Who owns the copyright in works anyway?

Many years ago, back in the UK, I worked for the Copyright Licensing Agency in London. Our goal was to license institutions to photocopy from books, journals and periodicals. It is, therefore, illegal under UK law to make multiple copies from any portion of any publication that is still in copyright without either the express permission of the person who holds that copyright or through a licence from the Copyright Licensing Agency or similar organisation for other types of works.

We had a motto which said, “Respect Copyright, Encourage Creativity,” the premise being that holding people and organisations accountable for infringing someone’s copyright encourages the copyright owner to create more and to produce more works. Does that premise still hold today, I wonder? Do rights-holders still care if their work is being copied without their permission? Who owns the copyright in works anyway? In some cases it does depend upon who held the copyright originally and who then later holds the right in the same work.

We have to remember that the owner of the copyright in a particular work isn’t necessarily always the one who created it. Sounds convoluted? Well, it can be. But basically, the copyright belongs to the person who commissioned the work unless there is an agreement to the contrary. It can also belong to an employer, if the work was created in the course of the creator’s employment and the job required it. This can apply to any type of work regardless of whether it is an artwork, a book, a piece of music and even a movie.

Most musicians’ copyright sometimes belongs to the label under which their music is released. When they first start out as younglings, many new musicians lose the right to do anything with their work because they were taken for granted by big music companies. When they were young, they just wanted their music to be out there and didn’t really think of the long-term repercussions of what they were signing.

Often they didn’t even know what they were signing. It’s only when they get older that they realise how much they lost in terms of the right to their music and the possibilities of future revenues.

In the days before the internet and free music sites, there wasn’t much many musicians could do to get their rights back other than go to court and risk losing because they signed a contract in which they gave away their rights in the first place. Back then courts did sometimes take into consideration the effects of undue influence on one who is young and naïve by an experienced giant conglomerate.

Even though the same considerations may apply today, but rather than take that route, which costs money, in the late 90s and early 2000s many musicians took back that right even if it meant loss in revenue. Many musicians uploaded their music onto sites where users could download their music completely free of charge. That meant that, yes they lost revenue but, again, so did the music label that took advantage of them because they owned the copyright. It was their way of getting back at the giant. Painters sometimes suffer similar consequences. I say sometimes, because it is very rare and the only story I’ve read about is that of the late Bob Ross. The story is convoluted and full of intrigue but suffice it to say that even though the moral rights in his paintings still belong to the late artist, his family and estate can make no money from the sale of his paintings because two individuals (a cunning husband and wife team) took full advantage of him.

In fact, the fact that they stripped him of his rights, he had no desire to create anymore. Who would?  To this day, it is still they who control any rights to his painting, and even the use of his name as a trademark. Even his son had no rights because the father inadvertently gave those rights away. Going to court made no difference as the contract that Bob Ross signed was clear-cut. But, as I said, it is a rare case in the art world.