Tag copyright

Musicians Copyrights

Musicians Copyrights : Infos from your German Legal Team

If you are a musician and you are willing to know a bit more about European and German Musicians Rights, the following information are for you.

Copyright can be divided into three components: Exploitation rights, Right of use and Moral Rights.

The exploitation/utilization rights are regulated in §§ 15 to 24 UrhG. These include the: reproduction right, distribution right, right of exhibition, and the right of communication to the public.
These rights belong solely to the author, i.e. the composer, and cannot be transferred to other persons. Only upon the composer’s death do the exploitation rights pass to his or her heirs. However, it is possible to grant a right of use to others.

Sections 31 to 44 UrhG regulate the rights of use of the authors. The composers may decide to grant their musical works to third parties for exploitation – e.g. record companies, publishers or musicians.

The moral rights of an author are found in §§ 12 to 14 UrhG. A composer always has the right to be named as the author of his or her work. The author is also protected by law against distortion of the work; this means that the author’s personal interests in his/her work are endangered – e.g. in the case of deterioration or distorted representation of the work.

Is the copyright of musicians transferable?
A composer cannot transfer the copyright in a musical work as such. This is also not possible by means of a contract. However, it is possible to grant others a right to use the work. To do this, a licence agreement is concluded which contains the most important information about the scope of use and the remuneration.

Are you a musician or an artist and you would like to be supported by a competent international music law firm? Contact us. We are the team you are looking for. 

Three Things To Know About Music Law

Three Things To Know About Music Law

  1. With the triumph of digital data carriers and the internet, the term “music piracy” is on everyone’s lips in music law. Music law contains an accumulation of regulations to combat and preventively curb the illegal distribution or illegal production of copies of copyrighted musical works. The limits of the said regulations are also found in copyright law, for example in the form of legal private copying from a source that is not obviously illegal, as defined in Section 53(1) UrhG.
  2. However, violations of personal rights in music law are also particularly relevant in practice. In particular, musical works may contain socially critical lyrics as well as insulting or discriminatory content. In such cases, a collision of personal rights and the fundamental right of artistic freedom is regularly at the centre, whereby music law affects public law.
  3. Furthermore, collecting societies play a massive role in the field of music law. Among the largest are the Gesellschaft für musikalische Aufführungs- und mechanische Vervielfältigungsrechte (GEMA) and the Gesellschaft zur Verwertung von Leistungsschutzrechten (GVL), which primarily look after the financial interests of the respective artists.

 

We are international music and copyright ale experts. Book your appointment now – we will get back to you very soon.

Sampling: definition and legal position

Is sampling music legal?

When a musician samples, he takes fragments from other people’s songs. Does he thereby violate copyright or is that freedom of art? The BGH has decided. Here an overview of the legal dispute from an article of the German https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/bgh-urheberrecht-101.html). In music, sampling refers to the process of using a part of an – already finished – sound or music recording in a new, often musical context. Nowadays, this is usually done with a hardware or software sampler, i.e., the selected sound sample is usually digitized and stored so that it can be further processed with audio programs.

Why have they been arguing about this in court for years? A german rapper, singer and music producer thinks to this day that he was allowed to simply take the “music snippet” into his song. Legally, the issue is the conflict between artistic freedom and the rights one has as a producer of a sound carrier. These are the so-called copyrights and ancillary copyrights: “The author of a sound record has the exclusive right to reproduce, distribute and make the sound carrier available to the public,” the Copyright Act states.

What can we now expect from the BGH’s ruling? With its decision, the BGH must implement the guidelines of the ECJ judges. After hearing the case in January, it does not look like the judges in Karlsruhe will simply “wave through” the rapper´s sampling. So the question remains whether the artistic sound sequence in the song is recognizable or not. To have this clarified, the BGH could refer the case back to the Hamburg Higher Regional Court. If Pelham loses, the case could even go back to the Federal Constitutional Court. After all, he won there in 2016. Either way, the principles laid down by the courts affect the hip-hop and music scene as a whole.

Musician, artists, writers: you know who to call. Horak Attorneys at law: your international law firm for music law.

The district court of Düsseldorf has decided!

(Landgericht Düsseldorf, Urteil vom 12.06.2019 – 12 O 263/18 – )

Acquisition of rights of use from GEMA for musical works as stage representation is not possible!

The District Court of Düsseldorf has decided that the Schauspielhaus Düsseldorf must refrain from performing the music composed and arranged by the sound artist Parviz Mir-Ali for the Schauspielhaus Dresden to “Der Idiot” by Fjodor Dostojewski.

The case was based on the following facts: In 2015, the well-known sound artist Parviz Mir-Ali had composed the music for the stage play “Der Idiot” by Fjodor Dostojewski in the production of Matthias Hartmann for the Staatsschauspiel Dresden. In 2016 the Düsseldorfer Schauspielhaus took over the production from Dresden together with the music composed by Mir-Ali. For the 2016/2017 season, the Schauspielhaus Düsseldorf paid the sound artist an agreed lump sum. The Schauspielhaus refused payments for the further seasons 2017/2018 and 2018/2019 with reference to its payments to GEMA. The plaintiff sound artist saw his copyrights violated with the performances.

The Düsseldorf Regional Court ruled in favour of the plaintiff. […]

Source: © kostenlose-urteile.de (ra-online GmbH), Berlin 12.06.2019
Quelle: Landgericht Düsseldorf/ra-online (pm/kg)