Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [RedHotJazz] copyright and early jazz

Expand Messages
  • Jon Noring
    ... I have not followed this discussion thread, but it looks interesting! Is the original question regarding the copyright status of sound recordings? Or to
    Message 1 of 7 , Sep 3, 2005
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Scott wrote:

      > Perhaps this will help:
      > http://www.bromsun.com/images/flowchart.gif

      I have not followed this discussion thread, but it looks interesting!

      Is the original question regarding the copyright status of sound
      recordings? Or to song compositions? Or to written material?

      Regarding the copyright status in the U.S. of sound recordings, refer
      to: http://www.teleread.org/blog/2003_10_26_archive.html#106768614604144566

      In summary, U.S. Federal Copyright law does NOT cover sound recordings
      recorded before Feb. 15, 1972. Instead, they are covered under a maze
      of State laws (as explained in the article.) The net effect is that
      under some State copyright laws, there is no expiration, so
      technically the earliest commercial sound recordings from the late
      1800's are protected!

      The rules used to determine the copyright status of printed materials
      don't apply to sound recordings.

      Now song compositions, that's another matter, and they are covered
      under U.S. Copyright law using the same rules (I think) as written
      materials. Any song composition published in the U.S. before 1923 is
      definitely Public Domain.

      Jon Noring
    • robertdotnagle
      Scott, actually it doesn t. According to federal law 301c., pre1972 recordings are NOT covered by federal copyright law. I am not a lawyer, so I don t have
      Message 2 of 7 , Sep 3, 2005
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Scott, actually it doesn't.

        According to federal law 301c., pre1972 recordings are NOT covered by
        federal copyright law. I am not a lawyer, so I don't have the ability
        to interpret this law (and maybe I am missing something very serious).
        Here's the passage:

        http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap3.html [copyright.gov]
        (c) With respect to sound recordings fixed before February 15, 1972,
        any rights or remedies under the common law or statutes of any State
        shall not be annulled or limited by this title until February 15,
        2067. The preemptive provisions of subsection (a) shall apply to any
        such rights and remedies pertaining to any cause of action arising
        from undertakings commenced on and after February 15, 2067.
        Notwithstanding the provisions of section 303, no sound recording
        fixed before February 15, 1972, shall be subject to copyright under
        this title before, on, or after February 15, 2067.

        The way I read it, it says that state laws about
        copyright/recordings(not federal laws) take precedence over federal
        copyright law for all recordings prior to 1972. Frankly, I have no
        idea how long copyright lasts according to state laws prior to 1972.

        This sounds pretty amazing (and horrifying) to me if it is true. And
        by the way, that's why it probably is extremely useful to know the
        state where the recording is made (I notice the site has this
        information easily available).

        As I said, I don't want to be giving out wrong information unless I
        first verify. (so please, no one take my word as gospel). But I
        wanted to see if anyone in your group had any experience dealing with
        these issues before.

        Robert Nagle

        --- In RedHotJazz@yahoogroups.com, Scott Alexander <scott@t...> wrote:
        > Perhaps this will help:
        > http://www.bromsun.com/images/flowchart.gif
      • Scott Alexander
        If you really want to get confused start investigating the concept of fair use and how it fits into this copyright mess that has been created. I m not a lawyer
        Message 3 of 7 , Sep 4, 2005
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          If you really want to get confused start investigating the concept of
          fair use and how it fits into this copyright mess that has been created.
          I'm not a lawyer either, but I've had no complaints about copyright
          violations with the recordings on the Red Hot Jazz Archive and I've been
          streaming audio on the Internet since February of 1996. I've talked to
          lawyers about this issue and their opinion was that that no clear legal
          precedent has been set in regards to fair use and and public domain and
          how it applied to the Internet. Until that happens the laws can be
          interpreted in various ways.

          Why don't you talk to Lawrence Lessig (http://www.lessig.org/blog) ? He
          challenged the current copyright laws at the Supreme Court. He has
          looked into this from a legal perspective more than just about anyone.
          He is a lawyer and he is aware of the Red Hot Jazz Archive. He is also
          the main man of the Creative Commons gang. (http://creativecommons.org)

          Scott Alexander
          The Red Hot Jazz Archive
          www.redhotjazz.com
        • Prof_Hi_Jinx
          I know it s been said before, but you need to remember that there are two potential forms of protection:(c) which covers the work ; and(p) which covers
          Message 4 of 7 , Sep 4, 2005
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            I know it's been said before, but you need to remember that there are two
            potential forms of protection:

            (c) which covers the "work"; and

            (p) which covers the recording

            It is only the (p) right (in the recording as "fixed") that commenced in
            1972 in the US - it is highly doubtful that there was *any* protection for
            recordings as such in the US before 1972.

            However there *may* be state "common law" or statute rights in (p)
            recordings, which may be eternal or may extend to 2047, depending on
            recording date (and, of course, location), and are highly nebulous.

            In the case of (c) rights, most works composed before 1922 are now in public
            domain, and a large number of non-copyrighted works from after that date are
            not protected - but see Section 303 of the 1976 Act as amended.

            In the case of (c) rights, the British Empire brought an end to common law
            copyright in 1911, and it is arguable that the US did the same as from 1978.

            Bob

            ----- Original Message -----
            From: "robertdotnagle" <idiotprogrammer@...>
            To: <RedHotJazz@yahoogroups.com>
            Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2005 10:58 AM
            Subject: [RedHotJazz] Re: copyright and early jazz


            > Scott, actually it doesn't.
            >
            > According to federal law 301c., pre1972 recordings are NOT covered by
            > federal copyright law. I am not a lawyer, so I don't have the ability
            > to interpret this law (and maybe I am missing something very serious).
            > Here's the passage:
            >
            > http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap3.html [copyright.gov]
            > (c) With respect to sound recordings fixed before February 15, 1972,
            > any rights or remedies under the common law or statutes of any State
            > shall not be annulled or limited by this title until February 15,
            > 2067. The preemptive provisions of subsection (a) shall apply to any
            > such rights and remedies pertaining to any cause of action arising
            > from undertakings commenced on and after February 15, 2067.
            > Notwithstanding the provisions of section 303, no sound recording
            > fixed before February 15, 1972, shall be subject to copyright under
            > this title before, on, or after February 15, 2067.
            >
            > The way I read it, it says that state laws about
            > copyright/recordings(not federal laws) take precedence over federal
            > copyright law for all recordings prior to 1972. Frankly, I have no
            > idea how long copyright lasts according to state laws prior to 1972.
            >
            > This sounds pretty amazing (and horrifying) to me if it is true. And
            > by the way, that's why it probably is extremely useful to know the
            > state where the recording is made (I notice the site has this
            > information easily available).
            >
            > As I said, I don't want to be giving out wrong information unless I
            > first verify. (so please, no one take my word as gospel). But I
            > wanted to see if anyone in your group had any experience dealing with
            > these issues before.
            >
            > Robert Nagle
            >
            > --- In RedHotJazz@yahoogroups.com, Scott Alexander <scott@t...> wrote:
            >> Perhaps this will help:
            >> http://www.bromsun.com/images/flowchart.gif
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > Yahoo! Groups Links
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >


            Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
          • Michael Rader
            Copyright is indeed a very messy business, particularly in the US. The best current example is the fight between Naxos and Capitol on British recordings from
            Message 5 of 7 , Sep 6, 2005
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              Copyright is indeed a very messy business, particularly in the US. The best current example is the fight between Naxos and Capitol on British recordings from the 1930s, which the New York Court of Appeals has "rescued" from the public domain for Capitol. In the UK, there is an initiative by the Minister for the Creative Industries to extend copyright from the current 50 years on recordings so that impoverished pop-stars like Elvis Presley, Bill Haley and the Beatles are rescued from the breadline (;-)) [Don't tell me that Elvis, Hailey, Lennon and Harrison are no longer among us]. Fortunately, protection in Europe cannot be in retrospect, so that everything that has entered the PD will firmly remain there.

              The neatest response I have seen by a prospective reissue producer is to ask to company claiming to own copyright to produce proof, e.g. a contract or the original master (or maybe even a file copy). However, I do not feel that existing reissues by the specialist labels are fair prey to anyone wishing to re-use their transfers. I have written an article on the subject: http://www.indicare.org/tiki-read_article.php?articleId=98

              Kind regards,

              Michael Rader



              RedHotJazz@yahoogroups.com schrieb am 05.09.05 02:03:12:
              >
              > I know it's been said before, but you need to remember that there are two
              > potential forms of protection:
              >
              > (c) which covers the "work"; and
              >
              > (p) which covers the recording
              >
              > It is only the (p) right (in the recording as "fixed") that commenced in
              > 1972 in the US - it is highly doubtful that there was *any* protection for
              > recordings as such in the US before 1972.
              >
              > However there *may* be state "common law" or statute rights in (p)
              > recordings, which may be eternal or may extend to 2047, depending on
              > recording date (and, of course, location), and are highly nebulous.
              >
              > In the case of (c) rights, most works composed before 1922 are now in public
              > domain, and a large number of non-copyrighted works from after that date are
              > not protected - but see Section 303 of the 1976 Act as amended.
              >
              > In the case of (c) rights, the British Empire brought an end to common law
              > copyright in 1911, and it is arguable that the US did the same as from 1978.
              >
              > Bob
              >
              > ----- Original Message -----
              > From: "robertdotnagle" <idiotprogrammer@...>
              > To: <RedHotJazz@yahoogroups.com>
              > Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2005 10:58 AM
              > Subject: [RedHotJazz] Re: copyright and early jazz
              >
              >
              > > Scott, actually it doesn't.
              > >
              > > According to federal law 301c., pre1972 recordings are NOT covered by
              > > federal copyright law. I am not a lawyer, so I don't have the ability
              > > to interpret this law (and maybe I am missing something very serious).
              > > Here's the passage:
              > >
              > > http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap3.html [copyright.gov]
              > > (c) With respect to sound recordings fixed before February 15, 1972,
              > > any rights or remedies under the common law or statutes of any State
              > > shall not be annulled or limited by this title until February 15,
              > > 2067. The preemptive provisions of subsection (a) shall apply to any
              > > such rights and remedies pertaining to any cause of action arising
              > > from undertakings commenced on and after February 15, 2067.
              > > Notwithstanding the provisions of section 303, no sound recording
              > > fixed before February 15, 1972, shall be subject to copyright under
              > > this title before, on, or after February 15, 2067.
              > >
              > > The way I read it, it says that state laws about
              > > copyright/recordings(not federal laws) take precedence over federal
              > > copyright law for all recordings prior to 1972. Frankly, I have no
              > > idea how long copyright lasts according to state laws prior to 1972.
              > >
              > > This sounds pretty amazing (and horrifying) to me if it is true. And
              > > by the way, that's why it probably is extremely useful to know the
              > > state where the recording is made (I notice the site has this
              > > information easily available).
              > >
              > > As I said, I don't want to be giving out wrong information unless I
              > > first verify. (so please, no one take my word as gospel). But I
              > > wanted to see if anyone in your group had any experience dealing with
              > > these issues before.
              > >
              > > Robert Nagle
              > >
              > > --- In RedHotJazz@yahoogroups.com, Scott Alexander <scott@t...> wrote:
              > >> Perhaps this will help:
              > >> http://www.bromsun.com/images/flowchart.gif
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > Yahoo! Groups Links
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              >
              >
              > Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > Yahoo! Groups Links
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >


              _________________________________________________________________________
              Mit der Gruppen-SMS von WEB.DE FreeMail k├Ânnen Sie eine SMS an alle
              Freunde gleichzeitig schicken: http://freemail.web.de/features/?mc=021179
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.