JMC vs. WMG

Wow, just wow. A week ago when I was talking about EL&P I wrote the phrase "that's how the game works, losers. We own your copyrights, remember?"

Today, the story pops up that WMG literally told Jesus and Mary Chain that just because the Copyright Act of 1976 allows majority holders to nullify all grants after 35 years, doesn't mean they have to so, they won't. WMG literally said "no, you can't have the rights to your recordings back." That’s disgusting.

The reporting on Jesus and Mary Chain's suit against WMG is pretty terrible, so i had to actually go refresh my memory. Section 203 specifically deals with non works for hire. It is completely within the majority owner's right to nullify all grants between 35 and 40 years with written notice and effective nullification date. However, if as their label contends these albums are declared "works for hire," then JMC has no claim to ownership at all.

What's the distinction? Simply put, did JMC sell limited rights of distribution, mechanical reproduction, etc. to the label, or were they paid for their services of creating a body of music fully owned and controlled by their label? I haven't read their contract, but it's a pretty safe bet they signed away ownership of all rights in their contract. If it can be shown that the works in question were "for hire," then they will lose their lawsuit because the band owns 0% of those recordings.

It's possible that public sentiment would force WMG to consider voluntarily relinquishing these rights to avoid severe economic backlash, but that would be entirely out of their own generosity and concern for their bottom line. It's quite likely they'd run the numbers and decide that no amount of anger will tangibly hurt their wallets, and the sad truth is Warner probably owns 100% of all rights to the albums in question.

Still, disgusting.