Music ownership databases: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 19:11, 29 January 2018

Latest revision as of 10:02, 27 September 2023

(17 intermediate revisions by 14 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{Short description|Lists of owners of musical compositions}}

'''Music ownership databases''' are lists of the owners of [[Musical composition|compositions]] and the people who represents them. Often, a piece of music will have more than one owner. This is caused by [[Publishing contract|Publishing contracts]], co-writing, band contracts, label deals, and similar music contracts. Music ownership databases are created from the idea that with more transparency about the owners of musical compositions, the lower the costs become to create and use music. For example, a [[Derivative work|derivative license]] is needed when a portion of a piece of music is used in a different piece, which is a common practice in [[hip hop music]], among other genres. In American copyright laws, a derivative work must have permission from every owner of the original work. If it is not known who the original owner of the work was and artists use it anyway, then they can be sued for [[copyright infringement]]. A music ownership database, major industry players speculate, would eliminate this problem. This is apparent through the amount of time and money spent in attempting to create this database.

{{Orphan|date=October 2019}}

'''Music ownership databases''' are lists of the owners of [[Musical composition|compositions]] and the people who representsrepresent them. Often, a piece of music will have more than one owner. This is caused by [[Publishing contract|Publishing contracts]]s, co-writing, band contracts, label deals, and similar music contracts. Music ownership databases are created from the idea that with more transparency about the owners of musical compositions, the lower the costs become to create and use music. For example, a [[Derivative work|derivative license]] is needed when a portion of a piece of music is used in a different piece, which is a common practice in [[hip hop music]], among other genres. In American copyright laws, a derivative work must have permission from every owner of the original work. If it is not known who the original owner of the work was and artists use it anyway, then they can be sued for [[copyright infringement]]. A music ownership database, major industry players speculate, would eliminate this problem. This is apparent through the amount of time and money spent in attempting to create this database.

== Earlier attempts ==

===International Music Joint Venture===

The International Music Joint Venture (IMJV) started in 1998. It was the first joint partnership to create a database between multiple different [[Collective rights management|collective management organizations]] (CMOs). [[BUMA/STEMRA]] (Netherland), [[PRS for Music|PRS]] (UK) and [[American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers|ASCAP]] (USA) were the founders.<ref>{{cite journalthesis|last1=Kefalas|first1=Andreas|title=The Relevance of Traditional Collective Management Organisations in the Digital Age|journalpublisher=University of Agder |type=Master's Thesisthesis|date=2017 |accessdatehdl=7 December 201711250/2457424}}</ref>. The database was supposed to be created using the [[metadata]] storestored on [[Utrecht]] and [[London]] computers. IMJV invited many CMOs like [[Sociedad General de Autores y Editores|SGAE]] (Spain),<ref>{{cite news|last1=Llewellyn|first1=Howell|title=SGAE Pledges to Work with IMJV|accessdate=7 December 2017|agency=Billboard|date=April 17, 1999}}</ref>, [[Broadcast Music, Inc.|BMI]] (USA) and [[Harry Fox Agency]], but for one reason or another many organizations did not join. Problems started to rise because IMJV was a way for STEMRA to move around employees they could not fire because of the laws in Holland at the time. When IMJV invited [[GEMA (German organization)|GEMA]] (Germany), they refused because they would have to fire their staff because the deal required STEMRA staff to take their place. Smaller CMOs started to believe that they would become redundant if IMJV launched. The larger CMOs who had already joined became reluctant to reduce their status and profitability by releasing the information for their repertoire.<ref name="A Division of Music Sales Limited">{{cite book|last1=Hardy|first1=Phil|title=Nickels and Dimes: Music Publishing and How It Works|date=2013|publisher=A Division of Music Sales Limited|___location=14-15 Berners Street, London|accessdate=7 December 2017}}</ref>. In late 2001, the initiative dissolved without a single operating office.<ref>{{cite journal|title=IMJV Dissolved - SOCAN Remains Committed to State-of-the-Art Technology Development|journal=Words and Music|date=2002|volume=Vol. 9|issue=No. 2|pages=24|accessdate=7 December 2017}}</ref>. At its peak, IMJV represented 21% of the world’sworld's music.

===International Music Registry===

In 2011, the International Music Registry (IMR) launched. This was a database headed by the [[World Intellectual Property Organization]] (WIPO).<ref name="transparency">{{cite journalweb |last1=Rethink Music |title=Transparency and Payment Flows in the Music Industry |pages=21-2521–25 |url=https://www.berklee.edu/sites/default/files/Fair%20Music%20-%20Transparency%20and%20Payment%20Flows%20in%20the%20Music%20Industry.pdf |accessdateaccess-date=7May 26, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151223234155/https://www.berklee.edu/sites/default/files/Fair%20Music%20-%20Transparency%20and%20Payment%20Flows%20in%20the%20Music%20Industry.pdf |archive-date=December 201723, 2015}}</ref>. IMR was a database not only for composition but also for recordings. [[Google]] agreed to fund WIPO early on, but WIPO broke their partnership after they thought the alliance would give Google too much power. Instead, WIPO tried to fund the project themselves. In-fighting among the different powerhouses like [[Recordrecord label| record labels]]s and [[Musicmusic publisher (popular music)|publishing houses]] caused the IMR to collapse.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Hardy|first1=Phil|title=Nickels and Dimes: Music Publishing and How It Works|date=2013|publishername="A Division of Music Sales Limited|___location=14-15 Berners Street, London|accessdate=7 December 2017}}<"/ref>.

===Global Repertoire Database===

The Global Repertoire Database was started by the PRS onin September 2008.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Milosic|first1=Klementina|title=GRD’sGRD's Failure|journal=Music Business Journal|date=August 2015|accessdate=7 December 2017}}</ref>. This database had representatives from publishing houses, record labels, Google, [[iTunes]], Monifone, and had a total of 13 CMO’sCMO's: [[Australasian Performing Right Association|APRA]] (Australasia), ASCAP, BMI, BUMA, GEMA, PRS, [[STIM]] (Sweden), [[Société des auteurs, compositeurs et éditeurs de musique|SACEM]] (France), [[Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada|SOCAN]] (Canada), [[SABAM]] (Belgium), SGAE, [[SIAE]] (Italy) and [[Escritório Central de Arrecadação e Distribuição|UBC]] (Brazil). More than 80 organizations participated in the initiative.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Smirke|first1=Richard|title=Global Repertoire Database HQ to be Based in London and Berlin|url=https://www.billboard.com/biz/articles/news/global/1561367/global-repertoire-database-hq-to-be-based-in-london-and-berlin|accessdate=7 December 2017|date=May 12, 2013}}</ref>. This database was never meant to be for public use, but as a Global Database for music industry major players.<ref>{{cite journal|last1name=Rethink"transparency" Music|title=Transparency and Payment Flows in the Music Industry|pages=21-25|url=https://www.berklee.edu/sites/default/files/Fair%20Music%20-%20Transparency%20and%20Payment%20Flows%20in%20the%20Music%20Industry.pdf|accessdate=7 December 2017}}</ref>. Due to some CMOs pulling their support from the initiative, GRD went from having guaranteed financial support to having 8 million euros of [[Investment|investment]] scrapped.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Cooke|first1=Chris|title=PRS confirms Global Repertoire Database “Cannot”"Cannot" Move Forward, Pledges to Find “Alternative"Alternative Ways”Ways"|url=http://www.completemusicupdate.com/article/prs-confirms-global-repertoire-database-cannot-move-forward-pledges-to-find-alternative-ways/|website=Complete Music Updata|accessdate=7 December 2017}}</ref>.

== Current American Attemptsattempts ==

===Transparency of Music License Ownership Act===

The Transparency of Music License Ownership Act [[Bill (law)|bill]] was introduced to the [[United States House of Representatives]] on July 20, 2017, by Jim Sensenbrenner and [[Suzan DelBene]]. It creates a database with the ability to enforce participation by law. Like most [[Legislation|legislation]] today, there are people who support this bill and people who oppose against this bill. The people who are in support after the Transparency of Music License Ownership Act say that it will help the music industry grow by cutting costs caused by misinformation and intermediaries.<ref>{{cite web|title=A Vibrant Music Licensing Marketplace|url=http://mic-coalition.org/news-posts/transparency-music-licensing-ownership-act-promotes-vibrant-music-licensing-marketplace/|website=Music InnovationConsumers|accessdate=7 December 2017}}</ref>. The opposition against this bill believes that the legislation would limit the ability for copyright owners to sue for infringement.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Flanagan|first1=Andrew|title=New Bill Calling For Transparency In Music Is Surprisingly Opaque|url=https://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2017/08/01/540655528/new-bill-calling-for-transparency-in-music-is-surprisingly-opaque|website=NPR|accessdate=7 December 2017}}</ref>.

===ASCAP and BMI Database===

On July 26, 2017, ASCAP and BMI announced a joint database between both organizations, a project that has been in the works for the past year. The first phase, a searchable database, will roll out the first quarter of 2018. 90% of music in the USA is represented by these two organizations. Groups of people in that industry are excited for this much information to be on one database.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Aswad|first1=Jem|title=ASCAP and BMI Join Forces on Comprehensive Song Database|url=https://variety.com/2017/music/news/ascap-and-bmi-join-forces-on-comprehensive-song-database-1202507071/|website=Variety|accessdate=7 December 2017|date=2017-07-26}}</ref>. At the same time, many have mentioned that the database is incomplete because it does not include music from the CMOsCMO [[SESAC]] (USA) or Global Music Rights (USA).<ref>{{cite webmagazine|last1=Christman|first1=Ed|title=Inside the Music Publishing World's Epic Struggle to Build a Single Song Database|url=https://www.billboard.com/biz/articles/7889691/inside-the-music-publishing-worlds-epic-struggle-to-build-a-single-song|websitemagazine=Billboard|accessdate=7 December 2017|date=2017-08-02}}</ref>. House Representative Jim Sensenbrenner, among others in the industry, have suggested ASCAP and BMI cannot be trusted because of their past withdrawing from the GRD causing it to collapse.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Sanchez|first1=Daniel|title=War Erupts Over Whose Global Music Rights Database Is Better|url=https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2017/08/04/riaa-ascap-bmi-congress-shared-music-database/|website=Digital Music News|accessdate=7 December 2017|date=2017-08-04}}</ref><ref>{{cite webmagazine|last1=Christman|first1=Ed|title=ASCAP-BMI Song Database Plan Rollout Questioned|url=https://www.billboard.com/articles/business/7881962/ascap-bmi-database-rollout-plan-controversy|websitemagazine=Billboard|accessdate=7 December 2017}}</ref>

===RIAA and NMPA Database===

Soon after ASCAP and BMI announced their database, RIAA and NMPA came forward with the information that they have also been working on the database between their two organizations. RIAA and NMPA said they purposely excluded ASCAP and BMI because they believed inviting them would cause a hindrance to the overall goal.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Sanchez|first1=Daniel|title=A US Congressman Just Called ASCAP+BMI’sBMI's Shared Database a Scam|url=https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2017/07/27/mic-coalition-ascap-bmi/|website=Digital Music News|accessdate=7 December 2017|date=2017-07-27}}</ref>. At the same time, publishers in the music industry have expressed doubt about the ability of RIAA and NMPA to create a database without any CMOs.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Dredge|first1=Stuart|title=RIAA And NMPA Working On Their Own Song-Database Project|url=http://musically.com/2017/08/03/riaa-nmpa-working-song-database-project/|website=Musically|accessdate=7 December 2017}}</ref>s.

== Current Tech Solutions ==

=== Blokur ===

[[Blokur]], founded in 2017, has created a music copyright database to help music publishers get paid accurately through better rights data and music users to identify and clear rights. According to Blokur 70% of the music publishing sector uses Blokur to manage their rights and to benefit from automatic conflict reconciliation.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Dredge|first=Stuart|date=29 October 2019|title=Publishing-rights platform Blokur emerges from beta mode - Music Ally|url=https://musically.com/2019/10/29/publishing-rights-platform-blokur-emerges-from-beta-mode/|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=2020-06-19|website=Musically}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title=Blòkur - Better rights data|url=https://blokur.com/|access-date=2020-06-22|website=blokur.com|language=en}}</ref>

== ReferenceReferences ==

<references />