Copyright law 35 years later

[joostone]

I was listening to Jeff Ament's recent conversation with Tim Palmer about Ten, and something Jeff said caught my attention: he mentioned that they should be getting some of their copyright back. He mentioned that under US law bands get some back after 35 years.

That got me digging into the US copyright termination rules — specifically Section 203, which can allow authors to terminate certain copyright transfers after 35 years and potentially regain control of those rights..

Ten is now 35 years old, with Vs. coming up in 2028, Vitalogy in 2029, No Code in 2031, etc. So we're entering the period where some of the band's earliest agreements could potentially become relevant.

Obviously, it's not as simple as "an album is 35 years old, therefore Pearl Jam gets the rights back." The actual contract dates matter, as do the specific rights that were transferred, the distinction between song copyrights and sound recording/master rights, and whether particular material qualifies under the termination provisions. All the legal bla bla matters here.

Could Pearl Jam potentially start reclaiming some of the rights to their early catalog from Sony/Epic?

And if so, what exactly could they get back? The songwriting copyrights? The master recordings? Both? Would they have more incentive to release outtakes and stuff?

Given that Jeff himself has now brought up getting some copyright back, I'm wondering if anyone here knows more about stuff like this.

The timing certainly seems interesting.

[VinylGuy]

im not sure how it works for them, specially with all the masters from the Epic era.

[tragabigzanda]

Typical structure is the label owns the master recording and any licensing revenue generated from that.
The songwriters split the publishing revenue on the composition, with the label's publishing arm, 50/50.

So if a son generates $100:

$50 - to Epic Records/Sony Music for the master recording
$25 - to Sony/ATV Music Publishing
$25 - to the band to be divvied up internally according to their own internal arrangement

Two things that I seem to recall, but am honestly fuzzy on:

1. There was some discussion that when the band left Sony, they were able to take the masters with them. I don't know if that meant the master RIGHTS, or just literally the reels of tape so they could own them and archive them, with the label still owning the revenue stream. The quote by Jeff points at the latter.

2. That Five Against One book stated that Eddie was taking a larger cut of the publishing revenue as early as Vs, with the remainder to be split amongst the other four. I have no idea if this was every revised, but if you look their songs up in the UMPG catalog, the songwriting claims are inconsistent (typically on a per-song basis).

[spike]

Regarding #2, I think since Eddie was writing all the lyrics, they gave him more of the publishing.

[bodysnatcher]

No wonder these guys almost broke up

[joostone]

2. That Five Against One book stated that Eddie was taking a larger cut of the publishing revenue as early as Vs, with the remainder to be split amongst the other four. I have no idea if this was every revised, but if you look their songs up in the UMPG catalog, the songwriting claims are inconsistent (typically on a per-song basis).

If I remember correctly that split wasn't about publishing revenue, but earnings from touring. That was equally divided, so each got 20%. They all gave 1% to Ed. So it became 24% for Eddie and 19% for the other guys.

[Simple Torture]

Ten: Eddie's Version

[rick malone]

If they need a cash infusion, Bruce Springsteen sold his publishing and master recordings to Sony Music for $500 million.

[Clem Halibut]

I don't know...makes sense to give Ed a bigger cut
He's the money