US musicians low on copyright cash
US copyright laws are providing few direct financial benefits to musicians in the country, according to an academic study published in January.
The study, which surveyed 5,000 musicians in the US, showed that participants earned in the aggregate 12 percent of their revenue from sources directly linked to copyright. Of the remaining revenue, 78 percent of income came from indirect sources, while 10 percent came from both.
Professor Peter DiCola, who published the study, said the findings highlighted a “winner-takes-all” model in which copyright motivates musicians by promising large but rare rewards.
In the study—Money from Music: Survey Evidence on Musicians’ Revenue and Lessons About Copyright Incentives—DiCola and his colleagues at Northwestern University in Chicago asked 5,000 musicians “detailed” questions about their revenue sources.
Respondents allocated their music-related revenue from the previous 12 months into eight categories, including money from sound recordings (direct relationship to copyright) and fees from live performances (indirect relationship).
On the whole, the study found that copyright protection was not directly providing musicians with large amounts of money. For example, fees from sound recording accounted for 6 percent of total revenue on average, while those from live performances equalled 28 per cent.
The study found that composers in the “top income” bracket earned 68 per cent of their income from sources directly related to copyright. “This demonstrates that some sub-groups of musicians earn a sizeable portion of their revenue directly from copyrighted works,” said DiCola.
The professor said the study was part of an attempt to encourage better policy-making based on clearer evidence. Copyright enforcement, he said, was one way of promoting creativity but it may benefit the sub-group of musicians, who rely more on revenue directly linked to copyright protection, the most.
“Many other musicians would not feel much effect. To reach the broader population of musicians as well as those who benefit from copyright, more creative policy thinking is needed.”
He said other policies to incentivise creativity could include supporting music education in schools and local arts communities.
“Learning more about how copyright incentives actually function can help Congress reform copyright law in sensible ways—and also point out the need for policies beyond copyright that would benefit musicians and the listening public.”
DiCola says his conclusions about the financial benefits of copyright are “not unfamiliar”, but that his study is the first to support the views with empirical evidence on musicians’ revenue.
The report is available here.
