FOR CREATIVE PEOPLE
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
1. Whatever you’re doing will be largely incomprehensible to just about everybody. 2. Nothing is straightforward, unless you’re talking to someone who can get things done. 3. There are more scams and parasites in media than anywhere else. 4. The artist is generally battered by everything, simultaneously, usually while doing the most difficult part of any job, and always at the most inopportune times. 5. Everybody and every second can be a pain in the butt. So, in the interests of making life a little easier for the poor bastards trying to achieve something, this page is devoted to useful resources. THIS REQUIRES A LITTLE PATIENCE, SO BORROW SOME, IF YOU’VE RUN OUT. YOU NEED TO GET THESE THINGS RIGHT. This page has got a long way to go before it's got all the links and resources it needs. But it's a start, and covers some basics. Believe me, you do not need, either as an artist or as a human being, the kind of obscene grief you can get from industries devoted to nothing but money.
on the subject... 16 November 2006 |
Copyright
rights. Few things in media are more expensive, too, so it’s worth learning this stuff. Currently, global copyright is a hybrid of the old paper technology and some dogged if vague attempts to deal with the new media. TAKE NOTHING FOR GRANTED. Every facet of the issues is turning into case law. The Free Expression Policy Project, through NYU, is an excellent and very necessary introduction to the broader perspectives of copyright laws and freedom of expression. THIS DOES AFFECT YOU, whatever you do, and whatever you say. The whole theory of freedom of speech boils down to what you can do, and what people can prevent you from doing. It's as basic as breathing. Anything can be copied. There is no such thing as copy-proof, particularly in music, and on the net. That’s just a physical fact. It is ludicrously easy. You need to establish clear ownership of your intellectual property rights. That still doesn’t stop copying, but it does prevent your stuff from being sold to a large extent, because nobody in their right minds doing legitimate business will touch infringements. It’s just too messy. The Free Expression Policy Project makes a case regarding the legitimate use of materials for satire and expression, and the legitimate right to access those materials. It also comments very pithily on the issues regarding copyright-associated laws which effectively muzzle expression. These laws are heavily property oriented. They contain the potential for a series of damaging shots at freedom of speech if they're used that way, and should be distrusted accordingly by those with opinions they like to be able to express. The possibilities look quite nasty.
thorough, the information useful, particularly about fundamentals, and their formal processes look pretty meticulous. This is the way the machine works, and any artist needs to know that. Regulation, when it works, can do a lot to simplify things that can get way too complex. US copyright is the subject of a lot of debate, and in the interests of seeing the problems, this is the status quo.
ENDORSE PRODUCTS OR SERVICES ON THIS SITE. IT IS NOT IMPLIED THAT ANY OPINIONS, ADVICE OR INFORMATION GIVEN ON THIS SITE IS SOURCED FROM, OR ENDORSED BY, THAT AGENCY. published anywhere.published Your own national copyright office will probably be able to help to some extent, but anywhere.extent, but remember this is now a very small world, and it's hard to avoid the ballpark. Your own national copyright office will probably be able to help to some extent, but remember this is now a very small world, and it's hard to avoid the ballpark. |
Writing - Publishing Scams
and money on pointless exercises. Writers, in particular, need to be extremely cautious. (This is from experience.) The basic routine is payment for “services” related to publishing your work. Legitimate publishers and agents don’t work like that. They don’t need to do things like that, and they have nothing to gain. In one memorable case I saw an Australian firm charging $250 per phone call, for writers to ring up about their own books… sound like fun? This, you do not, and never will, need. Writer Beware is a good website run by writers, which maintains a regular supply of information regarding things ranging from outright scams to non-payment of royalties. There’s a lot of useful, fundamental, specific, discussion of principles and practices which really ought to be taught in colleges. Things are messy enough without new generations of uninformed people getting caught in the blender. Writer Beware contains a very thorough collection of links, and if you send them a question, they do respond promptly. ANYBODY you're dealing with, check with them first, particularly if you found that person on the net. VANITY PUBLISHING/SELF PUBLISHING is another wonderful idea which also achieves not only the removal from your person of a lot of money (you’d only have spent it on food, anyway) but also the truly worthless production of things which may never see the inside of a retailer. Note the contrast between people actually working in real sales, and this strange blue sky approach to marketing. Suspicion bordering on paranoia is probably the best place to start talking about selling your stuff. One of the most undersold, uninspiring, uninformative sites I've ever seen was a vanity site. Even a coroner wouldn't have looked at it twice. They also claimed to be on major internet shopping sites, and I couldn't find them. New meaning to the word "services", being "anything we can claim to have done that we can charge you for".
blogs also require that you sign over your copyright to the material they publish. Some writers do more writing than eating, but the fact is that writers tend to incorporate their own commercial content material, partly because of writing in their own normal styles in blogs. The result is that you can be literally writing your own stuff for someone else, and have a signed contract giving it away. I don't know if there's any case law, but the prognosis would be "pretty iffy at best".
whinge, any horror stories will be there in some form. There can also be contradictory articles from publishers or agents trying to spin or defuse negative comments, so use some judgment about what you get. NOTE: When writing these horror stories, remember that you don’t have to defame anyone or accuse them of crimes. Don’t give them any ammunition to use against you. It hurts your own case. Express your views as an opinion, based on your experiences. You’re not a court, and some of these scams aren’t actually illegal, they’re just real, disgusting, nuisances. |
- If there’s one topic about which I have invented a whole new language while cursing in several
languages, the music industry is it. One of the milder terms is “slumf**kers”, with all the implications of
ancestral discretion that implies, and there’s a range in the other languages, too. As you might have
gathered from the site, I’m slightly musical, and if you ever want to be cured of eating, I could literally do
a book on things that would make you never want to eat again. (I don’t usually talk about it. It’s ancient
history, the scar tissues are about 1970 miles deep, and it’s best left alone. Let's just say I'm still
extremely pissed off, (and unpaid) decades later.)
However-
1. People do swipe material.
2. There is an ignoble tradition of not paying for anything. (In fairness, it does depend on who
you’re dealing with, but it’s not a good idea to be guessing about payment. So don’t.)
3. You need to be incredibly careful, and make sure your own stuff doesn’t infringe. (It’s time
consuming, but worth it.)
4. Costs are incredible, if you do things that way, and have to depend on other people for
production.
- There’s a word. Depend. Musicians can be truly thankful for the current generation of gizmos. You can
now do a lot of things which took an army of people in the old days. You can do some competitive
costing and keep your own outlays under control. Even if it’s someone else’s money, nobody in
production is a registered charity, and they charge like it, and that can affect things rather nastily….
Particularly if you overrun your contract money. You’re really paying for someone’s opinion of their own
work, most of the time, but that tends to run into a lot of digits. If you want to depend on anything,
depend on your own judgment about how to get the things done, and how much they cost.
Thanks to digital technology, any sound byte can now be analyzed and compared to another. So real
copyright infringement is getting a lot easier to avoid. Eventually, there’ll probably be a database that
can tell you if you’re infringing, or if someone’s infringing you.
Modern music and recording production have a few pitfalls, though. Things like sequencers, wave
generators, and other common usage equipment have their own idiosyncrasies, not least of which is
using standard rhythms and patterns. These can affect times and pitch, and surprise, surprise, you
wind up with something which sounds and looks very much like someone else’s property.
The electronic sounds aren’t usually copyright unless they’re custom made patches. That’s really the
problem. Original digital sounds were pretty lousy, ironically a lot worse than some of the old analog
sounds. The issue, then and now, is that they’re standardized to the point that quite literally everything
is using much the same mixes and balances, because they’re using pretty much the same equipment.
So the scope for saying that something is a breach of copyright is therefore a lot greater. Talk about
“generic” product. That’s why, and it’s dangerous.
- MUSICAL IDENTITY CRISIS, ANYONE?
Slight digression here, but it relates to copyright in a very insidious way. It’s bad marketing to be
mistaken for other artists, even in theory. If you really want to be anonymous, sound like everyone else,
and you won’t need to join that monastery.
There never was a second Beatles, because nobody ever needed one. (The whole idea dropped
dead in about 1964.) The copies just didn't work. This is another side to the copyright issue, and it’s a
genuine bastard. The greatest misconception in marketing history is that “Because you liked that,
you’ll like this.” It was always wrong. No music lover is likely to mistake some rehash for one of their
favorites. The industry didn't figure it out, and has stuck to the same basic sales routines. This is a
culture of copying, and it doesn't take much effort to create problems.
Marketing methods combined with same-production methods can affect copyright. I know of at least
one band that split because they were arguing more about technology than music. So who’s playing
the music? Given this hideous generic garbage, it might as well be a machine. That also means more
of the same, literally. The danger is that "generic" to this degree also means sounding virtually
identical. Copyright? Don't bet on it. You can, however, bet that someone will be prepared to at least
try to remove your rights from you.
Frankly, I find a lot of current music is playing far too safe. So much so it’s just not worth listening to.
I’ve heard most of the “innovations” before, too, and I have some trouble believing that just because
something’s written in a Flat key it’s avant-garde. Slop Pop is just that. Think of all the potentially great
female singers doing remakes of “Ooo-ooooohhhhh” and you see what a total waste this crap is.
Puberty isn’t supposed to be that dull, and definitely not that unimaginative.
There is a reason for all this non-innovation, though, and it’s largely in the how the culture of the market
affects the audience. One of the reasons that lack of identity is becoming such an issue in music is that
the audiences don’t really get a word in, except when buying. The other end of the ritual, which
generally doesn’t attach any significance to what it’s selling other than the sales figures, doesn’t get it.
Never has, by the way.
Fortunately/miraculously, the market has also now succeeded, somehow, in totally losing track of an
entire generation of younger listeners. They actually can’t find them, and even if they do, don’t know
what they’re doing. This is a huge credit to the current youth market, that they’ve escaped this Gerbil
Employment Agency called global media. The very first generation to finally get rid of the bastards. It’s
a real triumph for the human race.
If there was ever a green light to musicians to try something worth doing, this would be it. This is also
the cue to be yourself as a musician. OK, maybe you’re not Mozart. Neither was Beethoven, Purcell,
Handel, Chopin, Elgar… What a musician really contributes to music is identity and character.
For the sake of whatever God you know, please do that.
The whole idea of public domain means “out of copyright”. In theory, anyone can use it. In practice,
don’t assume that just because someone says something’s “public domain” that it is.
Also don’t drive home on the freeway blindfolded.
Some things are public domain, some aren’t.
You don’t have to guess about this. Copyright in mass media has a lineage which can be traced pretty
reliably. Say you’re looking for an old TV series. The probability is that even if the original distributor
and/or rights owner has offloaded the material, or merged, or gone bankrupt, or whatever, somebody
did own the copyrights, and those interests did have to be formally made over to someone, if they still
exist.
(Sometimes they aren’t, and that makes things a lot stickier. They may, for example, be part of an
estate, or some third party’s asset. You might search for everything but probate or liquidation while
looking for where the rights went. Professional help is a good idea.)
Sometimes there's no owner, but the rights should still exist, and should have been assigned. In this
situation you can also get a real grey area where the rights are in limbo. The rights, unless assigned,
are still potentially owned by someone, and the reasonable assumption is that the person entitled has
a claim to those rights. The fact is that anything published has an inherent copyright, and you should
know that.
In this case, for “copyright”, read also “property” and it makes a lot more sense.
Rights, including subsidiary rights, are assets, literally, commodities. They do usually have a value, and
they tend to show up on the books and in valuations of media companies to prove that accountancy isn’
t all boring, or some mindless pursuit of accuracy and verifiable financial statements.
The deadly side of this situation is that in this state the rights aren’t visible to the public or the industry,
if there's no current product, like an out of print book. This particularly applies to older material, which
is commonly considered “public domain”, and frequently isn't. So in all innocence, you can take a nice
walk in the minefield to discover that someone thinks you can pay for their retirement.
So-
Check everything. Get professional advice. Contact the last definite owner of the rights, if at all
possible. You may even be able to acquire the rights.
The idea is that you establish a legitimate claim to your use of the material. “Public domain” can mean
much the same thing as “back of a truck” at the wrong times, like in court hearings. It’s about as good a
defence, too.
