During these times of hardship, this new concept is an attractive investment for many. This article explains the platform in which copyright usage fees are distributed by sharing a percentage of music copyright usage fees. Although it is still a relatively unfamiliar concept, the service has been available since July 2017. Since its inception, more than 700 songs have been traded. Reading numerous articles about the participation of famous well-known musicians, the 230,000 users, and earnings of 7.4% a year, I feel like jumping on board. How can such a business model be even possible where ordinary people can receive copyright fees from their favorite music? According to the information that has been released, the platform company offers its shares to the public through an online auction after receiving rights from the copyright holder. Then, according to the share rates, fees are paid based on the usage of the music. Initially, the concept may seem easy to understand. But it is a bit more complex as there are more than three concepts related to copyright that one needs to understand. It is important to understand who is the copyright holder, what it means to transfer copyright, and how much copyright fees for sound sources are incurred. From there, one needs to determine whether it is worth the investment.
Articles explaining the copyright royalty sharing platforms mention “the evolution of the fandom,'” adding that distributing shares of the copyright payments to support artists, or artists and fans sharing copyright fees form closer relationships. Sharing music copyright fees can also help support for your favorite artists. Apart from the company's actual contract details, investments by fans in music copyright do not directly generate monetary profits for the singer. This is because the copyright holder is not a singer but a lyricist and composer. Copyrights belong only to those who create the song.
The sound source creator is a lyricist and a composer, and the singer is the “performer” who sang the created piece. If you are a singer-songwriter who writes and composes, you receive a copyright fee. However, a singer who only sings is not a copyright holder. Therefore, there is no copyright fee. But, there is no need for singers and fans to be too upset. A singer has a “copyright” as the performer. To be clear, copyrights and neighboring rights are similar. But because they are different concepts, the case of incurring royalties is not the same. For example, if BTS's “Dynamite” sound source is used in a radio broadcast, a copyright fee is incurred for both the creator and the performer. This is because both music and singing are used to create the sound. However, if “Dynamite” is sung along with the accompaniment in a karaoke room, there is no charge for using adjacent copyright rights to the performer, BTS. It is worth remembering that neighboring rights are more limited than copyright.
After receiving the copyright from the holder, the copyright usage fee-sharing platform offers the shares that can receive the copyright usage fee in the form of stocks with the general public. From the moment the copyright holder signs the copyright transfer agreement, the copyright holder becomes a platform company. Since there are various types of copyright contract relations, the service is not impossible simply because the copyright holder does not transfer all of the copyrights. If the platform company is not the copyright holder, not only does the platform company have limited rights, but they are also beholden to the copyright holder. You may also risk a potential breach. The user can use the work only within the range permitted by the copyright holder. Even if the license is obtained in advance, the user's opinions and the copyright holder do not always coincide with the extent of use. For companies that provide copyright-related services, it is essential to provide various types of assistance after all copyrights are transferred.
If you understand the ideas related to copyright transfer, let's take a moment to think of another situation. When you think of the words “cloud bread,” they may elicit some anger within you. This is due to the unfairness of the copyright transfer agreement. In the case of the Lee Sang-Literature Award, the provision of the transfer of copyright became an issue, resulting in the rejection of the award. After a series of events, the notion of handing over copyrights to many creators was decidedly a big problem. As mentioned, if you transfer copyright, you can no longer exercise your rights as the copyright holder. So unless you carefully examine what rights are transferred and under what conditions, it is difficult to argue that you did not know the details of the contract or state that it was unfair after an incident takes place.
It is important for both parties to accurately recognize which rights are transferred in what ways, rather than focusing on the "red tape.” Copyright holders can actively use the copyright transfer agreement for profit. But hold on. The copyright we are talking about right now is, to be precise, “Intellectual Property Rights.” Copyright consists of the author's property rights and moral rights, but only the author's property rights can be transferred. This is reflected in the word "personality,” which is the author's moral rights (meaning the author's right to pursue mental and personal interests in his/her work) and cannot be transferred by contract. Even if the “copyright transfer agreement” is signed, the copyright's moral rights remain with the creator.
If you read this article and think, "I'm going to sign up for this service right now and become a copyright holder," I ask you to wait as an important explanation is missing. The copyright transfer agreement applies only to the relationship between the copyright holder and the platform operator. Subscribers to this service do not receive copyrights but only have a stake in distributing copyright usage fees. The company stipulates that users share the “right to earn copyright usage fees,” not copyrights. Users can receive revenue but cannot exercise their rights as copyright holders. Isn't it strange that companies that have transferred copyrights from copyright holders for free sales activities can share copyrights with so many?
Thanks to the Donghak ant (small stock investors in Korea), the Korea Composite Stock Price Index (KOSPI) jumped to the 3,100-point level. The Millennial generation has been described as "the emergence of new investors." Many newcomers looking for investment opportunities will be curious about the music copyright fee-sharing service. So how much can they earn money? There is no right answer to this question. However, if we understand the mechanism of revenue generation, we can make an investment plan. Copyright fees occur whenever work is used. Music copyright fees vary, such as when albums are sold, performances, downloading music, streaming services, printing music, printing music, singing in karaoke, sports stadiums, department stores, large discount stores, cafes, bars, etc. It should also be noted that the collection of copyright fees varies depending on the type of use, with albums collecting about 9% of the forwarding price and music concerts collecting about 3% of the sales. If the sound source is not used legally, there is no copyright fee.
Most of the copyright questions tend to be focused on whether someone can make money and how much. The media publishes articles about the top five copyright revenues. Copyrights are recognized for up to 70 years after the death of a copyright holder. It is invaluable when a brilliant piece of work can maintain popularity. However, as I recall, a few years ago a company did an analysis of a music chart for 25 weeks. There was not a single case that continued to be ranked No. 1 on the weekly chart for more than three weeks in a row. So in conclusion, I would like to ask that you not think of this as an article written as a criticism or complaint about the new service. I simply request that you don't look at music as an asset.(*This article states that actual contractual relationships or service delivery mechanisms may differ because they are written only by public information.)