|
|
Should ALL artists receive a royalty from the sales of whatever their music is played on?
Here is some of what u had 2 say:
Of Course
Now that's a simple question!
Plain and simple answer: YES
being a musician myself (hobby) I know how
artists feel about music: something you own,
a part of yourself. Surely, you want to share it
with people, but if anybody wants to make money
with your music, it's only fair if you get some percentage of
it. Because without the artist, there's no music.
I'm sure EVERY musician would love to "donate" his music
to charitable occasions, but if somebody makes money, the artist
should receive something of it.
to charitable oc
If a person decides to share their talent of thought and rhyme and this is obviously appreciated with it's regularity of air cover.
This is an intimacy they have cared to share to make a difference to people, this may bring many different feelings to many different people.
This power to create these feelings should truly be rewarded and these artists should be rewarded for their talent in providing this magic.
of course they should. The internet literally helping artist money seep through the cracks. It's quite easy to find an entire album (released as early as a month or two ago) on the net, download the files and then burn it to your own disk with a $100-300 CD burner. You can literally create whatever you want, distribute this to friends and family in the form of non-profit gifts and the desire to hear your favarite artist is quenched. It puts the artist at a great loss. How this can be monitored I don't know. I personally don't participate in any of this but I know if I wanted an artist music, there is a large underground network and I can easily obtain it.
Therefore, artist should definitely be payed royalties on where ever their music is played.
A better question is: if U create something, Y should any1 else reap the profits? Even worse... MORE PROFITS??? However, in response 2 the original question, YES, *ALL* artists should receive royalties on their work, but with emphasis on the word 'artist' - i.e. the people producing and writing the music/art - those performers without all of the talent that got them up on stage should receive equal royalties to that of the real creator of the work. Which, obviously, doesn't apply 2 O(+> - who's responsible from the birth of a song to its full development. Peace!
Absolutely. Enough said.
the creator of n e particular thing should have the right to set the conditions on how that which was created by she or he,to be used, and that does mean royalties, if the creators so desire, at least he should be given that respect...
I do think all artist should recieve royalties from the sales of their music, because music is art, and Artist's usually dont give their pictures away!!
Yes, I believe they should, but only if it's true art. By "true art", I mean art that was created from the heart and soul. Not created for the sake of turning a profit. It's no longer art, just a product for finacial gain and I don't believe in creating "art" for money.
Yes. But first off, one shouldn't even use another's creation without prior consent. The creation belongs to the Creator!
Yes, a royalty should be paid to the artist.However it should be on a scale of how much involvment they had in the creation of the music.
If no one is making money off of it, then NO, they should NOT have to pay anything...
music is a form of freedom... supposedly
Why not? Don't record companies?
yes i also dont work 4 free.they make money with
your creation.
yes--the creator should
benefit from the use of
their gifts.
of course they should. it's their creation, their child. if the musicians of the world worked in an office environment, would it be right if they did all the work and a co-worker took the credit for it, thereby receiving a raise and a promotion while the real worker receives nothing? no. same deal with the music, those who create, not immitate, should be profiting from their works as long as and whenever their works r used.
Luke 10:7 B clause says
"for the labourer is worthy of his hire."
It is our God given right to reap the benefits of our Labour.It is truly unfair for someone else to recieve ROYALTY from the work of another. If it is that the other party is a part of a mutual agreement between the artist and the system that is another story. As an independant artist I will just make the record forget about the deal.Much props to The Artist for not Punkin out and allowing the system to rape him of his Inheritance from God.
A car once it has been used cannot
just be assumed for use by someone
else at their leisure as with a house or
any other physical property. Though
recorded music mediums are not
essentially tangible in a physical sense,
each piece of music has an "owner", it's
creator. and as with anything else that
is created, mass produced and sold, the
owner should be compensated. its just
that simple.
Yes of course it's yours.
Why wouldn't it be?
You wrote it,put it together,and it took your time to do it.
Yes, during the lifetime of the artist. After that, public domain. Artists can pass along money to their heirs, but music, ultimately, wants to be free. Still, we all gotta earn a living while we're here.
Yes, during the lifetime of the artist. After that, public domain. Artists can pass along money to their heirs, but music, ultimately, wants to be free. Still, we all gotta earn a living while we're here.
i think that artists should get a percentage of blank cd and tape sales. i voted for this years ago.
Yes! The work of an artist is HIS. It came from within HIM, transformed by HIM, performed by HIM. ANd if he sells it or just for its mere existance, its played by ANYONE, some reward, some royalty SHOULD be paid to that artist.
I think they should.
LOVE4ONEANOTHER----Cookie
OF COURSE! If the playing of the artist's song or music is used 2 sell something, that artist should recieve royalties! If someone writes a "jingle" 4 a company, doesn't he or she recieve money 4 that "jingle?" Why should it B different 4 a song that has already been released?
its always nice to get paid for what u do and be able to control your own career..however..those things should not be the only focus..creation is the main focus of what u do..if i understand things correctly..anything else is politics..
All artists should recieve $ from their creations. I have thought this ever since I heard "Ice Ice Baby" from Vanilla Ice. I liked the song, but he used the bass line from Queen and David Bowie's "Under Pressure". I hope they got their fair share. Mr. Ice made it from that song, with help from Queen & Mr. Bowie. Mr. Ice owed them more than vocal, or written, credit. He owed them a check.
I would think it would be LOGIC/COMMON SENSE/A NO BRAINER to expect Artists to receive royalties from the sales of whatever their music is played on. I would've thought that would be part of a record deal if an Artist writes his own material. But even if the record company doesn't want to be involved, at the very least, there should be consideration between an Artist who wrote/previously recorded a song and another Artist who wants to use that song on another recording.
This whole thing is about creation, and the right to own what you create. I have a problem with how far one takes this. For example a culture like Native Americans never believes one actually never owned the land. They never understood how anyone can lay claim to land. It was given to them by the creator (God). Who owns the world we walk on? The creator...God...or us?
An Artists God given talents are given to him by the creator (God). So if he creates music with his "God Given talents" who really owns the music? Should it be sold?
So then the real question to you Prince is - should music be free? You once said that a song is like a child to you...eventually children go off on their own to evolve. You could of never created it without God.
A long time ago music was never sold. Perhaps your problem with todays music industry is your trying to mix into something you can't. You can't have it both ways.
Your heart knows the answer. Don't use your mind to figure this out.
I am musician and composer, but i am beginning. And in France, it's very difficult to protect his work when u haven't still send a disc. So i'm very afraid to make hear my songs to company because i don't know what they will do with that. Maybe give the song to another artist, a mainstream artist... and me i will have nothing. I think that the more difficult is to enter in the game. After we know the laws of the game and our quality and our success is a power to fight for our right. If O(+> wasn't a celebrity and known as a genius, he could never change his name and fight for his right. It's good that he can fight for those who can't still fight for themself. But soon I would be with u... Sure.
Peace, love and music are my key of life, I can only win!
I think once an artist has created the music, the music should belongs to that artist.
If that artist desires to give their music to the public, cool. But if the artist has not given permission for it to be played, or sampled, then yes the artist
should recieve a royalty. But if it's an artist that stole another artist's material-(I'm sure it happens)--then NO they should not receive a royalty.
Look what happened to Little Richard--getting pennies for his music because of an unfair contract. The man didn't have anyone to look out for him and he was greatly taken advantage of.
Seems simple enough to even a complex mind.If you use what's someone else's(or not yours)you must(should ),have permission to borrow,use,(or rent)prior to taking.If such is not d case;like my mother taught me very early on in life(it's called home training),"then u'r STEALING it.
NOTE: What "simple minds" find this simple question complex?
Yes, I think so. They have the right to receive something for their work, it is so in other bizz, so why not in this 1 ?
Peace
YES, OF COURSE, CAUSE RADIOSTATIONS ARE ALSO MAKING MONEY BY PLAYING THE MUSIC.
If the recorded work is an original
composition and a third-party is making
$$$ from this recording - YES.
BUT if u get artists such as Bone Thuggs
or Ginuine CONposing "Original" works:
NO!
PS. Check Prince's bank account after
the Sample series goes on sale!!! Lol.
Yes'one should get paid for his/her work indeed.
No future in reaping the fruits of another's blood,sweat and tears.
Without permission,one's knowledge.
Of course. :) Doesn't it just make sense that an ARTist would receive credit for his CREATION? Any other way would be robbery...a crime. This shouldn't even be an issue, but sadly it is...if people had respect it would be solved now.
Peace.
no, because I don't think that a painter gets any extra money for what wall his painting hangs on (after it's sold ) also I believe that music should be treated like other works of art (books, paintings, sculpture etc.) that is they should be made, admired and then sold to whomever bids to the musicians price. Also I think that since it's so expensive to make music compared to other art that maybe someone should find an less expensive way to make music.
eye feel that music is free once you have released it.
One can not claim for private copies of CDs or mp3 data, because music
oday is a result of what the artist has heard through his prior life.
Remember "One Song" You only let out what was once putten in.
True or not true.
This is my personal opinion.
if they are the ones who created it, than they should reap whatever benifits come of their art. for it was their time and effort that went into it, and it is their art
Yes I think in what ever
the medie form they should get paid
yes, artists should. musicians and all artists should stick together and work for the greater good - creating wonderful art for all to enjoy. it helps to encourage and further that idea if all the creators involved are rewarded for every part of their contribution.
Most certainly yesss.
Absolutely, every gifted and talented artist that pours their heart & soul into a song should be paid a VERY FAIR portion of whatever revenues are generated from the sales of said songs. I think that it is a supreme injustice for artists to be pimped and gamed on while record co. execs recieve large sums of money when they haven't invested an ounce of creative genius. I applaude you in your views, Peace and Love..mm
In a perfect world? Yes!But unfortunately the world isn't perfect.
Absolutely!!! It's their creation and THEY, above anyone else, should receive just compensation for that.
NO. All artists should NOT recieve a royalty from what ever their music is played on, unless someone is making PROFIT by playing that artists music. If NO profit is being made, then it is basically FREE ADVERTISING.....
Yes,a artist should recieve $ for any samples or any other use of his or her art. Do other paint artist's use samples of artwork on there painting's? I don't think so.
For a Publicity...yes ! Them must !
but, for others public listening (like party's, shops, bar's....NO ! the Music must be totally FREE ! for all of us !
when music created in love is played in One's heart and soul, there is no monetary tangible reward/royalty to that particular artist ~ the royalty is the perpetuation of Love to and from and with God. artists do need food ~ is the best food love? of course, having money in your pocket to eat is reassuring and comforting - at times. being able to hear and create music so that others can hear it in this wordly realm and beyond in the astral/heavenly world, truly is such a blessing. LiveLove.
Should ALL artists recieve a royalty from the sales of whatever their music is played on?
The answer is "yes". If you did not create the product you should not have the right to use it without some sort of purchase or agreement on the owners terms. I'm no lawyer, but this seems logical. But if the record company is the owner and not the creator...I believe it's a losing battle. The best thing to do is move on and learn from the experience and also to voice your option publicly about the distaste for the song using the music you created. Maybe someone will watch and learn from the road in which you travel, hence, a better future for those that follow in your foot steps. Thank You.
I firmly believe that artists should receive royalties when their work is purchased or played. However, I do not think that individual artists should get royalty checks whenever a radio, CD player or MP3 device is sold. Yet, if there was a fee which was attached to each device purchase that would go to a fund designed to help artists, then I would be in agreement of this.
Of course ! Without question.
The artists are the ones who's create the product. It's the artists that put their blood, sweat,and soul into their art. Without the Art there is no product.
Tricky Question...if artists use music to advertise themselves and ask stations to play on radio for "advertising" who pays who?
I think the more informed ALL Artists are, The better choices they can make, and then they can make that choice of how their royalties should be used...or advertised.
Unquestionably.
A man decides 2 open a restaurant 2 make money. He has 2 choices: go with name recognition or build his own clientele. Name recognition is easier and would turn a faster buck, he believes, so he opts 2 pay a FRANCHISE FEE and open a McDonald's. He is using another's work and recognizability 2 make his money, and he willingly pays 4 the rights 2 do so. Y should music and other creative art4ms b treated any differently, if the end result is someone making money off another's creations? Pay the creators, and pay them joyfully! Without creators those secondary suckas would be outta work.
YES,YES,YES
as far as bone thugs i heard that track and and as soon as i heard it i looked to see if they gave credit to the creator of lil red, they didnt. I find that sort of practice disgusting and degrading to real musicians everywhere..
yes I think the artists views r correct,the soul train speech,was all in all the truth,Ican imagine we owning all that we make money doing for example basketball football baseball, all those people come to c us entertain them and the white man gets all the $
Duh. Just make sure you didn't already sign an agreement to give up that right. If you agree to give up your rights, you're opening a whole 'nother can of worms -- and it isn't quite right to claim universal law when you've already made yourself subject to the man-made variety.
I believe that all artists should be compensated in some way if another uses their creation. And, if an artist wishes to give it away to his friends he should be allowed to. All artists should have control over their creations.
Damn straight they should!
Why, of course! Any form of artistic work sold within the commercial forum reap benefits, in which its bulk should go to the creator. In this particular case, we have The Artist, who has produced, composed, arranged, and performed on all aspects of his music since his debut in 1978. Not only shoud he receive the GREATER share of royalties, but should also own the master recordings. Please, forgive me in that I'm getting off the subject. In today's music industry in which such genre as Rap-Hip/Hop dominates the scene with samples of earlier work, people such as the before mentioned, Donny Hathaway, Miles Davis, George Clinton, and others should not only receive royalties from sales of whatever their music is played on,ie. NBA Showtime, Bone-Thugs In Harmony, etc., but should be given their JUST DUE for their contributions and influences on an entire generation of modern music.
Should ALL artists receive a royalty from the sales of whatever their music is played on?
Hmmm... hell yeah
The question SEEMS relatively simple. If the person/ artist is the genesis of a body of work and they have put the time and energy into that body of work,then they SHOULD reap the rewards. ACCOUNTABILITY ACCOUNTING. |
|
