WORK FOR HIRE RETHOUGHT
Sources close to the situation said RIAA President and CEO hilary rosen',390,400);">hilary rosen',390,400);">Hilary Rosen, acting as a mediator, has initiated discussions between music artists, the labels and members of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property to try to subdue animosity, and work out an accord. Sources said Rosen has been key in encouraging both parties to try to come to an agreement.
At issue is a provision that was tacked on to a copyright law last year, classifying sound recordings as "works for hire" that ensures that the rights to recordings remain with record labels rather than reverting to musicians after a 35-year interval. Growing anger among musicians who believe that the major labels engaged in shady tactics to have Congress revoke protections of the Copyright Act reached a pinnacle at Congressional hearings held in May as artists like Don Henley and Sheryl Crow, among others, expressed ire over the amendment.
Under the copyright law, a "work for hire" is considered the property of the employer and comes in two types: The first is specified by contract or the traditional employer-employee relationship; the second is a work that is "specifically ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a collective work."
While films have long been considered works for hire, the law and the courts have treated sound recordings more ambiguously. The RIAA contended that, in effect, sound recordings have been treated as works for hire and that specifically adding them into the law is a minor change.
Recording artists argued the provision would prevent them from reclaiming their copyrights to performances recorded after 1978. If not for the provision, artists would be eligible to reclaim their rights in 2013.
Because of the artists' emotionally charged feelings reflected at the May hearings, there is now a consensus among several members of the judiciary committee to return to the way things were before November 1999, when the "work for hire" firebomb was introduced, sources said.
"It think it would be nice if something could be worked out," Rosen, who after striving to work together with artists on issues like online piracy and censorship, fell victim to the artists' wrath on the "work for hire" issue, told hitsdailydouble.com Monday, "I feel badly that the artists think we screwed them over. I strongly encourage this issue to be resolved."
Sources on the Hill said artists and their representatives have gotten together and designated a lawyer to try to mend relations with the record companies, which the RIAA represents. "Phone calls have already begun," a source said.
Meanwhile, outside sources said the whole "work for hire" issue was actually a "tempest in a teapot," and was blown out of proportion considering that the artists traditionally have contracts with their record labels that often include copyright agreements, regardless of any copyright law, sources said. A legal source familiar with the proceedings, said, "For whatever reason, certain people told artists that they would have gotten their rights back if this amendment wasn't introduced. That's nuts. It's still about the contracts their advisors told them to sign."
"This whole scenario has been bred of a long-standing mistrust between artists and record companies and that is too bad," Rosen said. "It would be great if (the situation) could be fixed. It certainly wasn't the amendment's intent, or the record companies', to exploit the artist."
Despite the move to repeal the provision, it is still unknown whether it will get undone in this Congress. Democrats, who are sympathetic with the artists' arguments, are still in the minority, sources said. However, a repeal bill may still be introduced.
