Hacker News Reader

I don’t really get how it works that Hipgnosis owns the library and future royalties, but UMG still owns the copyrights to all the music? How does that work and what does that mean exactly?

View on HN

As I understand it, Hipognosis owns the actual audio recordings. UMG owns the copyrights to the music and lyrics. So if you want to record a new version, you talk to UMG. If you want to play the one Beiber performed you talk to Hipgnosis.

You can see an extreme example with Taylor Swift not owning the original recordings, hence her re-recording her songs ten years later.

Other way around. UMG: Bieber's recordings. Hipgnosis: publishing copyrights (music and lyrics), neighbouring rights (public performances of Bieber's recordings, mostly outside the US), and Hipgnosis bought Bieber's downstream artist royalties for use of the recordings (UMG will still own them but pay Hipgnosis instead of Bieber for the royalties previously owed to Bieber under the terms of his record deal)

Thanks for the correction!

UMG presumably have to defend the copyright to maintain it, so they get all the costs and none of the upside benefits?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com