“Beatles being paid directly by iTunes in deal” plus 2 |
- Beatles being paid directly by iTunes in deal
- Liam Gallagher Channels Beatles in New Video
- Beatles Cut a Better iTunes Royalty Deal
| Beatles being paid directly by iTunes in deal Posted: 05 Jan 2011 06:20 PM PST NEW YORK (Billboard) – It seems that the EMI/Beatles deal that finally brought the Fab Four's catalog to iTunes may be more groundbreaking than originally thought. According to industry sources, iTunes is paying the Beatles' royalties from digital download sales in the United States directly to the band's company, Apple Corps, and is paying the songwriting mechanical royalties directly to Sony/ATV Music Publishing, which controls most of the Beatles' song catalog. That suggests the royalty split could be more lucrative for the Beatles than it would be under the typical provisions of a standard artist contract, which treat digital downloads as a retail sale. Under a standard contract, a label issues an album, licenses the songs from music publishers, collects all wholesale revenue from the retailers and then distributes royalties to the artist and the publisher. For superstar artists, the royalty typically equals about 20%-25% of retail revenue. So in the case of iTunes' Beatles sales, where tracks are sold to the merchant for about 90 cents and are retailed for $1.29, a standard contract with a typical superstar royalty rate of 20%-25% would pay the Beatles about 18 cents to 22.5 cents per track sale. But because iTunes is making royalty payments to the Beatles and Sony/ATV, EMI may be treating its deal with the digital retailer as a licensing pact. Under such deals, the licensee pays mechanical royalties directly to a publisher and revenue from use of a master recording is split evenly between an artist and a label, making it far more lucrative for the artist than a standard artist contract. An EMI spokesman declined to comment, as did Sony/ATV and representatives at Apple Corps and iTunes. And a high-placed source familiar with the deal insists that it's "absolutely incorrect" that the agreement between EMI and Apple Corps is a licensing deal. However one describes the EMI-iTunes deal for the Beatles' catalog, its similarities to a licensing pact put it at the center of a heated debate over the nature of download sales. Since the dawn of the digital age, artists, managers and labels have wrangled over whether a digital download purchase should be considered a licensed use of a master recording or a retail sale, much like the sale of a CD. Labels, of course, insist the latter designation is correct and have paid artist royalties accordingly. But some recording acts, like Cheap Trick and the Allman Brothers, have taken their labels to court claiming that sales of their downloads should be treated as licensing deals. While Cheap Trick ultimately settled with Sony, the Allman Brothers case is still ongoing. In another closely watched case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in September voided a jury's decision on the royalty split issue that was favorable to Universal Music Group and against F.B.T., the music company that Eminem was originally signed to before Universal picked up his contract. F.B.T. maintains that a digital download represents a licensing deal, which requires the higher royalty split. With the case sent back to the original court, UMG has filed a petition for the U.S. Supreme Court to review the lower court's decision. In addition to a potentially much more lucrative royalty rate, iTunes' direct payment of U.S. royalties to the Beatles and Sony/ATV would give the band greater accounting transparency over their iTunes sales than they would if EMI distributed the royalties. Other label/superstar contract negotiations have resulted in far costlier give-backs -- for example, acts like AC/DC and Garth Brooks negotiated the return of their master rights. Still, whether the agreement that put the Beatles on iTunes is a licensing deal or not, it's still significant that the Fab Four and their publisher are being paid directly by iTunes. U.S. music publishers lament that labels treat an iTunes download as a retail sale, because they want to be paid directly by any U.S. digital retailer selling downloads, rather than by a label. Likewise, it would be a singular deal, label and publishing sources say, for an artist on a label to be paid directly by the retailer for the sale of the artist's music. In practically every other known instance, the retailer pays the label, which in turn pays the artist royalty. (Editing by Zorianna Kit) This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read our FAQ page at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php |
| Liam Gallagher Channels Beatles in New Video Posted: 11 Jan 2011 09:46 AM PST Liam Gallagher doesn't hide his love away for the Beatles. He recently produced a new doc about the Fab Four, and he claims he's even haunted by Lennon's ghost. Liam's post-Oasis group Beady Eye just released a video for "The Roller," off their debut Different Gear, Still Speeding (out in February), and it's a straight-up Beatles homage, both musically and visually. The clip features an anthemic piano ballad with Liam sporting a shaggy moptop and playing rock'n'roll savior, rescuing distraught people while the band rocks out in numerous split frames, 1960s-style, like the Beatles, and a circus girl drives a motorcycle in circles. Like a nouveau Magical Mystery Tour… or something. Watch the video below, then tell us what you think in the comment section. This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read our FAQ page at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php |
| Beatles Cut a Better iTunes Royalty Deal Posted: 09 Jan 2011 09:40 AM PST The Beatles could be making much more money from selling their music on iTunes than other artists, it has been claimed.
The report also claims that songwriting mechanical royalties are paid directly to Sony/ATV Music Publishing, which owns the rights to most of the band's catalogue. None of the companies involved have made an official comment on the matter. However, if the sources cited in the report are correct, it could mean that the deals are far more lucrative for Apple Corps than standard artist-retailer deals. Usually when an album is released the record label -- which in this case would be EMI -- takes responsibility for licensing and collecting wholesale revenue from retailers, a percentage of which is then paid to the publisher and artists in the form of royalties. Big artists generally receive 20 to 25 percent. The sources claim that the deal between The Beatles and iTunes is more like a licensing pact, where revenue from use of a master recording is split evenly between an artist and the record label. Artists including Cheap Trick and the Allman Brothers have argued that digital download deals should be seen as a licensing pact rather than a standard arrangement and both took their record labels to court in an attempt to win what they saw as their fair share of royalties. The Cheap Trick case was settled out of court but the Allman Brothers' case is ongoing. The Beatles' music finally made it into iTunes in October 2010, after years of wrangling, which suggests that the final deal struck between both sides was anything but typical. However, we would again stress that these reports are unconfirmed. This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read our FAQ page at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php |
| You are subscribed to email updates from beatles - Yahoo! News Search Results To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
0 comments:
Post a Comment