the copyright system, often criticized by musicians and managers, arises from its flexibility in accommodating the varied and dynamic nature of musical practices. While this complexity can be challenging, especially for young and inexperienced musicians who may struggle to navigate copyright matters and face exploitation in contract negotiations, it is a reflection of the system’s ability to adapt to changing musical genres and collaborations. Although the law’s intricacies can be overwhelming, particularly in legal cases with conflicting outcomes, its flexibility is essential for addressing the diverse contributions to musical works. However, the system’s complexity does disadvantage musicians with low bargaining power, who are often unable to access the resources needed to navigate it effectively. Despite these challenges, the ability of copyright law to encompass a wide range of musical practices—though imperfect—is a strength, allowing it to evolve alongside the industry, even if improvements are still necessary.
Conclusion : This article explores the legitimacy of distinguishing between composition and performance in copyright law, demonstrating that while the law privileges composers over performers, it allows for joint authorship when specific conditions are met. Interviews revealed that conceptualizations of the composer–performer relationship vary across genres, with classical musicians often viewing their role as secondary to the composer, while performers in other genres like urban or dance music may view their contributions as equally valuable. These differing perspectives on authorship reflect underlying power dynamics, where financial gain often dictates the attribution of ownership. Despite the inherent inequality in the copyright system, performers’ rights do play a legitimate role, particularly when performers can negotiate joint authorship or meet legal standards for it. The study also shows that the composer–performer divide, rooted in Romantic ideals, is entrenched not only in copyright law but also in music education and industry practices. Ultimately, while the legal distinction between composition and performance makes sense within the current system, a reform of copyright could address these inequalities by redefining creative ownership and involving performers in the reshaping of educational and legal structures.
#ExyIP #IntellectualProperty #Copyright #MusicCopyright #AuthorsAndPerformers #IntellectualProperty #FairRights #MusicIndustry #Ownership