Thanks, James.  I will look at the decision you referenced and see if it is
the one I am thinking about, that I read some months ago.  I wrote an
explanation to this list about that decision.

RE << Nobody has questioned the right of remastering and restoration work
to be copyrightable in itself. That's long been established.>>  This is not
my understanding.  I believe that the decision that I read and commented
upon earlier, which was from a CA US District Court, was the first US
decision that ever recognized that restoration work, in itself, was
copyrightable.   Whether or not the US Copyright Office will accept the
filing of such a copyright, I don't know.  I haven't tried it yet.

RE <<The original pre-1972 recording is still covered by state laws.>>  Yes
but only in states where there is any such law.  I do not have a good
state-by-state survey of state law copyright law (wish I did), but the two
big ones are NY (just decisional law--and oh what a mess it is) and CA (a
statute).  You can find good decisions in some states holding outright that
there is no such thing as state law copyright law in that particular state,
refusing to adopt the NY approach.  I am recalling such a decision from a
Florida federal court, I think.  Maybe it was Georgia?  In many states, I
am sure you will find nothing at all, and that would support the view that
such states do not recognize any state law copyright law, which in the
absence of a statute is court-created law.  My impression is that state law
copyright only exists in a handful of states.  If anyone has a good survey,
i would love to see it.

RE Congress dealing with copyright issues?  Well, hope springs eternal.
This Congress, in terms of accomplishing meaningful things for the country,
can't seem to get their own shoes tied in the mornings.  I can't imagine
their "getting to" anything like Copyright issues.  This is not meant as
political commentary, just observable fact.

Best,
John






On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 1:13 PM, Wolf, James L <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Lofty et al.,
>
>     I should clarify that the decision states that the state laws no
> longer apply to the *remastered version of the* pre-1972 work. The original
> pre-1972 recording is still covered by state laws.
>
> James
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List [mailto:
> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Wolf, James L
> Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2017 12:53 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Copyright ownership
>
> Lofty,
>
>    Yes, that is wrong. The decision states that the state laws no longer
> apply to the pre-1972 work, and that the original rights-holder has no
> claim to the remastered version.
>
> James
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List [mailto:
> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Loftus Becker
> Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2017 12:41 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Copyright ownership
>
> I don’t see what’s so bizarre about that. It means that when, for
> instance, Ward Marston spends many skilled hours restoring old 78s and
> issues a CD of the product, you and I can’t just make copies and sell them
> for less money.
>
> He doesn’t get copyright in the original music or recording. We can still
> process our own copies of the 78s, or perform the music. We just can’t copy
> his restoration.
>
> Is that wrong?
>
> Lofty
>
> Loftus Becker
> Professor of Law
> University of Connecticut School of Law
>
> > On Apr 25, 2017, at 12:31 PM, Wolf, James L <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> > Your client is probably referring to the bizarre decision last year from
> a US District Court in California. A judge decided that remastering a
> pre-1972 recording essentially created a new work, copyrightable by the
> remastering engineer. This article provides an analysis and contains a link
> to the decision itself: https://www.techdirt.com/
> articles/20160602/07371934600/this-is-bad-court-says-
> remastered-old-songs-get-brand-new-copyright.shtml
> >
> > As far as I know, this decision hasn't been tested by an appeals court
> yet, but I can't imagine that it will stand for very long. Still, I can't
> blame your client for being worried.
> >
> > James
> >
> >
>