U.K. Enacts Artist Friendly Copyright Laws…

Copyright changes that go out of the way to protect artists?  Surprising.  Yet this is exactly what’s happening in the United Kingdom.

Artist-friendly copyright amendments were first voted on by the European Union parliament in 2009. They were then ratified in 2011, and in 2013 they are finally put into place.

The rules add another 20 years of copyright to sound recordings, going from 50 to 70 years.

United States copyright stands for 95 years.

Additionally, three new rules were put into place:

  1. Session Fund“: 20 percent of sales revenue will go to performers such as session musicians
  2. Clean Slate“: Does not allow producers to deduct from musician’s payments. Eliminates payment being taken out as royalty advancement.
  3. Use It or Lose It“: If works are not being “commercially exploited” musicians and performers can reclaim performance rights.

The U.K.’s Minister for Intellectual Property, Lord Younger said:

“These changes demonstrate the Government`s ongoing commitment to, and support for, our creative industries – who are worth billions to our economy.”


Image by stiefkind, licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0).

7 Responses

  1. Anonymous


    Not at all — a torrentfreak fan such as yourself should know that nobody fights piracy like the Brits right now.

  2. Paul Sanders

    Record labels own the copyrights to by far the majority of the recordings that the extension will benefit financially. The session fund cash & the use it or lose it clause were added to give artists something, as was the sunset on recoupment. No new money is coming into the system either, so the net result will be that old rich artists and large record companies will benefit at the expense of new and young artists and small record labels. Why else would the BPI & PPL have lobbied for the extension?

    • Xeroh machines everywhere

      You are a pathetic liar. The majority of recordings today are directly controlled by the creators, both for writer’s and publisher’s side.

      • DUDE

        Yeah but how many artists from the 60s are still commercially relevant today? 50? 100 maybe? Not very many, is the point

        Besides that the majority of those few aging but still valuable copyrights ARE held by major media corporations. That clause was written for their benefit so they could have an extra 20 years to milk their catalogs, and the rest of the rules are nice but relatively meaningless gestures to dress the important change up in ‘artist friendly’ clothing so itd go down easy

        A copyright term extension is the last thing artists need, this headline is a little misleading