{"id":6559,"date":"2025-02-24T13:15:35","date_gmt":"2025-02-24T12:15:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/cnmlab.fr\/?p=6559"},"modified":"2026-08-26T16:45:53","modified_gmt":"2026-08-26T14:45:53","slug":"i-refuse-to-be-on-a-slave-ship","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cnmlab.fr\/en\/short-wave\/i-refuse-to-be-on-a-slave-ship\/","title":{"rendered":"\u201cI Refuse to Be on a Slave Ship\u201d"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Summary<\/strong> <\/h2>\n\n\n\n

This chapter addresses three main subjects. First, it looks at the ownership of sound recording copyright. Legislation has been oriented so that record companies have control but artists are increasingly gaining ownership. In the process, they can gain superior royalty rates and have greater control of their work. Second, the chapter details benefits that artists can achieve by \u201cupstreaming\u201d or \u201cdownstreaming\u201d between different types of recording deal, taking advantage of record company support if it is necessary and being more entrepreneurial if it suits their needs. Third, the chapter looks at these issues in relation to gender, outlining difficulties that female artists encounter when they attempt to move between deals or gain ownership of copyright. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Introduction<\/strong> <\/h2>\n\n\n\n

In her 2022 recording \u201cAngel,\u201d Little Simz raps, \u201cI refuse to be on a slave ship \/ Give me all my masters and lower your wages.\u201d1<\/a><\/sup> She is addressing the subject of sound recording copyright, otherwise known as the \u201cmaster rights.\u201d Traditionally, these rights were always controlled by record companies but artists are increasingly able to claim ownership. Doing so can bring benefits. Artists can gain higher shares of revenue and have greater artistic control over their work. Hence Simz\u2019s proclamation that she is not a corporate slave. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

This chapter looks at the dynamic of master rights ownership through the lens of the British recording industry. It begins by outlining the basis of sound recording copyright laws and assessing how record companies and recording artists have been able to gain control. The chapter then examines rights ownership in relation to different types of recording agreement, looking at the balances that artists need to strike if they wish to gain ownership of copyright. This analysis is followed by a section that details how artists can \u201cupstream\u201d between deals to gain more support from company partners or \u201cdownstream\u201d towards independence. This flexibility is important, as artists can make financial gains by moving between deals at opportune times. Moreover, this applies both to making new recordings and in relation to the transfer of their old recordings, the latter of which is only possible if they own the rights. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The chapter then takes a significant turn. Until recently, the story of master rights ownership had been a predominantly masculine affair. The earliest artists to own them were all men. Similarly, the narrative of not owning rights has been led by male performers, including Prince\u2019s 1990s \u201cslave\u201d campaign that provides the genesis for Simz\u2019s lyric.2<\/a><\/sup> It is only since the sale of the copyright in Taylor Swift\u2019s first six albums in 2019 that female voices have come to the forefront. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

This subject is addressed by looking at the ability of female artists to move between deals. The chapter features case studies of artists who have progressed in different ways. Little Simz has \u201cupstreamed\u201d through distribution deals and services deals while maintaining ownership of her master rights. Kate Bush has moved in the opposite direction, making a pioneering turn \u201cdownstream\u201d to gain artistic and rights-owning control of her work. The chapter concludes by looking at contractual and career biases that female artists encounter, and contemplates ways to combat this gender asymmetry. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Master Rights Ownership and Recording Agreements<\/strong> <\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Owning the Masters<\/strong> <\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Sound recording copyright breaks with the norms of intellectual property laws. In respect of most types of artistic work the ownership of rights is granted to creative authors: the writers, artists and composers who make the work. The legislation for sound recordings has been oriented so that record companies have control. It has been awarded on \u201centrepreneurial\u201d grounds, with ownership granted to the person (whether an individual or body corporate) who takes the financial risk in making the recordings. This has been achieved in different ways across different territories, as it has had to accord with a variety of copyright philosophies. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The UK follows the main international agreement on this subject: the Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT), issued by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in 1996. The WPPT designates the \u201cproducer\u201d as the owner of the master rights. Legislatively, this term does not refer to studio-based production work, but instead to \u201cthe person, or the legal entity, who or which takes the initiative and has the responsibility for the first fixation of the sounds.3<\/a><\/sup>3<\/sup> Record companies have interpreted this as meaning the entity that organizes and pays for the recording sessions. It is on these grounds that they have staked a claim to these rights.4<\/a><\/sup> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The European Union has also adopted the WPPT and its \u201cproducer\u201d criteria for ownership. However, whereas the UK recognizes master rights within the main body of its copyright legislation, this is not the case for countries in continental Europe that have civil law traditions. Legislation in these countries is instead composed of two sets of rights: author\u2019s rights, which protect works of \u201chuman genius\u201d by awarding ownership to creators,5<\/a><\/sup> and neighboring rights, which are granted to the performers, broadcasters and recording-makers of creative works. Ownership of sound recording copyright is not granted on creative grounds; it is instead awarded for the organization and financing of recording sessions. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The US has also ratified the WPPT. However, rather than grant ownership of master rights to \u201cproducers,\u201d US copyright legislation instead recognizes the creativity of the recording process. Recording artists and studio personnel are regarded as co-authors: the former for the \u201cperformance [that] is captured\u201d; the latter for \u201ccapturing and electronically processing the sounds.\u201d6<\/a><\/sup> US record companies have nevertheless been able to gain control of these rights. They have utilized \u201cwork made for hire\u201d rules, the one exception in US law that enables the original ownership of copyright to be granted to \u201cthe employer or other person for whom the work was prepared\u201d rather than the creative authors.7<\/a><\/sup> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Despite these criteria, record companies have not monopolized the ownership of master rights. Recording artists undertake some of the entrepreneurial aspects of record making; consequently, it is possible for them to claim control. In many instances, recording artists pay for their recording sessions. They can therefore satisfy the WPPT\u2019s \u201cproducer\u201d criteria for ownership because they are taking \u201cresponsibility for the first fixation of sounds.\u201d In other instances, recording artists hire session musicians and studio personnel. Under the \u201cwork made for hire\u201d rules of US legislation they can therefore be regarded as employers and can own copyright on these grounds. The extent to which recording artists are financers and employers varies, however, and this is reflected in their ability to own the master rights. This status is codified in different types of recording agreement, as will be explored in the following section. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Recording Agreements<\/strong> <\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Ownership of master rights is only one aspect of recording agreements. It is balanced against other key features of deals, including advance payments, royalty rates, and promotional and marketing spend. This will be illustrated by outlining five types of deals, drawn from a document issued by the British Phonographic Industry (BPI). It should be noted that, while many territories provide similar agreements, the specificities of the terms relate to UK contracts.8<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The traditional recording agreement<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The first contract type is the traditional recording agreement. For many years this was the only option available to recording artists. Under this agreement, they are remunerated in two ways. There is the upfront payment of two types of advance: personal advances to cover living costs; and recording advances to cover studio expenses. Combined, the value of these advances \u201cmay range from a few thousand pounds to hundreds of thousands.\u201d9<\/a><\/sup> In addition, the artists receive royalties. However, these will not be paid through to them until their advances have been recouped. As a result of these arrangements, the contracted artists can be regarded as funding their recordings in whole if they are fully recouped and in part if they are not. Record companies are aware of the legal implications of this financial input and have thus confirmed their copyright interests by contractual means. To safeguard themselves should they not be regarded as the legislative owners of the master rights, they have requested life-of-copyright assignment of these same rights from their recording artists. There are various grounds on which the companies have argued that this control is fair. First, the artists are not taking full financial risk for their recording sessions, as they do not have to pay back any outstanding debts if they do not recoup.10<\/a><\/sup> Second, the artists receive considerable marketing and promotional support, which the companies usually fund without recouping from royalties. This investment is also reflected in royalty rates, which are \u201ctypically [\u2026] in the range of 15-30% of label receipts.\u201d11<\/a><\/sup>  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The license agreement<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The second type of contract is the license agreement. When rights are licensed rather than assigned, the licensee gains control of the rights but ownership is not transferred. Moreover, although neither the assignment nor the license of rights need be for life of copyright, a shorter transfer period is more common in the latter case. This type of agreement takes various forms, but the BPI only details the type whereby a large record company licenses recordings \u201cfrom third party production companies or labels (who have in turn acquired those recordings from artists).\u201d12<\/a><\/sup>This type of license agreement has been regarded as unfavorable for artists. They will not gain ownership of copyright (it usually resides with the production company or small label instead) and their royalties will be a share of the payment the production company or small label receives. Some performers have nevertheless managed to turn this situation to their advantage by setting up production companies or labels of their own and licensing their recordings to larger record companies. Starting in the 1950s in the US and the 1960s in the UK, these agreements provided the first means by which artists gained ownership of master rights. They remain popular today. Drake, Kanye West, Rihanna, Beyonc\u00e9 and Adele have all set up companies to gain this type of deal. Latterly a further type of license agreement has emerged whereby artists can license their master rights to record companies even if they do not set up labels or production companies of their own. These artists therefore join with the company-owning artists in being classified as the organizational and financial \u201cproducers\u201d \u2013 and hence owners \u2013 of their recordings. None of these artists bears the financial risk on their own, however, and license deal terms will reflect the labels\u2019 involvement. If an artist requires the level of spend on recording advances and marketing support that would come with a traditional deal, their royalties will be tailored accordingly. If they require marketing support but can finance and organize their recording sessions themselves, they can expect higher payment rates.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The profit share deal <\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The third contract type is the profit share deal. Most aspects of these agreements are subject to 50:50 splits between artists and record companies. The artists bear half of all the costs of making the recordings. On top of studio costs, this can include marketing, tour support, video production \u201cand even legal and accountancy charges.\u201d13<\/a><\/sup> Once these costs are cleared, the artists usually receive half the profits. The copyright situation in these deals varies. Dependent on contract, the rights can be either assigned or licensed to the labels.14<\/a><\/sup> Alternatively, the division of entrepreneurial endeavor is reflected in the artists and labels having co-ownership from the outset.15<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The distribution deal<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Fourth, there is the distribution deal. For most artists, these deals have only been made possible by the digital environment. Digital workstations have made home recording efficient and affordable. Downloading and streaming have made it possible to get recordings to market without the need to manufacture or physically transport them. Consequently, rather than sign one of the deals above, artists can make their own recordings and partner with distributors to get them onto digital platforms. If they only require digital distribution and processing of payments, this can be secured for an upfront fee, leaving the artists with 100% of the digital revenue.16<\/a><\/sup> If the artists want promotional input as well, the distributors are likely to charge a commission rate. This will be \u201cin the range of 15-20%,\u201d leaving the artists with most of the revenue.17<\/a><\/sup> Some commission-based distributors are willing to provide advances for marketing spend if artists can evidence previously successful releases.18<\/a><\/sup> Whether the distribution deals are fee-based or commissioned-based, the artists take full financial and organizational responsibility for their recordings and therefore retain ownership of the master rights.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Services deals<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Lastly, there are services deals, a type of agreement that has only gained popularity in the digital age. These agreements have similarities to distribution deals but services companies provide a range of optional extras, including marketing, social media, physical distribution, and catalogue management, with the amount of money they are willing to input being calculated in relation to the size of the artists\u2019 fanbases.19<\/a><\/sup> Services deals also have similarities to profit share deals and license agreements. The artists license their rights to the services companies, which recoup \u201cdefined costs or fees\u201d before they pay out any money to the artists. The companies\u2019 commission rates\/profit shares range from 25%-50%, dependent on the services required.20<\/a><\/sup> The costs do not usually include tour support or recording advances, however, with the funding for these activities instead being provided upfront by the artists and\/or their management teams. The artists\u2019 investment in the recordings results in their ownership of the master rights. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Table 1: Deal Types and Master Rights Ownership  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Type of deal<\/strong> <\/td>Traditional agreement <\/td>License agreement <\/td>Profit share deal <\/td>Distribution deal <\/td>Services deal <\/td><\/tr>
Conditions for an artist to own the master rights<\/strong> <\/td>The artist is denied any chance of owning the rights <\/td>If the artist is the licensor (whether under their own name or acting as a company) they have ownership of the rights <\/td>Ownership of the rights is determined by contract <\/td>The artist satisfies the \u201cproducer\u201d criteria of copyright law and therefore has ownership of the rights <\/td>The artist satisfies the \u201cproducer\u201d criteria of copyright law and therefore has ownership of the rights <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

As can be seen from the deals listed above, if artists can evidence significant organizational and financial input into their recording sessions, they have a chance of claiming ownership of the master rights. This is becoming increasingly common. Between 2016 and 2022, distribution deals represented the fasting growing sector of the market.21<\/a><\/sup> Moreover, prior to the twenty-first century, major record companies in the UK gained lifetime assignment of the master rights in most of their new contracts but this had reduced to 66% by 2012, and was only achieved in 26.4% of contracts by 2021.22<\/a><\/sup> Nevertheless, what can also be seen is that artists are rarely fully independent. Aside from those with distribution agreements, most artists rely on their contractual partners for funding and expertise. Those with traditional recording agreements or advance-funded license deals do so for every aspect of their recording careers. Under other types of deals, masters-owning artists will in most instances be funding their recordings upfront but will gain financial support in relation to distribution, marketing and a variety of other activities. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Upstreaming and Downstreaming<\/strong> <\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Independence can be complicated further. There is an apparent division between deals where artists partner with record companies (traditional, license and profit share agreements) and those where they partner with other types of company (distribution and services deals). However, the major labels all have distribution and services companies of their own. One reason for these ventures is because they wish to \u201cupstream\u201d artists from these types of agreement to their traditional or license contracts.23<\/a><\/sup> The movement need not be in this direction, however. Artists can \u201cdownstream\u201d as well. To facilitate both types of movement, two time-related factors come into play: contract terms relating to new recordings and contract terms relating to old recordings.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The point at which artists can make new recordings with new contractual partners is determined by the number of releases they are obliged to deliver under their current deals. This varies in relation to different types of agreement. Most distribution deals are on a \u201cone-off\u201d basis, meaning artists can move to different companies with each release.24<\/a><\/sup> The situation was originally the same for services company deals but there is evidence these agreements \u201care getting longer.\u201d25<\/a><\/sup> Some profit share deals are on a one-off basis, whereas others cover an agreed number of releases. Contemporary license deals and traditional deals tend to work on an \u201coptions\u201d basis, whereby record companies contract with artists for initial releases but can choose to extend the deals to further releases, with three to four album options being common.26<\/a><\/sup> Consequently, if artists take over two years to record and release each of their albums, they can be contracted to their companies for a decade or more.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is in relation to the ability of artists to take their old recordings to new contractual partners that the duration of the copyright transfer matters. Under distribution deals, artists retain control of copyright and can move their old recordings when the distribution deal is terminated. With services agreements, artists license the copyright to the services company for periods varying between four and twelve years and can only transfer their recordings when this period has elapsed.27<\/a><\/sup> With profit share deals, artists might have co-ownership from the outset or they may gain sole ownership after an agreed time.28<\/a><\/sup> With license deals, terms of transfer vary but are usually related to the satisfactory fulfilment of all album options plus a set number of years and\/or recoupment of advances. With traditional record deals, artists will never gain ownership of the rights. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

These time-related factors are important because artists can benefit from being on different contracts at different times. As can be seen from the alternatives listed in the previous section, it is artists who have taken full financial and organizational responsibility for their recording sessions \u2013 particularly by funding them upfront \u2013 who are most likely to receive the highest shares of revenue. However, this does not mean that artists who are contracted directly to record companies will always be worse off than those with a more independent bent. As well as needing to be entrepreneurial in respect of financing and organizing their recording sessions, independent artists may have to take the reins in respect of marketing and promotion. Record labels invest more money and have greater expertise in this area. Therefore, artists with low royalty rates but effectively marketed recordings might be making more money than those with high shares of revenue but who are not getting heard.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ultimately, it makes sense for artists to ensure contractual flexibility so they can move between deals at opportune times. In respect of making new recordings, they should ideally be able to acquire marketing support and high advances when most in need. In respect of old recordings, they should ensure the copyright transfer is of limited duration; therefore, when they regain the rights, they can move these recordings to the highest-paying deals. To assess the advantages of different deal types as well as the ability to move between them, this chapter will next look at case studies of Little Simz and Kate Bush. It will then address gender-based aspects of contract agreements. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Female Artists and Recording Agreements<\/strong> <\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Little Simz<\/strong> <\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Little Simz is a British female rap artist who has upstreamed through different recording agreements. Her first album was released in 2015 and her fifth and most recent album was released in 2022. She has been classified throughout as an independent artist but has gradually welcomed more input into her career, moving from a distribution deal and then to two services deals, the first in collaboration with her own record label, the second in collaboration with somebody else\u2019s record label. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Simz\u2019s first two albums, A Curious Tale of Trials + Persons<\/em> (2015) and Stillness in Wonderland<\/em> (2017) are issued by her own company Age 101 Music without the support of a services company or record label. This means she is in receipt of most of the master rights\u2019 revenue, subject only to a fixed charge or low commission rate paid to her distributor. Her high share of revenue for these albums should nevertheless be contextualized in relation to their popularity. To date, neither has charted anywhere in the world. By November 2023, they had accumulated around 50 million streams on Spotify, which, if subject to a 15% commission rate, would equate to approximately \u00a3150,000 in revenue for Simz.29<\/a><\/sup> This figure could be doubled to account for royalties from other streaming services and recording formats.30<\/a><\/sup> The resultant \u00a3300,000 has been amassed over eight years, however, and this gross figure would be reduced by Simz\u2019s expenses for making these albums, including recording costs, session fees, marketing expenditure and company overheads. Reflecting this, the 2018 accounts for Age 101 Ltd show a profit of \u00a316,388.31<\/a><\/sup> In 2019, profit was only \u00a34,016.32<\/a><\/sup> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Simz\u2019s third and fourth albums, The Grey Area<\/em> (2019) and Sometimes I Might Be an Introvert<\/em> (2022) are also issued by Age 101 but via a worldwide deal with the services company AWAL, which encompasses \u201cglobal marketing and promotion, digital and physical distribution, campaign coordination, A&R support, synch licensing, and brand partnerships.\u201d33<\/a><\/sup> AWAL runs a \u201ctriple-tiered program\u201d of services for artists, with its commission rate rising accordingly.34<\/a><\/sup> Recording industry sources have provided information about AWAL\u2019s deals: the breadth of Simz\u2019s agreement would position her in the top tier, meaning it is probably \u201ca 50\/50 or profit share agreement\u201d and the rights will have been licensed \u201canywhere from 4 to 10 years.\u201d35<\/a><\/sup>  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

AWAL\u2019s support has helped Simz to garner significant UK accolades. In 2020 she won an Ivor Novello Award for The Grey Area<\/em>. Two years later, she won the Mercury Prize for Sometimes I Might Be an Introvert<\/em> and a Brit Award for best newcomer. Simz has also gained more streams. Combined, the tracks on these albums had achieved around 400 million plays on Spotify by November 2023. This would provide about \u00a31.3 million in revenue, which could again be doubled to account for other streaming services and formats. However, under the terms a typical profit share of agreement, Simz\u2019s company would bear half the costs of making and releasing the recordings, and would then be in receipt of half of the remaining revenue. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Although the successes of these albums have resulted in improved financial returns for Simz, her position has remained precarious. The logical move following the domestic success of these albums would be to tour the US. However, despite the promise of AWAL to help her \u201cbreak through to global success,\u201d Simz\u2019s finances have proven insufficient.36<\/a><\/sup> A traditional record deal would include a recoupable budget for tour support; services agreements do not provide these funds. Simz has pointed out that \u201cBeing an independent artist, I pay for everything encompassing my live performances out of my own pocket and touring the US for a month would leave me in a huge deficit.\u201d37<\/a><\/sup> As a result, she cancelled a tour planned for May 2022. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Simz is also indicative of the complexities of independence. AWAL stands for \u201cartists without a label.\u201d On renewing her deal with this company in 2020, her former manager Robert Swerdlow stated, \u201cShe is a true independent artist, and has her own creative vision in every aspect of her career. The team at AWAL completely understand this way forward.\u201d38<\/a><\/sup> Paul Hitchman, company president of AWAL, commented similarly that \u201cas an artist with a singular vision for her career, she is a perfect artist for the AWAL model.\u201d39<\/a><\/sup> This model encountered changed the following year, when AWAL was purchased by Sony Music Entertainment, the second largest of the world\u2019s three major music labels. Simz\u2019s independent releases now contribute to Sony\u2019s market share.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The complexities continue with Simz\u2019s latest album, No Thank You<\/em> (2022), which includes \u201cAngel,\u201d the track quoted at the outset of this chapter. Although this album is distributed by AWAL, it is not issued by Age 101. It instead appears on the record label Forever Living Originals. This company is owned by the studio producer of Simz\u2019s last three albums, Dean Clover. If he has a 50\/50 profit share agreement with AWAL, this could result in Simz\u2019s share of revenue being reduced to 25%. She nevertheless appears to have retained ownership of the masters, as reflected in the lyrics to \u201cAngel.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Simz has been restricted in her funding ability and her latest album has not been released through own her label. It should be noted, however, that once the costs of her first four albums are cleared, she will receive a high share of revenue for as long as these recordings are popular. This includes The Grey Area<\/em> and Sometimes I Might Be an Introvert<\/em> for which she could increase her share from 50% to 85% or more, dependent on how she issues these recordings once the license agreement with AWAL expires. It can also be noted that, although she is probably on a lower rate for No Thank You<\/em>, this could be a one-off deal. Subsequent releases could be issued via Age 101 or she may partner with a larger record company. Simz has stated, \u201cI would never tell someone to be independent or signed, as that\u2019s instinctual and something only you can choose.\u201d40<\/a><\/sup> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kate Bush<\/strong> <\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Kate Bush has downstreamed to independence. Her first deal was a traditional recording agreement, signed with the major label EMI in July 1976 under what were conventional UK terms at that time: rather than being set by albums options, the duration of contracts was set in years. Bush\u2019s agreement ran until July 1980. During this period, there is evidence that EMI was supportive. There were eighteen months of development between the signing of her deal and the release of her first single \u201cWuthering Heights.\u201d Moreover, it was Bush who insisted on this song being the single, getting her choice over the company\u2019s preference.41<\/a><\/sup> The partnership was also successful. Aided by EMI\u2019s marketing input, Bush had three Top 10 albums and six Top 20 singles in the UK in the first four years of her career. Nevertheless, her contractual terms were not particularly stellar. The initial advance of \u00a33,000 was less than a tenth of the advance the Sex Pistols secured from EMI in 1977.42<\/a><\/sup> From this, it can be assumed her royalty rate was at best average for the time, meaning it could have been a single-digit figure.43<\/a><\/sup> EMI also made decisions that ran counter to Bush\u2019s interests, including the use of a sexually exploitive image to promote her first album The Kick Inside<\/em>.44<\/a><\/sup> It was her experience recording the follow-up Lionheart<\/em> that she found most dispiriting, however. EMI gave her limited time to record this album and she suffered sexual discrimination from the studio producer Andrew Powell. Bush explained, \u201cif you\u2019re a female, a lot of what you say is not taken very seriously [\u2026]. And a lot of the points that I would have liked to have pushed, I would have been told that it wouldn\u2019t work.\u201d45<\/a><\/sup>  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In response, Bush \u201cstepped up efforts to have more control over her career.\u201d46<\/a><\/sup> After concluding her initial deal with the release of her third album Never For Ever<\/em> in September 1980, she contracted again with EMI. However, rather than do so directly as an artist, she self-financed her recordings and licensed them to EMI via her company Novercia Ltd, thus enabling her to retain ownership of the master rights.47<\/a><\/sup> This maneuver was both encouraged and fed by her growing autonomy. Bush assumed sole studio production duties for her fourth album The Dreaming<\/em> (1982) and built her own studio to record the follow-up Hounds of Love<\/em> (1985).  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bush\u2019s license deal lasted thirty years, only coming to end with the collapse of EMI in 2012. During this time, the recording industry transitioned through several formats, starting with vinyl as the main seller and culminating with the rise of streaming. This could prove costly for artists who signed agreements in the 1980s and whose royalty rates remained unchanged due to life-of-copyright assignment of their rights. In the vinyl era, record company royalty rates were calculated in respect of the expenses of manufacture and distribution. This resulted in UK royalties in the 1980s averaging around 14% (Garfield 1986: 19)48<\/a><\/sup>.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

As a rights-owning artist, Bush was not in this position. Following the demise of EMI, she reissued her previously licensed recordings via her own label Fish People, partnering with the Warner Music Group for distribution.49<\/a><\/sup> It has been estimated this deal granted her \u201c80%-plus\u201d of the master rights revenue.50<\/a><\/sup> When her 1985 single \u201cRunning Up That Hill\u201d was featured in the 2022 series of Stranger Things<\/em>, it was for a short while the most popular recording worldwide on streaming services. Music business journalist Tim Ingham calculated it was then earning Bush \u201ca million dollars in recorded music royalties per month.\u201d51<\/a><\/sup> <\/sup> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ingham has also posited a drawback relating to distribution deals. After contemplating why the success of \u201cRunning Up That Hill\u201d did not lead new listeners to explore \u201cthe rest of Kate Bush\u2019s oeuvre,\u201d he argued this was because the small margins Warner gained from her work did not encourage the label to \u201cthrow the full weight of its marketing machine behind her brand.\u201d52<\/a><\/sup> This argument nevertheless rests on Ingham\u2019s incorrect claim that Bush \u201cfully\u201d owns the rights for her entire catalogue.53<\/a><\/sup> Due to the terms of her original deal, the master rights to her first three albums are owned by Warner, which acquired EMI\u2019s Parlophone label in 2013. It can be expected that Bush\u2019s royalty rates for these albums, which include her second and third biggest hits after \u201cRunning Up That Hill,\u201d remain considerably lower than those for the rest of her catalogue. Ultimately, given the control she has over her career, the decision to not exploit her \u201cbrand\u201d is more likely to have resided with Bush than with Warner Music. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Gender Asymmetry <\/strong> <\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The case studies of Little Simz and Kate Bush have been chosen deliberately. On the one hand, they are indicative that artists can improve their earning capabilities both by \u201cupstreaming\u201d towards increased label support and \u201cdownstreaming\u201d from traditional recording contracts. On the other hand, these two artists have demonstrated an uncommon ability to gain and move between deals. There are gendered aspects to career opportunities, as will be illustrated by the following overview of the British market. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Before commencing, it is worth noting that upstreaming or downstreaming only tends to improve the financial situations of recording artists. It does not provide an escape from the misogyny of the recording industry. As the following information indicates, it is only well-established, self-producing artists such as Kate Bush who can gain some refuge from gender discrimination. A recent UK governmental report has determined that female artists at all other career levels \u201ccontinue to face unjustifiable limitations in opportunity, a lack of support, gender discrimination and sexual harassment as well as the \u2018persistent issue of equal pay.\u2019\u201d54<\/a><\/sup>  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

These limitations can be first witnessed among female artists who wish to commence their careers as independent artists. Their entrepreneurial abilities might not be recognized. A 2018 study by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) showed that women are 60% as likely to be self-employed as men.55<\/a><\/sup> The International Labour Organization (ILO) has indicated that women entrepreneurs face gender-based barriers, including \u201cdiscriminatory property, matrimonial and inheritance laws and\/or cultural practices, limited mobility, voice and representation, and an unequal share of family and household responsibilities.\u201d56<\/a><\/sup> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Female artists who do manage to self-finance their recordings can then face limitations if they wish to upstream from deals with distribution companies to deals with service companies or record companies. Progress can be biased in respect of musical styles. For example, Simz\u2019s 2022 Brit Award for \u201cbest newcomer\u201d came six years after the release of her first album and twelve years after the release of her first mixtape. This delayed recognition can be excused due to the rules for the award: an artist requires a Top 40 album or two Top 20 singles to qualify. Simz\u2019s progress was nevertheless also hampered due to institutionalized biases. She has mentioned inequality in her genre, commenting that being \u201ca woman played a part\u201d in her being overlooked while second-rate male rappers were prioritized around her.57<\/a><\/sup> This bias was noted in a 2016 headline in Vice magazine, which read \u201cLittle Simz Is Pioneering UK Rap, So Why Won\u2019t the Industry Support Her?\u201d58<\/a><\/sup> It can be witnessed in other genres as well. Several mainstays of distribution deals and services agreements, including indie, electronic dance music and grime, have been overwhelmingly male in terms of company personnel and the artists who they sign.59<\/a><\/sup> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Female artists also face biases in respect of musical roles. Early success in the independent environment can prove pivotal, as artists tend to work at the borderline of financial viability. In this respect, Simz\u2019s creative partner and recent label owner Dean Clover has had financial advantages over her in being a studio producer rather than a rapper. The producers of \u201cbeats\u201d tend to make more money than the providers of vocals.60<\/a><\/sup> This includes relatively low-profile producers such as Clover, whose financing of his label has been aided through his work with star performers such as Adele. Studio personnel tend to be male. In recent years, women have only occupied about five percent of production and engineering jobs in the UK.61<\/a><\/sup> Meanwhile, as the UK government has reported, female artists are \u201cinvariably more likely to be accepted as singers in contrast to most other types of musicianship, further restricting their music careers and ambitions.\u201d62<\/a><\/sup> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Gender differences are also in evidence when artists start their careers with traditional recording agreements and then attempt to \u201cdownstream\u201d to entrepreneurial independence. Here, the pioneering nature of Kate Bush\u2019s recording agreements should be noted. When she gained her license deal in 1980, she was following a small minority of UK artists who had secured ownership of their master rights, beginning with Dave Clark in 1963, and including the Rolling Stones in 1970, Pink Floyd in 1972, Peter Gabriel in 1975 and Paul McCartney in 1979. Bush appears to have been the first British woman to achieve this feat. One reason for the absence of precursors lies with the economics of the British music industry, which from 1968 until the digital era was oriented towards albums rather than singles.63<\/a><\/sup> This market was skewed towards male acts and rock music. A weekly UK albums chart was inaugurated in 1956, but when Bush achieved a number one album with Never For Ever<\/em> in 1981, she was the first woman to attain this summit. Another reason is the level of autonomy accorded to female performers. Bush was unusual in being involved in the studio production for her albums (from Never<\/em> For Ever<\/em> onwards). Although the \u201cproducer\u201d criteria in copyright laws is defined separately to the role of studio production, there is a link between the two practices. If a studio producer owns their studio and\/or pays for their recordings, they can be well positioned to claim ownership of the master rights via a license deal. A third possible reason for the lack of female rights owners is because the benefits of having control were not widely recognized or discussed at this time. In this respect, Bush may have gained insight from working Dave Gilmour and Peter Gabriel, both of whom had license deals. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Today, it appears more likely that female artists can successfully downstream. The ability to do so is nevertheless dependent on having successfully completed a traditional recording agreement and this is not easy. In the first instance,\u202fa record company needs to have offered an artist a deal. As ever, only a small minority realize this ambition. The chances also decrease if you are female rather than male. In a recent analysis of gender bias in the British music industry, Vick Bain showed that women have equal ambition to be musicians \u2013 just under half of all students studying music at postgraduate level are female \u2013 yet they constitute less than a fifth of all artists signed to UK record companies.64<\/a><\/sup> Moreover, 12.6% of the labels surveyed had no female artists at all.65<\/a><\/sup> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Artists must then see out the full number of options in their deals without being dropped or kept in limbo. The former can be damaging regarding securing good terms in subsequent agreements; the latter can extinguish artists\u2019 careers. Both have gendered aspects. A study of \u201ccritics\u2019 choice\u201d winners at the Brit Awards has indicated that UK labels each tend to prioritize a single female artist at any given time and can be neglectful of other female performers on their rosters.66<\/a><\/sup> Testimony on being kept in limbo also points to the harsher treatment of female artists.67<\/a><\/sup> In an analysis of this phenomenon, Michael Cragg has written that \u201cPop is littered with artists, from Chl\u00f6e Howl to Sin\u00e9ad Harnett, who have signed with major labels and then been sidelined.\u201d68<\/a><\/sup> This includes the artist Raye, who signed a traditional recording agreement in 2014 with options for four albums but by 2021 had still not been allowed to release her first album because she was \u201cawaiting confirmation\u201d from her label she was \u201cgood enough\u201d to do so.69<\/a><\/sup>  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

These outcomes reflect how record companies interact with different genres. Keith Negus has distinguished between an \u201corganic\u201d approach for rock music, which involves a \u201clong term\u201d view of an act\u2019s potential and giving them a degree of freedom in respect of marketing and repertoire choices, and a \u201csynthetic\u201d methodology for pop music, where the company is closely involved in both image and music but their focus might only be \u201cshort term.\u201d70<\/a><\/sup> As Bain indicates, rock music is still \u201cdominated\u201d by male performers and therefore many female artists face the synthetic approach.71<\/a><\/sup> Raye is a \u201crare\u201d escapee.72<\/a><\/sup> She extricated herself from her traditional deal in December 2021 and subsequently released a self-financed album through a services company. It reached number two in the UK charts. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The difficulties of signing a record deal and being prioritized are at their height if an artist does not already have a track record. They are different if an artist is upstreaming from a services deal and has achieved recognition and success. Little Simz, for example, would be well positioned to demand preferential terms in relation to marketing, royalty rates and ownership of the masters. Most of today\u2019s star performers have nevertheless begun their careers with traditional recording agreements and have thus had to assign the rights in these deals for the life of copyright. Only a handful have been able to reclaim them. In America, this includes Bruce Springsteen, Prince and Jay-Z but not Taylor Swift. In Britain, David Bowie, Queen and Radiohead have reached this exalted position but Kate Bush has not reclaimed her earliest recordings. It is another phenomenon that appears to have a male bias.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

All businesses are encouraged to address disparities such as these. At a global level, the OECD collates company information in respect of gender inequalities.73<\/a><\/sup> The British music industry has gone further in terms of data and actions. Since 2016, its overarching trade body UK Music has conducted a biennial diversity report, which requires music companies to detail gendered aspects of career progression and pay. The latest, from 2022, also instructs them on policy. Companies should \u201cWork towards a five-year equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) strategy and vision,\u201d \u201cIdentify barriers to entry or inclusion\u201d and \u201cIncorporate EDI into every part of an organisation\u2019s structures and systems.\u201d74<\/a><\/sup>  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thus far, UK Music has not addressed recording artists in its reports. This is because they are not regarded as employees. Although their contractual positions and status as copyright owners are varied, the recording industry has in this instance chosen to view all of them as independent contractors. Therefore, it has not provided UK Music with information about career progress or remuneration. It has also failed to incorporate recording artists in its EDI work. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Conclusion<\/strong> <\/h2>\n\n\n\n

This chapter has dealt with three main subjects. First, it has indicated that when artists gain ownership of sound recording copyright, this tends to be based on their entrepreneurial ability to fund and organize their recording sessions. They are rarely fully independent of recording industry support and financing, however, and contracts are tailored to reflect this. Second, it has detailed benefits that artists can gain from upstreaming or downstreaming between different deals, taking advantage of record company or services company support if felt necessary and being more entrepreneurial if it suits their needs. Third, it has outlined gendered differences in respect of the ability to move between deals and gain requisite levels of industry input. This last topic has been addressed because female artists have been discriminated against when it comes to copyright ownership and progressing their careers. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

How can gender parity be achieved? Some issues, such as the lack of female studio producers, are the result of artistic preconceptions and can be best resolved by encouraging the advancement and appreciation of skills. In some genres, including dance music, this is starting to take place.75<\/a><\/sup> We are also beginning to hear more about other issues, such as the institutional biases that affect the signing and developmental policies of record companies and services companies. Female artists are increasingly vocal about contractual inequities;76<\/a><\/sup> studies are being undertaken. There is nevertheless a need for these companies to do more. In the UK, they have been instructed to incorporate EDI into all their structures and systems, yet they have failed to address the contracts that form the cornerstone of their work. There is a possibility that this could be mandated. In January 2024, the UK government\u2019s Women and Equalities Committee recommended that record labels \u201ccommit to regular publication of statistics on the diversity of their creative rosters.\u201d77<\/a><\/sup> This is essential work. Until the structural inequalities in recording agreements are reported and actioned, any visions for equality will be willfully blind. <\/p>\n\n\n

  1. Little\u00a0Simz, \u201cAngel,\u201d written by\u00a0Cleopatra\u00a0Nikolic,\u00a0Dean Josiah\u00a0Cover\u00a0and\u00a0Simbiatu\u00a0Ajikawo. \u21a9\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>
  2. Richard Osborne,\u00a0Owning the Masters: A History of Sound Recording Copyright\u00a0<\/em>(London and New York: Bloomsbury Academic, 2023), 144. \u21a9\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>
  3. WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty,\u00a01996-20-12,\u00a0art. 2(d),\u00a0https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/wipolex\/en\/text\/295578<\/a>.\u00a0 \u21a9\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>
  4. Monopolies and Mergers Commission,\u00a0The Supply of Recorded Music: A Report on the Supply in the UK of Pre-recorded Compact Discs, Vinyl Discs and Tapes Containing Music<\/em>\u00a0(London: Her Majesty\u2019s Stationery Office, 1994),\u00a0sec.\u00a0108.\u00a0 \u21a9\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>
  5. Vincent Porter,\u00a0Beyond the Berne Convention: Copyright,\u00a0Broadcasting\u00a0and\u00a0the Single European Market<\/em>\u00a0(London: John Libbey, 1991), 1.\u00a0 \u21a9\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>
  6. Senate Judiciary Committee,\u00a0Creation of a Limited Copyright in Sound Recordings: Report to Accompany S. 646<\/em>\u00a0(Washington: US Government Printing Office, 1971), 5. \u21a9\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>
  7. Copyright Law of the United States\u00a0and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code,\u00a0Library of Congress<\/em>, circular 92\u00a0(Dec 2022),\u00a0sec.\u00a0101\u00a0and\u00a0201(b),\u00a0https:\/\/www.copyright.gov\/title17\/<\/a>. \u21a9\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>
  8. British Phonographic Industry\u00a0(hereafter\u00a0BPI),\u00a0Written Evidence Submitted by BPI<\/em>,\u00a02020-16-11,\u00a0https:\/\/committees.parliament.uk\/work\/646\/economics-of-music-streaming\/publications\/written-evidence\/<\/a>.\u00a0 \u21a9\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>
  9. Ibid.,\u00a030. \u21a9\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>
  10. Osborne,\u00a0Owning\u00a0the Masters<\/em>,\u00a0130-35.\u00a0 \u21a9\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>
  11. BPI,\u00a0Written<\/em>\u00a0Evidence\u00a0Submitted<\/em>, 30. \u21a9\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>
  12. Ibid. \u21a9\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>
  13. Ann\u00a0Harrison,\u00a0Music: The Business<\/em>\u00a0(London: Virgin, 2000),\u00a069.\u00a0 \u21a9\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>
  14. Music Managers Forum (hereafter\u00a0MMF),\u00a0The\u00a0Deals Guide<\/em>,\u00a02017,\u00a0https:\/\/cmulibrary.com\/research-pdfs\/mmf-dealsguide.pdf<\/a>;\u00a0Kenneth W. Barr,\u00a0\u201cMusic Copyright in the Digital Age: Creators, Commerce and Copyright\u00a0– An Empirical Study of the UK Music Copyright Industries\u201d\u00a0(PhD thesis,\u00a0University of Glasgow,\u00a02016), 33,\u00a0https:\/\/theses.gla.ac.uk\/7752\/. \u21a9\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>
  15. David Byrne,\u00a0How Music Works<\/em>\u00a0(Edinburgh: Canongate, 2012), 235. \u21a9\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>
  16. Association of Independent Music (hereafter\u00a0AIM),\u00a0Distribution Revolution<\/em>,\u00a02019,\u00a041,\u00a0https:\/\/cmulibrary.com\/research-pdfs\/aim-distributionrevolution.pdf<\/a>. \u21a9\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>
  17. BPI,\u00a0Written\u00a0Evidence\u00a0Submitted<\/em>, 31. \u21a9\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>
  18. MMF,\u00a0The\u00a0Deals\u00a0Guide<\/em>,\u00a014. \u21a9\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>
  19. AIM,\u00a0Distribution\u00a0Revolution<\/em>, 33-8. \u21a9\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>
  20. Ibid., 41; BPI,\u00a0Written\u00a0Evidence\u00a0Submitted<\/em>, 31; Tim Ingham, \u201cIf You Wanted to Know Why Sony Music Bought AWAL \u2026 This\u00a0Is Why,\u201d\u00a0Music Business Worldwide,\u00a0<\/em>2022-17-02,\u00a0https:\/\/www.musicbusinessworldwide.com\/if-you-wanted-to-know-why-sony-music-bought-awal-this-is-why\/<\/a>. \u21a9\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>
  21. Mark Mulligan,\u00a0Recorded Music Market 2022: Reality Bites<\/em>, MIDiA (March 2023), 2. \u21a9\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>
  22. Competition & Markets Authority,\u00a0Music\u00a0and Streaming: Final Report\u00a0<\/em>(2022-29-11),\u00a0sec.\u00a05.50. \u21a9\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>
  23. Ingham, \u201cIf You\u00a0Wanted\u00a0to Know.\u201d \u21a9\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>
  24. \u201cYears of Service,\u201d\u00a0Music Week\u00a0<\/em>(2015-16-01), 8-10. \u21a9\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>
  25. Paul Stokes, \u201cAt Your Service,\u201d\u00a0Music Week\u00a0<\/em>(2021-01-03), 50-54. \u21a9\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>
  26. BPI,\u00a0Written\u00a0Evidence\u00a0Submitted<\/em>, 30.\u00a0 \u21a9\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>
  27. Ben Homewood, \u201cService Stations,\u201d\u00a0Music Week\u00a0<\/em>(2018-29-01), 22-26; Tim Ingham, \u201cI Look at AWAL as the\u00a0Best Artist Development Company in the Business,\u201d\u00a0Music Business Worldwide,\u00a0<\/em>2023-01-08,\u00a0https:\/\/www.musicbusinessworldwide.com\/i-look-at-awal-as-the-best-artist-development-company-in-the-business\/<\/a>. \u21a9\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>
  28. Byrne,\u00a0How\u00a0Music\u00a0Works<\/em>, 235; MMF,\u00a0The\u00a0Deals\u00a0Guide<\/em>, 16.\u00a0 \u21a9\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>
  29. This figure has been calculated using the methodology\u00a0outlined\u00a0in\u00a0Tim\u00a0Ingham\u2019s\u00a0\u201cWhere\u00a0Are\u00a0All the Kate Bush T-shirts?\u201d\u00a0Music Business Worldwide,\u00a0<\/em>2022-22-09,\u00a0https:\/\/www.musicbizpodcast.com\/203834\/11394804<\/a>. Ingham assumes that the master rights\u00a0accrue\u00a052% of the revenue from Spotify and that Spotify pays\u00a0$0.008 per stream, which can be converted to\u00a0\u00a30.0064 per stream using 2023\u00a0exchange\u00a0rates. \u21a9\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>
  30. Ingham, \u201cKate Bush\u00a0T-shirts.\u201d\u00a0 \u21a9\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>
  31. Age 101 Ltd,\u00a0\u201cDirector\u2019s Report and Unaudited Accounts,\u201d\u00a0Companies House<\/em>,\u00a0<\/em>2018-31-07,\u00a04,\u00a0https:\/\/www.gov.uk\/government\/organisations\/companies-house<\/a>. \u21a9\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>
  32. Age 101\u00a0Ltd,\u00a0\u201cDirector\u2019s Report and Unaudited Accounts,\u201d\u00a0Companies House<\/em>,\u00a0<\/em>2019-31-07,\u00a04,\u00a0https:\/\/www.gov.uk\/government\/organisations\/companies-house<\/a>. \u21a9\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>
  33. Murray Stassen, \u201cAWAL Renews Worldwide Partnership with British Rapper Little\u00a0Simz,\u201d\u00a0Music Business Worldwide,\u00a0<\/em>2020-18-06,\u00a0https:\/\/www.musicbusinessworldwide.com\/awal-renews-worldwide-partnership-with-british-rapper-little-simz\/<\/a>. \u21a9\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>
  34. Ingham, \u201cIf You\u00a0Wanted\u00a0to Know.\u201d \u21a9\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>
  35. \u00a0Ingham, \u201cIf\u00a0You\u00a0Wanted\u00a0to Know\u201d; Ingham, \u201cI\u00a0Look\u00a0at AWAL.\u201d\u00a0 \u21a9\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>
  36. Stassen, \u201cAWAL\u00a0Renews Worldwide Partnership.\u201d \u21a9\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>
  37. Laura Snapes, \u201cLittle\u00a0Simz\u00a0Cancels US Tour\u00a0Citing Financial Unviability as an Indie Artist,\u201d\u00a0The\u00a0Guardian,\u00a0<\/em>2022-20-04,\u00a0https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/music\/2022\/apr\/20\/little-simz-cancels-us-tour-citing-financial-unviability-indie-artist<\/a>. \u21a9\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>
  38. Stassen, \u201cAWAL\u00a0Renews Worldwide Partnership.\u201d\u00a0 \u21a9\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>
  39. Ibid. \u21a9\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>
  40. Thomas Hobbs, \u201cLittle\u00a0Simz,\u201d\u00a0Notion,\u00a0<\/em>2020-08-01,\u00a0https:\/\/notion.online\/little-simz<\/a>\/.\u00a0 \u21a9\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>
  41. Gillian G. Gaar,\u00a0She\u2019s a Rebel: The History of Women in Rock & Roll<\/em>, 2nd\u00a0ed.\u00a0(New York: Seal Press, 2002), 222. \u21a9\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>
  42. Rob Jovanovic,\u00a0Kate Bush: The Biography\u00a0<\/em>(London:\u00a0Piatkus, 2015),\u00a067; Paul Gorman,\u00a0The Life & Times of Malcolm McLaren: The Biography\u00a0<\/em>(London: Constable, 2020), 323. \u21a9\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>
  43. Richard Osborne and\u00a0Hyojung\u00a0Sun,\u00a0\u201cRights Reversion and Contract Adjustment,\u201d\u00a0Intellectual Property Office<\/em>,\u00a02023,\u00a0https:\/\/www.gov.uk\/government\/publications\/economics-of-streaming-contract-adjustment-and-rights-reversion\/rights-reversion-and-contract-adjustment<\/a>.\u00a0\u00a0 \u21a9\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>
  44. Gaar,\u00a0She\u2019s a\u00a0Rebel<\/em>, 222-3. \u21a9\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>
  45. Ibid., 223. \u21a9\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>
  46. Ibid. \u21a9\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>
  47. This licence deal and Bush\u2019s original 1976 agreement were made under the terms of the UK\u2019s Copyright Act 1956, rather than the current Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Whereas the 1988 Act has been updated to award ownership to the \u201cproducer,\u201d the 1956 Act awards ownership to the \u201cmaker,\u201d defined as \u201cthe person who owns the record at the time when the recording is made\u201d (Copyright Act 1956:\u00a0sec.\u00a012(8)). Thus, the only way a recording artist could gain ownership of master rights was by setting up their own production company or record label and taking control of the recording process.\u00a0 \u21a9\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>
  48. Simon Garfield,\u00a0Expensive Habits: The Dark Side of the Music Industry<\/em>\u00a0(London and Boston: Faber and Faber, 1986), 19 \u21a9\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>
  49. This deal lasted until February 2023, at which point State51\u00a0became Bush\u2019s distributor. \u21a9\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>
  50. Tim Ingham, \u201cKate Bush\u00a0Is the World\u2019s Biggest Independent Artist Right Now. She\u2019s Owning It,\u201d\u00a0Music Business Worldwide,\u00a0<\/em>2022-16-06,\u00a0https:\/\/www.musicbusinessworldwide.com\/kate-bush-is-the-worlds-biggest-independent-artist-right-now-shes-owning-it\/<\/a>. \u21a9\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>
  51. Ingham,\u00a0\u201cKate Bush\u00a0T-shirts.\u201d\u00a0 \u21a9\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>
  52. Ibid. \u21a9\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>
  53. Ibid. \u21a9\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>
  54. Women and Equalities Committee, \u201cMisogyny in Music,\u201d\u00a0House of Commons\u00a0<\/em>(January 2024),\u00a0para.\u00a02,\u00a0https:\/\/committees.parliament.uk\/publications\/43084\/documents\/214478\/default\/<\/a>.\u00a0 \u21a9\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>
  55. \u201cIs the Gender Gap in Entrepreneurship Closing?\u201d\u00a0OECD<\/em>\u00a0(2018),\u00a0https:\/\/www.oecd.org\/cfe\/smes\/inclusive-entrepreneurship\/gender.htm#:~:text=The%20gender%20gap%20in%20entrepreneurship%20can%20be%20explained%20by%20a,entrepreneurship%20skills%2C%20failures%20in%20financial<\/a>. \u21a9\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>
  56. \u201cPromoting Women\u2019s Entrepreneurship Development and Gender Equality, Phase III,\u201d\u00a0ILO<\/em>\u00a0(2008-2011),\u00a0https:\/\/www.ilo.org\/asia\/projects\/WCMS_099683\/lang–en\/index.htm<\/a>. \u21a9\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>
  57. Hobbs, \u201cLittle\u00a0Simz.\u201d\u00a0Simz\u00a0also faces intersectional biases. Racial aspects of master rights ownership are explored in Richard Osborne, \u201cMasters and Slaves,\u201d in\u00a0The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Music Industry Studies<\/em>, ed. Ryan Nolan and David Arditi (London: Palgrave Macmillan, forthcoming). \u21a9\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>
  58. Daisy Jones, \u201cLittle\u00a0Simz\u00a0Is Pioneering UK Rap, So Why Won\u2019t the Industry Support Her?\u201d\u00a0Vice<\/em>,\u00a02016-01-12,\u00a0https:\/\/www.vice.com\/en\/article\/xdwkpq\/little-simz-is-pioneering-uk-rap-so-why-wont-the-industry-support-her<\/a>. \u21a9\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>
  59. Vick Bain, \u201cCounting the Music Industry: The Gender Gap,\u201d\u00a0UK Music<\/em>, October 2019,\u00a035-6,\u00a0\u00a0https:\/\/www.ukmusic.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/Counting-the-Music-Industry-full-report-2019.pdf<\/a>; Safi Bugel, \u2018\u201cThis Wouldn\u2019t Have Happened 20 Years Ago: How Women Began Dominating British Dance Music,\u00a0The<\/em>\u00a0Guardian<\/em>, 2024-05-01,\u00a0https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/music\/2024\/jan\/05\/this-wouldnt-have-happened-20-years-ago-how-women-began-dominating-british-dance-music<\/a>.\u00a0 \u21a9\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>
  60. John Seabrook,\u00a0The Song Machine: Inside the Hit Factory\u00a0<\/em>(London: Jonathan Cape, 2015), 202-205; Lily Allen,\u00a0My Thoughts Exactly\u00a0<\/em>(London: Blink, 2018), 166-7.\u00a0 \u21a9\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>
  61. George Garner, \u201cRebalancing Act,\u201d\u00a0Music Week<\/em>\u00a0(2017-14-08), 19-20. \u21a9\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>
  62. Women and Equalities Committee, \u201cMisogyny\u00a0in Music\u201d,\u00a0para.\u00a025. \u21a9\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>
  63. Richard Osborne,\u00a0Vinyl: A History of the Analogue Record\u00a0<\/em>(Farnham: Ashgate, 2012), 111. \u21a9\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>
  64. Bain,\u00a0\u201cCounting the Music Industry,”\u00a013, 18. \u21a9\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>
  65. Ibid., 13. \u21a9\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>
  66. Richard Osborne, \u201cThe Critics\u2019 (Second and Third) Choice Award,\u201d\u00a0Pop Bothering Me<\/em>\u00a0(blog),\u00a0<\/em>2020-17-02,\u00a0https:\/\/richardosbornevinyl.blogspot.com\/2020\/02\/the-critics-second-and-third-choice.html<\/a>. \u21a9\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>
  67. Seabrook,\u00a0The Song\u00a0Machine<\/em>, 196-207; Sophie\u00a0Heawood, \u201cLily Allen: \u2018I\u00a0Was\u00a0Pretty Brazen\u00a0With\u00a0All\u00a0My Behaviour. I Just Didn\u2019t Care,\u201d\u00a0The<\/em>\u00a0Guardian,\u00a0<\/em>2018-15-09,\u00a0https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/music\/2018\/sep\/15\/lily-allen-brazen-behaviour-didnt-care-sophie-heawood<\/a>. \u21a9\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>
  68. Michael Cragg, \u201c\u2018I\u2019m Angry, I\u2019m Raging\u2019: How Raye\u00a0Took\u00a0On\u00a0Her Record Label \u2013 and\u00a0Won,\u201d\u00a0The<\/em>\u00a0Guardian<\/em>,\u00a02021-25-09,\u00a0https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/music\/2021\/sep\/25\/im-angry-im-raging-how-raye-took-on-her-record-label-and-won#<\/a>. \u21a9\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>
  69. Ibid. \u21a9\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>
  70. Keith Negus,\u00a0Producing Pop: Culture and Conflict in the Music Industry<\/em>\u00a0(London: Arnold, 1992), 54-5. \u21a9\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>
  71. Bain,\u00a0\u201cCounting\u00a0the Music Industry,\u201d\u00a035. \u21a9\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>
  72. \u00a0Cragg, \u201cI\u2019m\u00a0Angry, I\u2019m Raging.\u201d \u21a9\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>
  73. \u201cGender Equality,\u201d\u00a0OECD<\/em>,\u00a0https:\/\/www.oecd.org\/gender\/data\/employment\/<\/a>. \u21a9\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>
  74. UK Music,\u00a0Diversity Report 2022<\/em>, 27,\u00a0https:\/\/www.ukmusic.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/Diversity-2022-Spreads-1.pdf. \u21a9\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>
  75. Bugel,\u00a0\u201c20 Years\u00a0Ago.\u201d \u21a9\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>
  76. Eamonn Forde, \u201cTaylor-made Deals: How Artists\u00a0Are Following Swift\u2019s Rights Example,\u201d\u00a0The<\/em>\u00a0Guardian<\/em>, 2024-09-01,\u00a0https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/music\/2024\/jan\/09\/taylor-swift-deals-how-artists-rights-example<\/a>.\u00a0 \u21a9\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>
  77. Women and Equalities Committee, \u201cMisogyny\u00a0in Music,\u201d para.\u00a043. \u21a9\ufe0e<\/a><\/li><\/ol>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Summary  This chapter addresses three main subjects. First, it looks […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":38,"featured_media":6570,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"inline_featured_image":false,"itsec_x_frame_options":"","footnotes":"[{\"content\":\"Little\u00a0Simz, \u201cAngel,\u201d written by\u00a0Cleopatra\u00a0Nikolic,\u00a0Dean Josiah\u00a0Cover\u00a0and\u00a0Simbiatu\u00a0Ajikawo.\",\"id\":\"f27419c8-95a8-4840-9648-4f596c42c6ec\"},{\"content\":\"Richard Osborne,\u00a0Owning the Masters: A History of Sound Recording Copyright\u00a0<\/em>(London and New York: Bloomsbury Academic, 2023), 144.\",\"id\":\"61918398-6c36-483b-ac5e-a9441ab1f6ce\"},{\"content\":\"WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty,\u00a01996-20-12,\u00a0art. 2(d),\u00a0https:\/\/www.wipo.int\/wipolex\/en\/text\/295578<\/a>.\u00a0\",\"id\":\"6e01af58-8f57-496f-baad-de9b17694c4b\"},{\"content\":\"Monopolies and Mergers Commission,\u00a0The Supply of Recorded Music: A Report on the Supply in the UK of Pre-recorded Compact Discs, Vinyl Discs and Tapes Containing Music<\/em>\u00a0(London: Her Majesty\u2019s Stationery Office, 1994),\u00a0sec.\u00a0108.\u00a0\",\"id\":\"d0674a39-9f00-4d3c-8a95-fcb3716f9a42\"},{\"content\":\"Vincent Porter,\u00a0Beyond the Berne Convention: Copyright,\u00a0Broadcasting\u00a0and\u00a0the Single European Market<\/em>\u00a0(London: John Libbey, 1991), 1.\u00a0\",\"id\":\"5782f080-a530-46f2-ae1a-6410c3c20b53\"},{\"content\":\"Senate Judiciary Committee,\u00a0Creation of a Limited Copyright in Sound Recordings: Report to Accompany S. 646<\/em>\u00a0(Washington: US Government Printing Office, 1971), 5.\",\"id\":\"9ab3346d-9a4a-4de8-88f6-95bb328b9d5e\"},{\"content\":\"Copyright Law of the United States\u00a0and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code,\u00a0Library of Congress<\/em>, circular 92\u00a0(Dec 2022),\u00a0sec.\u00a0101\u00a0and\u00a0201(b),\u00a0https:\/\/www.copyright.gov\/title17\/<\/a>.\",\"id\":\"2a16cb3d-ef8a-46e1-a115-a08eb040a05a\"},{\"content\":\"British Phonographic Industry\u00a0(hereafter\u00a0BPI),\u00a0Written Evidence Submitted by BPI<\/em>,\u00a02020-16-11,\u00a0https:\/\/committees.parliament.uk\/work\/646\/economics-of-music-streaming\/publications\/written-evidence\/<\/a>.\u00a0\",\"id\":\"4ed3152d-cad8-42a5-a7ed-fd32ce04fede\"},{\"content\":\"Ibid.,\u00a030.\",\"id\":\"0cce3c8a-6318-4dc2-98c3-bc7751144176\"},{\"content\":\"Osborne,\u00a0Owning\u00a0the Masters<\/em>,\u00a0130-35.\u00a0\",\"id\":\"a2a80f19-08cd-44c4-a6cb-8bee5a74e6ac\"},{\"content\":\"BPI,\u00a0Written<\/em>\u00a0Evidence\u00a0Submitted<\/em>, 30.\",\"id\":\"77966bba-efe1-4f7c-a70b-456724157a5a\"},{\"content\":\"Ibid.\",\"id\":\"07c6bbb1-44b5-4d85-afa0-10d1e0832ee3\"},{\"content\":\"Ann\u00a0Harrison,\u00a0Music: The Business<\/em>\u00a0(London: Virgin, 2000),\u00a069.\u00a0\",\"id\":\"cda532e3-35da-4c39-9ac5-c7fab681dfbe\"},{\"content\":\"Music Managers Forum (hereafter\u00a0MMF),\u00a0The\u00a0Deals Guide<\/em>,\u00a02017,\u00a0https:\/\/cmulibrary.com\/research-pdfs\/mmf-dealsguide.pdf<\/a>;\u00a0Kenneth W. Barr,\u00a0\u201cMusic Copyright in the Digital Age: Creators, Commerce and Copyright\u00a0- An Empirical Study of the UK Music Copyright Industries\u201d\u00a0(PhD thesis,\u00a0University of Glasgow,\u00a02016), 33,\u00a0https:\/\/theses.gla.ac.uk\/7752\/.\",\"id\":\"cb282aea-b40c-45df-bf1a-2100f8f108ea\"},{\"content\":\"David Byrne,\u00a0How Music Works<\/em>\u00a0(Edinburgh: Canongate, 2012), 235.\",\"id\":\"21e9fb26-8767-46f4-807a-463e8d383bf4\"},{\"content\":\"Association of Independent Music (hereafter\u00a0AIM),\u00a0Distribution Revolution<\/em>,\u00a02019,\u00a041,\u00a0https:\/\/cmulibrary.com\/research-pdfs\/aim-distributionrevolution.pdf<\/a>.\",\"id\":\"a88d067b-a071-42d2-ab4a-39e7c5e0636c\"},{\"content\":\"BPI,\u00a0Written\u00a0Evidence\u00a0Submitted<\/em>, 31.\",\"id\":\"6db5583f-5abb-4047-ac7a-e878f7b8ff95\"},{\"content\":\"MMF,\u00a0The\u00a0Deals\u00a0Guide<\/em>,\u00a014.\",\"id\":\"0c1559cf-7487-4253-86e4-a528490e5199\"},{\"content\":\"AIM,\u00a0Distribution\u00a0Revolution<\/em>, 33-8.\",\"id\":\"739cbeec-b3e2-4b9b-85ba-fa37dd7e8293\"},{\"content\":\"Ibid., 41; BPI,\u00a0Written\u00a0Evidence\u00a0Submitted<\/em>, 31; Tim Ingham, \u201cIf You Wanted to Know Why Sony Music Bought AWAL \u2026 This\u00a0Is Why,\u201d\u00a0Music Business Worldwide,\u00a0<\/em>2022-17-02,\u00a0https:\/\/www.musicbusinessworldwide.com\/if-you-wanted-to-know-why-sony-music-bought-awal-this-is-why\/<\/a>.\",\"id\":\"c62d8062-cae5-49d3-b3a2-42272fabf353\"},{\"content\":\"Mark Mulligan,\u00a0Recorded Music Market 2022: Reality Bites<\/em>, MIDiA (March 2023), 2.\",\"id\":\"3782bef2-f121-4c8e-a278-ba52abbb6734\"},{\"content\":\"Competition & Markets Authority,\u00a0Music\u00a0and Streaming: Final Report\u00a0<\/em>(2022-29-11),\u00a0sec.\u00a05.50.\",\"id\":\"2f1d1732-1d83-4290-8365-3f4c4381a5e7\"},{\"content\":\"Ingham, \u201cIf You\u00a0Wanted\u00a0to Know.\u201d\",\"id\":\"ff7f4051-12b6-45c2-a18a-a31abbca31e4\"},{\"content\":\"\u201cYears of Service,\u201d\u00a0Music Week\u00a0<\/em>(2015-16-01), 8-10.\",\"id\":\"92da22c4-d521-4f28-940d-6d9b4ad12cb3\"},{\"content\":\"Paul Stokes, \u201cAt Your Service,\u201d\u00a0Music Week\u00a0<\/em>(2021-01-03), 50-54.\",\"id\":\"474c91e9-aa4a-4751-854a-80998d423ac8\"},{\"content\":\"BPI,\u00a0Written\u00a0Evidence\u00a0Submitted<\/em>, 30.\u00a0\",\"id\":\"ad2e845b-5479-4aed-b31b-5beac7b505f5\"},{\"content\":\"Ben Homewood, \u201cService Stations,\u201d\u00a0Music Week\u00a0<\/em>(2018-29-01), 22-26; Tim Ingham, \u201cI Look at AWAL as the\u00a0Best Artist Development Company in the Business,\u201d\u00a0Music Business Worldwide,\u00a0<\/em>2023-01-08,\u00a0https:\/\/www.musicbusinessworldwide.com\/i-look-at-awal-as-the-best-artist-development-company-in-the-business\/<\/a>.\",\"id\":\"01a90f36-5010-4fce-8826-6020bf5b00b4\"},{\"content\":\"Byrne,\u00a0How\u00a0Music\u00a0Works<\/em>, 235; MMF,\u00a0The\u00a0Deals\u00a0Guide<\/em>, 16.\u00a0\",\"id\":\"3b1b735c-2e8b-4fc5-b230-9eff2798b22d\"},{\"content\":\"This figure has been calculated using the methodology\u00a0outlined\u00a0in\u00a0Tim\u00a0Ingham\u2019s\u00a0\u201cWhere\u00a0Are\u00a0All the Kate Bush T-shirts?\u201d\u00a0Music Business Worldwide,\u00a0<\/em>2022-22-09,\u00a0https:\/\/www.musicbizpodcast.com\/203834\/11394804<\/a>. Ingham assumes that the master rights\u00a0accrue\u00a052% of the revenue from Spotify and that Spotify pays\u00a0$0.008 per stream, which can be converted to\u00a0\u00a30.0064 per stream using 2023\u00a0exchange\u00a0rates.\",\"id\":\"17137806-1bbc-4a47-b811-c312fd958c2e\"},{\"content\":\"Ingham, \u201cKate Bush\u00a0T-shirts.\u201d\u00a0\",\"id\":\"12cb5fb8-5371-409d-a8b0-e541792b2c64\"},{\"content\":\"Age 101 Ltd,\u00a0\u201cDirector\u2019s Report and Unaudited Accounts,\u201d\u00a0Companies House<\/em>,\u00a0<\/em>2018-31-07,\u00a04,\u00a0https:\/\/www.gov.uk\/government\/organisations\/companies-house<\/a>.\",\"id\":\"a6ac3f58-8dd4-4847-aca3-9b8f0bffc6cd\"},{\"content\":\"Age 101\u00a0Ltd,\u00a0\u201cDirector\u2019s Report and Unaudited Accounts,\u201d\u00a0Companies House<\/em>,\u00a0<\/em>2019-31-07,\u00a04,\u00a0https:\/\/www.gov.uk\/government\/organisations\/companies-house<\/a>.\",\"id\":\"f3daf1aa-f169-47dd-954d-1e9995cc7be4\"},{\"content\":\"Murray Stassen, \u201cAWAL Renews Worldwide Partnership with British Rapper Little\u00a0Simz,\u201d\u00a0Music Business Worldwide,\u00a0<\/em>2020-18-06,\u00a0https:\/\/www.musicbusinessworldwide.com\/awal-renews-worldwide-partnership-with-british-rapper-little-simz\/<\/a>.\",\"id\":\"4adebe86-6ac4-48cf-811d-d2bed7e15add\"},{\"content\":\"Ingham, \u201cIf You\u00a0Wanted\u00a0to Know.\u201d\",\"id\":\"2a30d2e6-5bfd-4dbc-90fa-044ee5dffe3e\"},{\"content\":\"\u00a0Ingham, \u201cIf\u00a0You\u00a0Wanted\u00a0to Know\u201d; Ingham, \u201cI\u00a0Look\u00a0at AWAL.\u201d\u00a0\",\"id\":\"308df9cc-3568-4575-9c07-f5e0a109011a\"},{\"content\":\"Stassen, \u201cAWAL\u00a0Renews Worldwide Partnership.\u201d\",\"id\":\"f8ffc548-8c52-4e7c-8a09-570630775d7d\"},{\"content\":\"Laura Snapes, \u201cLittle\u00a0Simz\u00a0Cancels US Tour\u00a0Citing Financial Unviability as an Indie Artist,\u201d\u00a0The\u00a0Guardian,\u00a0<\/em>2022-20-04,\u00a0https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/music\/2022\/apr\/20\/little-simz-cancels-us-tour-citing-financial-unviability-indie-artist<\/a>.\",\"id\":\"4c1159aa-d7a1-4926-afd2-4b0e647bb6b3\"},{\"content\":\"Stassen, \u201cAWAL\u00a0Renews Worldwide Partnership.\u201d\u00a0\",\"id\":\"3f3936c0-6d96-4769-892c-ba79860219af\"},{\"content\":\"Ibid.\",\"id\":\"9a7c9466-b030-423d-8b5c-18902c6abc5b\"},{\"content\":\"Thomas Hobbs, \u201cLittle\u00a0Simz,\u201d\u00a0Notion,\u00a0<\/em>2020-08-01,\u00a0https:\/\/notion.online\/little-simz<\/a>\/.\u00a0\",\"id\":\"07b6d8ad-54cc-45d9-bf51-f104037c6393\"},{\"content\":\"Gillian G. Gaar,\u00a0She\u2019s a Rebel: The History of Women in Rock & Roll<\/em>, 2nd\u00a0ed.\u00a0(New York: Seal Press, 2002), 222.\",\"id\":\"4ec6b88d-853c-422e-bdb1-9a62faf47f32\"},{\"content\":\"Rob Jovanovic,\u00a0Kate Bush: The Biography\u00a0<\/em>(London:\u00a0Piatkus, 2015),\u00a067; Paul Gorman,\u00a0The Life & Times of Malcolm McLaren: The Biography\u00a0<\/em>(London: Constable, 2020), 323.\",\"id\":\"e1f46974-1cf8-4649-9f36-a616cefa00d2\"},{\"content\":\"Richard Osborne and\u00a0Hyojung\u00a0Sun,\u00a0\u201cRights Reversion and Contract Adjustment,\u201d\u00a0Intellectual Property Office<\/em>,\u00a02023,\u00a0https:\/\/www.gov.uk\/government\/publications\/economics-of-streaming-contract-adjustment-and-rights-reversion\/rights-reversion-and-contract-adjustment<\/a>.\u00a0\u00a0\",\"id\":\"7d9b3014-39cd-43e2-af34-3c8063a012c6\"},{\"content\":\"Gaar,\u00a0She\u2019s a\u00a0Rebel<\/em>, 222-3.\",\"id\":\"3532082f-80d8-479f-98d7-d253d801c0e5\"},{\"content\":\"Ibid., 223.\",\"id\":\"fa5bfb4b-260c-4c83-a3a4-e72f501627f3\"},{\"content\":\"Ibid.\",\"id\":\"0458fc07-e883-4aa0-a6d2-84df1919d76b\"},{\"content\":\"This licence deal and Bush\u2019s original 1976 agreement were made under the terms of the UK\u2019s Copyright Act 1956, rather than the current Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Whereas the 1988 Act has been updated to award ownership to the \u201cproducer,\u201d the 1956 Act awards ownership to the \u201cmaker,\u201d defined as \u201cthe person who owns the record at the time when the recording is made\u201d (Copyright Act 1956:\u00a0sec.\u00a012(8)). Thus, the only way a recording artist could gain ownership of master rights was by setting up their own production company or record label and taking control of the recording process.\u00a0\",\"id\":\"a1137fe6-6a90-484a-960e-d47a3a9f4e09\"},{\"content\":\"Simon Garfield,\u00a0Expensive Habits: The Dark Side of the Music Industry<\/em>\u00a0(London and Boston: Faber and Faber, 1986), 19\",\"id\":\"f82a3d64-6ecd-4fb6-880a-6afe111cda44\"},{\"content\":\"This deal lasted until February 2023, at which point State51\u00a0became Bush\u2019s distributor.\",\"id\":\"64e56d11-222f-42f7-8b43-c5e373c65aa1\"},{\"content\":\"Tim Ingham, \u201cKate Bush\u00a0Is the World\u2019s Biggest Independent Artist Right Now. She\u2019s Owning It,\u201d\u00a0Music Business Worldwide,\u00a0<\/em>2022-16-06,\u00a0https:\/\/www.musicbusinessworldwide.com\/kate-bush-is-the-worlds-biggest-independent-artist-right-now-shes-owning-it\/<\/a>.\",\"id\":\"b934705b-052d-4aa3-a31c-e90d35842b1b\"},{\"content\":\"Ingham,\u00a0\u201cKate Bush\u00a0T-shirts.\u201d\u00a0\",\"id\":\"7bf9e0d7-c3d5-4c27-8948-53e4fb02b7ae\"},{\"content\":\"Ibid.\",\"id\":\"58c44eb4-7623-4e12-ab87-7919c6a23580\"},{\"content\":\"Ibid.\",\"id\":\"a64ef5e6-350d-49ac-8bf0-a82e04fb3506\"},{\"content\":\"Women and Equalities Committee, \u201cMisogyny in Music,\u201d\u00a0House of Commons\u00a0<\/em>(January 2024),\u00a0para.\u00a02,\u00a0https:\/\/committees.parliament.uk\/publications\/43084\/documents\/214478\/default\/<\/a>.\u00a0\",\"id\":\"47025d55-1201-4cc3-a9be-842612662ab1\"},{\"content\":\"\u201cIs the Gender Gap in Entrepreneurship Closing?\u201d\u00a0OECD<\/em>\u00a0(2018),\u00a0https:\/\/www.oecd.org\/cfe\/smes\/inclusive-entrepreneurship\/gender.htm#:~:text=The%20gender%20gap%20in%20entrepreneurship%20can%20be%20explained%20by%20a,entrepreneurship%20skills%2C%20failures%20in%20financial<\/a>.\",\"id\":\"bb9258ba-59a2-482c-a141-7be96d88381f\"},{\"content\":\"\u201cPromoting Women\u2019s Entrepreneurship Development and Gender Equality, Phase III,\u201d\u00a0ILO<\/em>\u00a0(2008-2011),\u00a0https:\/\/www.ilo.org\/asia\/projects\/WCMS_099683\/lang--en\/index.htm<\/a>.\",\"id\":\"992c9cd5-ae96-4d6f-a946-45441afce91d\"},{\"content\":\"Hobbs, \u201cLittle\u00a0Simz.\u201d\u00a0Simz\u00a0also faces intersectional biases. Racial aspects of master rights ownership are explored in Richard Osborne, \u201cMasters and Slaves,\u201d in\u00a0The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Music Industry Studies<\/em>, ed. Ryan Nolan and David Arditi (London: Palgrave Macmillan, forthcoming).\",\"id\":\"a74aef05-078f-4ce4-aabe-37afafd5db4d\"},{\"content\":\"Daisy Jones, \u201cLittle\u00a0Simz\u00a0Is Pioneering UK Rap, So Why Won\u2019t the Industry Support Her?\u201d\u00a0Vice<\/em>,\u00a02016-01-12,\u00a0https:\/\/www.vice.com\/en\/article\/xdwkpq\/little-simz-is-pioneering-uk-rap-so-why-wont-the-industry-support-her<\/a>.\",\"id\":\"7a71e0d0-16c8-461c-ad0c-5b245887a985\"},{\"content\":\"Vick Bain, \u201cCounting the Music Industry: The Gender Gap,\u201d\u00a0UK Music<\/em>, October 2019,\u00a035-6,\u00a0\u00a0https:\/\/www.ukmusic.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/Counting-the-Music-Industry-full-report-2019.pdf<\/a>; Safi Bugel, \u2018\u201cThis Wouldn\u2019t Have Happened 20 Years Ago: How Women Began Dominating British Dance Music,\u00a0The<\/em>\u00a0Guardian<\/em>, 2024-05-01,\u00a0https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/music\/2024\/jan\/05\/this-wouldnt-have-happened-20-years-ago-how-women-began-dominating-british-dance-music<\/a>.\u00a0\",\"id\":\"42dc7603-21bd-4def-8a61-d96880a958c1\"},{\"content\":\"John Seabrook,\u00a0The Song Machine: Inside the Hit Factory\u00a0<\/em>(London: Jonathan Cape, 2015), 202-205; Lily Allen,\u00a0My Thoughts Exactly\u00a0<\/em>(London: Blink, 2018), 166-7.\u00a0\",\"id\":\"93fda455-7702-4a75-bc95-a690969b1522\"},{\"content\":\"George Garner, \u201cRebalancing Act,\u201d\u00a0Music Week<\/em>\u00a0(2017-14-08), 19-20.\",\"id\":\"1d76eb36-7487-40cd-889a-acdd5152bfdd\"},{\"content\":\"Women and Equalities Committee, \u201cMisogyny\u00a0in Music\u201d,\u00a0para.\u00a025.\",\"id\":\"fbda4c00-671c-4dab-bfb8-fd7e76506718\"},{\"content\":\"Richard Osborne,\u00a0Vinyl: A History of the Analogue Record\u00a0<\/em>(Farnham: Ashgate, 2012), 111.\",\"id\":\"e08c1254-055b-4ce4-b7e0-2d5e3f43b174\"},{\"content\":\"Bain,\u00a0\u201cCounting the Music Industry,\\\"\u00a013, 18.\",\"id\":\"28f4aa23-3014-4319-ade8-54e3206e3309\"},{\"content\":\"Ibid., 13.\",\"id\":\"50df2615-a524-472d-9861-f6ae178d309f\"},{\"content\":\"Richard Osborne, \u201cThe Critics\u2019 (Second and Third) Choice Award,\u201d\u00a0Pop Bothering Me<\/em>\u00a0(blog),\u00a0<\/em>2020-17-02,\u00a0https:\/\/richardosbornevinyl.blogspot.com\/2020\/02\/the-critics-second-and-third-choice.html<\/a>.\",\"id\":\"3ab06bb2-7e82-4201-910b-e66a8c41544d\"},{\"content\":\"Seabrook,\u00a0The Song\u00a0Machine<\/em>, 196-207; Sophie\u00a0Heawood, \u201cLily Allen: \u2018I\u00a0Was\u00a0Pretty Brazen\u00a0With\u00a0All\u00a0My Behaviour. I Just Didn\u2019t Care,\u201d\u00a0The<\/em>\u00a0Guardian,\u00a0<\/em>2018-15-09,\u00a0https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/music\/2018\/sep\/15\/lily-allen-brazen-behaviour-didnt-care-sophie-heawood<\/a>.\",\"id\":\"8265e96a-145c-4d11-9a5e-c8044e8a0d56\"},{\"content\":\"Michael Cragg, \u201c\u2018I\u2019m Angry, I\u2019m Raging\u2019: How Raye\u00a0Took\u00a0On\u00a0Her Record Label \u2013 and\u00a0Won,\u201d\u00a0The<\/em>\u00a0Guardian<\/em>,\u00a02021-25-09,\u00a0https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/music\/2021\/sep\/25\/im-angry-im-raging-how-raye-took-on-her-record-label-and-won#<\/a>.\",\"id\":\"e5fbf247-cbf9-4fa9-90e4-baf106469108\"},{\"content\":\"Ibid.\",\"id\":\"77c8d60a-4d7b-4528-997c-961d1fc22a31\"},{\"content\":\"Keith Negus,\u00a0Producing Pop: Culture and Conflict in the Music Industry<\/em>\u00a0(London: Arnold, 1992), 54-5.\",\"id\":\"ed00021a-713a-4632-9074-5d8c5226581e\"},{\"content\":\"Bain,\u00a0\u201cCounting\u00a0the Music Industry,\u201d\u00a035.\",\"id\":\"2980b4f6-cd37-4db1-9088-248ff7fdd8bd\"},{\"content\":\"\u00a0Cragg, \u201cI\u2019m\u00a0Angry, I\u2019m Raging.\u201d\",\"id\":\"c9e16cc6-9575-4458-9ecb-35b3865410f5\"},{\"content\":\"\u201cGender Equality,\u201d\u00a0OECD<\/em>,\u00a0https:\/\/www.oecd.org\/gender\/data\/employment\/<\/a>.\",\"id\":\"3618efac-d47d-42af-91db-5d168ddab0d1\"},{\"content\":\"UK Music,\u00a0Diversity Report 2022<\/em>, 27,\u00a0https:\/\/www.ukmusic.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/Diversity-2022-Spreads-1.pdf.\",\"id\":\"12822f40-83d4-4179-a1e7-da5e3d84e789\"},{\"content\":\"Bugel,\u00a0\u201c20 Years\u00a0Ago.\u201d\",\"id\":\"c0dac2b2-81f4-4f68-910d-dab507319087\"},{\"content\":\"Eamonn Forde, \u201cTaylor-made Deals: How Artists\u00a0Are Following Swift\u2019s Rights Example,\u201d\u00a0The<\/em>\u00a0Guardian<\/em>, 2024-09-01,\u00a0https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/music\/2024\/jan\/09\/taylor-swift-deals-how-artists-rights-example<\/a>.\u00a0\",\"id\":\"90e61c8a-2450-4480-8103-82260a0b2f61\"},{\"content\":\"Women and Equalities Committee, \u201cMisogyny\u00a0in Music,\u201d para.\u00a043.\",\"id\":\"a18af014-1058-43cd-b52c-5b2c6897d7cd\"}]"},"categories":[40],"tags":[50,42,43,46,47],"class_list":["post-6559","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-short-wave","tag-recorded-music","tag-artists","tag-law","tag-equality","tag-europe-en"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n\u201cI Refuse to Be on a Slave Ship\u201d - CNMlab<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/cnmlab.fr\/en\/short-wave\/i-refuse-to-be-on-a-slave-ship\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"\u201cI Refuse to Be on a Slave Ship\u201d - CNMlab\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Summary  This chapter addresses three main subjects. First, it looks […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/cnmlab.fr\/en\/short-wave\/i-refuse-to-be-on-a-slave-ship\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"CNMlab\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-02-24T12:15:35+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-08-26T14:45:53+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/cnmlab.fr\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/Couverture-Article-Osborne-EN-scaled.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1810\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"2560\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/cnmlab.fr\\\/en\\\/short-wave\\\/i-refuse-to-be-on-a-slave-ship\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/cnmlab.fr\\\/en\\\/short-wave\\\/i-refuse-to-be-on-a-slave-ship\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"lamia.fadouach@cnm.fr\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/cnmlab.fr\\\/en\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/a6bcec6925482644f3db2e74d7c8916a\"},\"headline\":\"\u201cI Refuse to Be on a Slave Ship\u201d\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-02-24T12:15:35+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-08-26T14:45:53+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/cnmlab.fr\\\/en\\\/short-wave\\\/i-refuse-to-be-on-a-slave-ship\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":7002,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/cnmlab.fr\\\/en\\\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/cnmlab.fr\\\/en\\\/short-wave\\\/i-refuse-to-be-on-a-slave-ship\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/cnmlab.fr\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/02\\\/Couverture-Article-Osborne-EN-scaled.jpg\",\"keywords\":[\"Recorded music\",\"Artists\",\"Law\",\"Equality\",\"Europe\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Short wave\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/cnmlab.fr\\\/en\\\/short-wave\\\/i-refuse-to-be-on-a-slave-ship\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/cnmlab.fr\\\/en\\\/short-wave\\\/i-refuse-to-be-on-a-slave-ship\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/cnmlab.fr\\\/en\\\/short-wave\\\/i-refuse-to-be-on-a-slave-ship\\\/\",\"name\":\"\u201cI Refuse to Be on a Slave Ship\u201d - CNMlab\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/cnmlab.fr\\\/en\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/cnmlab.fr\\\/en\\\/short-wave\\\/i-refuse-to-be-on-a-slave-ship\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/cnmlab.fr\\\/en\\\/short-wave\\\/i-refuse-to-be-on-a-slave-ship\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/cnmlab.fr\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/02\\\/Couverture-Article-Osborne-EN-scaled.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-02-24T12:15:35+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-08-26T14:45:53+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/cnmlab.fr\\\/en\\\/short-wave\\\/i-refuse-to-be-on-a-slave-ship\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/cnmlab.fr\\\/en\\\/short-wave\\\/i-refuse-to-be-on-a-slave-ship\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/cnmlab.fr\\\/en\\\/short-wave\\\/i-refuse-to-be-on-a-slave-ship\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/cnmlab.fr\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/02\\\/Couverture-Article-Osborne-EN-scaled.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/cnmlab.fr\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/02\\\/Couverture-Article-Osborne-EN-scaled.jpg\",\"width\":1810,\"height\":2560},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/cnmlab.fr\\\/en\\\/short-wave\\\/i-refuse-to-be-on-a-slave-ship\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"CNMlab\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/cnmlab.fr\\\/en\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Europe\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/cnmlab.fr\\\/en\\\/tag\\\/europe-en\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":3,\"name\":\"\u201cI Refuse to Be on a Slave Ship\u201d\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/cnmlab.fr\\\/en\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/cnmlab.fr\\\/en\\\/\",\"name\":\"CNMlab\",\"description\":\"Laboratoire d\u2019id\u00e9es du Centre national de la musique\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/cnmlab.fr\\\/en\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/cnmlab.fr\\\/en\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/cnmlab.fr\\\/en\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"CNMlab\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/cnmlab.fr\\\/en\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/cnmlab.fr\\\/en\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/cnmlab.fr\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2022\\\/06\\\/logo-cnmlab-social.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/cnmlab.fr\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2022\\\/06\\\/logo-cnmlab-social.jpg\",\"width\":1280,\"height\":720,\"caption\":\"CNMlab\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/cnmlab.fr\\\/en\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"}},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/cnmlab.fr\\\/en\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/a6bcec6925482644f3db2e74d7c8916a\",\"name\":\"lamia.fadouach@cnm.fr\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"\u201cI Refuse to Be on a Slave Ship\u201d - CNMlab","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/cnmlab.fr\/en\/short-wave\/i-refuse-to-be-on-a-slave-ship\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"\u201cI Refuse to Be on a Slave Ship\u201d - CNMlab","og_description":"Summary  This chapter addresses three main subjects. First, it looks […]","og_url":"https:\/\/cnmlab.fr\/en\/short-wave\/i-refuse-to-be-on-a-slave-ship\/","og_site_name":"CNMlab","article_published_time":"2025-02-24T12:15:35+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-08-26T14:45:53+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1810,"height":2560,"url":"https:\/\/cnmlab.fr\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/Couverture-Article-Osborne-EN-scaled.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"twitter_card":"summary_large_image","schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/cnmlab.fr\/en\/short-wave\/i-refuse-to-be-on-a-slave-ship\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/cnmlab.fr\/en\/short-wave\/i-refuse-to-be-on-a-slave-ship\/"},"author":{"name":"lamia.fadouach@cnm.fr","@id":"https:\/\/cnmlab.fr\/en\/#\/schema\/person\/a6bcec6925482644f3db2e74d7c8916a"},"headline":"\u201cI Refuse to Be on a Slave Ship\u201d","datePublished":"2025-02-24T12:15:35+00:00","dateModified":"2026-08-26T14:45:53+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/cnmlab.fr\/en\/short-wave\/i-refuse-to-be-on-a-slave-ship\/"},"wordCount":7002,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/cnmlab.fr\/en\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/cnmlab.fr\/en\/short-wave\/i-refuse-to-be-on-a-slave-ship\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/cnmlab.fr\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/Couverture-Article-Osborne-EN-scaled.jpg","keywords":["Recorded music","Artists","Law","Equality","Europe"],"articleSection":["Short wave"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/cnmlab.fr\/en\/short-wave\/i-refuse-to-be-on-a-slave-ship\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/cnmlab.fr\/en\/short-wave\/i-refuse-to-be-on-a-slave-ship\/","url":"https:\/\/cnmlab.fr\/en\/short-wave\/i-refuse-to-be-on-a-slave-ship\/","name":"\u201cI Refuse to Be on a Slave Ship\u201d - CNMlab","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/cnmlab.fr\/en\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/cnmlab.fr\/en\/short-wave\/i-refuse-to-be-on-a-slave-ship\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/cnmlab.fr\/en\/short-wave\/i-refuse-to-be-on-a-slave-ship\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/cnmlab.fr\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/Couverture-Article-Osborne-EN-scaled.jpg","datePublished":"2025-02-24T12:15:35+00:00","dateModified":"2026-08-26T14:45:53+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/cnmlab.fr\/en\/short-wave\/i-refuse-to-be-on-a-slave-ship\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/cnmlab.fr\/en\/short-wave\/i-refuse-to-be-on-a-slave-ship\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/cnmlab.fr\/en\/short-wave\/i-refuse-to-be-on-a-slave-ship\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/cnmlab.fr\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/Couverture-Article-Osborne-EN-scaled.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/cnmlab.fr\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/Couverture-Article-Osborne-EN-scaled.jpg","width":1810,"height":2560},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/cnmlab.fr\/en\/short-wave\/i-refuse-to-be-on-a-slave-ship\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"CNMlab","item":"https:\/\/cnmlab.fr\/en\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Europe","item":"https:\/\/cnmlab.fr\/en\/tag\/europe-en\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"\u201cI Refuse to Be on a Slave Ship\u201d"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/cnmlab.fr\/en\/#website","url":"https:\/\/cnmlab.fr\/en\/","name":"CNMlab","description":"Laboratoire d\u2019id\u00e9es du Centre national de la musique","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/cnmlab.fr\/en\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/cnmlab.fr\/en\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/cnmlab.fr\/en\/#organization","name":"CNMlab","url":"https:\/\/cnmlab.fr\/en\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/cnmlab.fr\/en\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/cnmlab.fr\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/logo-cnmlab-social.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/cnmlab.fr\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/logo-cnmlab-social.jpg","width":1280,"height":720,"caption":"CNMlab"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/cnmlab.fr\/en\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/cnmlab.fr\/en\/#\/schema\/person\/a6bcec6925482644f3db2e74d7c8916a","name":"lamia.fadouach@cnm.fr"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/cnmlab.fr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6559","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/cnmlab.fr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/cnmlab.fr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cnmlab.fr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/38"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cnmlab.fr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6559"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/cnmlab.fr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6559\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7455,"href":"https:\/\/cnmlab.fr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6559\/revisions\/7455"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cnmlab.fr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/6570"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/cnmlab.fr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6559"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cnmlab.fr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6559"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cnmlab.fr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6559"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}