Mid Year Concert Grosses

[honeyrose]

According to the latest Mid Year Concert Grosses from Pollstar, just released on Jul 11, Leonard's tour had grossed $3.7m. Not bad when you consider he is mostly playing quite small venues and of course it is not over yet.

[Bela]

Good for him! L'Oréal would say it's 'because he's worth it.' Performing again at the O2 should help too.

There was an interesting article in the London Evening Standard on Thursday about Kelly Lynch and what she did to him. I understood from it that the reason why he was broke was that she sold the rights to his entire back catalog to Sony and he will now not get any royalties from sales/performances of his 'classics'. Lots of people here, on the forum, were up in arms when they were told that he supposedly had said he didn't want the Glastonbury gig filmed by the BBC (or any other TV co.). They felt it was kind of arrogant of him, (yeah, that sounds like LC, doesn't it: he's such an arrogant man! LOL!) Could the reason have been that he would have had to pay huge amounts of royalties to Sony if it had been broadcast - since most of the songs he performs on this tour are 'classics'?

[Waxy's Dargle]

Bela,
That's interesting information & a savvy interpretation of the Glastonbury video ban! The music business world seems indeed to be inhabited by voracious sharks or are they pirahanas?

As he no longer gets any royalties for his back catalogue I believe this information should be spread wide & far lest his fans believe that they are in some way supporting LC by buying the older CDs. I guess this only applies to all CDs before Ten New Songs?

[Steve Wilcox]

That advice is not necessarily correct. You have to differentiate between the work of "Leonard the songwriter" and "Leonard the recording artist".

Although there are many ways deals can be made, normally when an artist sells the copyrights to their original compositions they do not also sell the copyrights to their recordings of that material. Since Leonard has sold the copyrights to his material up to a certain date, then Sony would get all the "mechanical rights" which are paid to the one who holds the copyright (the right to copy) when an artist records any of that material or a radio station plays any of those recordings.

The recording artist who records Leonard's material, be it KD Lang, Bono or Leonard himelf, gets the royalties generated by the sale of the recording based on the number of units sold. So, buying Leonard's old recordings likely still pays him, the recording artist, royalties based on sales. The copyright holder, now Sony, would get the "mechanical rights" which may be a lump sum payment or payment based on units sold.

[tomsakic]

Bela is right - and BBC knew for months they cannot broadcast Leonard Cohen show. As far I got it (as this talk was repeated here over last two years or so), there are royalties (copyrights) - which Leonard does not have anymore for all his songs up to Ten New Songs (in one of the interviews, Leonard said that the reason why he agreed to sell the complete back catalogue was because he didn't know he's getting paid 800,000 every year from European airplay time and CD sales and covers) - and "performing rights" (the original recording of material, with his voice). LC has now only performing rights for his back catalogue (that means, sales of old CDs, including remasters, and provision from the radio playing is not going to him anymore as to the author of those songs - his company Stranger Music Inc., which had all LC songs on the catalogue, was sold to Sony -; he also doesn't control where the song can be used, who can cover it etc.). That's the reason why there's no Austin City Limits DVD (although Austin TV wants to make it), or remasters edition, etc. I guess Sony still can't do much without LC's permission, as they're obviously not capable in selling the TV rights of the tour, or make new remasters, but only to repackage the old stuff in new box (titled The Collection). I am glad that LC still has some control over his catalogue, and he has the right to be little upset, doesn't he... Waxy Dargle has right - Leonard's incomes from the tour are tickets+merchandise.

[Rabbit]

Although I don't really understand the mechanics of the situation, an excellent source has previously informed me that Leonard still receives royalties for his older recorded material. For example, if you go and buy yourself that promised copy of the remastered Songs Of Love And Hate, Leonard's pocket eventually benefits by about 50c (US, of course). Thank the carnivorous music industry for the pitiful total, but at least something gets to Leonard.

[Steve Wilcox]

an excellent source has previously informed me that Leonard still receives royalties for his older recorded material.

That is very likely the case as, as I stated, when a writer sells the copyright to their compositions they would typically retain their recording copyrights and still receive income based on sales. If not, they would still be paid as the performing artist. If you're Britney Spears, even 50 cents per unit adds up.

he also doesn't control who can cover it

It's my understanding of copyright that no composer controls nor can limit who can cover a song. Once a song is recorded and released OR even just performed publicly by the composer it is considered to be released to the public and from then on anyone can cover it; all the copyright ensures is that the holder will be paid - the idea that permission is required to release a cover song is, to my knowledge, not the case.

Leonard's incomes from the tour are tickets+merchandise

Of course these are the incomes from his tour - there are no other direct sources of income. But Leonard will also receive income from CDs and DVDs that are released in the tour's wake as he will own the rights to the performances, but he will have to pay Sony for using "their" songs.