- Journal Archives
- Volume 17
- Volume 16
- Volume 15
- Volume 14
- Volume 13
- Volume 12
- Volume 11
- Volume 10
- Volume 9
- Volume 8
- Volume 7
- Volume 6
- Volume 5
- Volume 4
- Volume 3
- Volume 2
- Volume 1
On November 16, 2010, the Fab Four’s legendary music became available on iTunes. CMUdaily recently reported that in order to secure The Beatles catalogue, iTunes may have struck an unusual deal. Typically, the wholesale price for every download sold is paid from the distributor (here, Apple, Inc., owner of iTunes) to the record company, which then passes on the mechanical royalty to the publisher and pays the artist any royalty pursuant to the recording contract. However, Apple, Inc., is allegedly paying the artist royalty directly to Beatles company Apple Corps, Ltd. and the mechanical royalty directly to Sony/ATV, publisher of most of The Beatles’ songs. This direct payment would mean that Apple Corps and Sony/ATV would receive a quicker and probably larger cut of the revenues. Some guess that Apple Corps may even be getting half of the wholesale fee for each download. That piece of the (apple) pie grows quickly — 2 million songs were sold in the first week, and the consumer price is set at $1.29 per song.
It is suggested that this set up is more like a licensing deal than a standard record sales agreement. However, EMI insists that the agreement was not a licensing deal. A handful of artists have proven unsuccessful in arguing that under their pre-Internet contracts, sales via iTunes constitute licensing. Generally, a license generates a higher royalty to artists than a conventional record sale agreement. Nevertheless, the issue was recently resolved in favor of the licensing interpretation in FBT Productions v. Aftermath Records. The question, however, is contract-based, and the “Apple to Apple” deal remains under wraps.
– Kelly Donley
Tagged with: Apple • Apple Corps • Beatles • CMUdaily • contracts • copyright • courts • creative content • download • EMI • FBT Productions v. Aftermath Records • intellectual property • internet • iTunes • lawsuits • licensing • mechanical royalty • media • music • record sales • Sony/ATV • technology
Recent Blog Posts
- The Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law Jumps Thirty-One Spots to Highest Ranking Ever
- Hiding Behind the Computer Screen: James Woods Files Defamation Lawsuit Against a Twitter User
- Let’s Enjoy Fantasy Football…While We Can
- Guest Post: Tweeting Away Patient Privacy
- Naturally Occurring or Mind-made?
- Does China’s 2022 Winter Olympics Song Intentionally Plagiarized ‘Frozen’s’ ‘Let It Go’?
Tagsadvertising antitrust Apple books career celebrities contracts copyright copyright infringement courts creative content criminal law entertainment Facebook FCC film/television financial First Amendment games Google government intellectual property internet JETLaw journalism lawsuits legislation media medicine Monday Morning JETLawg music NFL patents privacy progress publicity rights radio social networking sports Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) technology telecommunications trademarks Twitter U.S. Constitution