Developing Fast': Britain Facing...
News1 min ago
No best answer has yet been selected by Dandy1. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.Music copyright laws are a nightmare and desperately need revising and the grey areas, legally defined. A mobile DJ is supposed to pay PRS & PPL fees to play records in public (why not just use one organisation, talk about job creation). The DJ has bought and owns the CD etc and never claims to be the copyright owner. Everyone knows that the DJ would not be the copyright owner of an Elvis Presley record for instance. That same DJ could buy a painting by a famous artist (Van Gogh etc), and exhibit it to the public without the same problems. Whether they charged a fee to enter the building and view the painting or not.The purchaser of the painting owns it and can publicly show it. In fact under tax laws, you can get a tax break exactly for doing this as the work is considered to be publically accessable. It seems that only music copyright can get away with being so aloof and arrogant, book publishing and picture artwork can't get away with it to the same extent.
Let us assume that I go to my local shop and buy a CD single that is No1 in the music chart. What EXACTLY do I own to do with as I wish? Not the music or the artwork on the cover. So what?