tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4513524515428334509.post3774835317890621704..comments2024-03-26T10:41:35.852+00:00Comments on The 1709 Blog: Eminem on iTunes – distribution agreement or licence?Marie-Andree Weisshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17125973798789498436noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4513524515428334509.post-60855749671988136292010-09-14T11:57:42.399+01:002010-09-14T11:57:42.399+01:00The word 'ambiguous' turns up in another U...The word 'ambiguous' turns up in another US case in a similar context - here a claim by reggae artist Bob Marley's family to regain control of Marley's sound recording copyrights from Universal (successors in title to Island Records) and a second claim that they were being underpaid digital royalties. The copyright claim failed, with District Judge Denise Cote holding that the recordings were made as 'works for hire' and UMG were the statutory owner and author of such. But she left the matter of the royalties [ubnder]paid open. Although denying the plaintiffs summary judgment, Judge Cote accepted that "Thus, it is ambiguous whether royalties for digital downloads are governed by Paragraph 2(c) of the 1992 Royalties Agreement or by Paragraph 11 of the Royalty Schedule" - on as the licebcfe of masters - one as th e sale of records - in an echo of the 'Eminen' case.<br /><br />I also noted that Random House have agreed unilaterally agreed a higher digital royalty rate with its authors for sales as e-books (albeit it the face of a dispute with some of its writers). See the Guardian, Monday 13th September, Media Section, page 1.<br /><br />http://www.scribd.com/doc/37357484/Bob-Marley-Fifty-Six-Hope-Road-Music-v-UMG-Recordings-S-D-N-Y-Sept-10-2010ben challishttp://www.musiclawupdates.comnoreply@blogger.com