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

Re: [RedHotJazz] Re: copyright and early jazz

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 7 , Sep 4 5:03 PM
    • 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 2 of 7 , Sep 6 12:06 AM
      • 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.