At 01:53 PM 7/21/2003 -0400, [log in to unmask] wrote:
>Aren't these "life +" copyright terms on the songs, rather than the sound
>recordings? And, is it not true that sound recordings before 1972 are not
>copyrighted due to an oversight of the writers of the original law, so
>they had to be protected by various state anti-piracy laws? Keep in
>mind that until after the 1942-44 AFM strike, it wasn't standard practice
>to pay royalties to recording artists, so that in 99.9% of cases their
>lifespans wouldn't affect what they could collect!
"Life"+ in general applies to international text and music copyright, but
as I understand not to the U.S. version. In that, I may well be in error;
my interests are primarily in public-domain material in copyright performance.
15 February 1972 is the date before which there is no U.S. *federal*
copyright protection, since that is the earliest date at which a sound
recording can be considered to have been fixed. (No, they were not broken
before then. <G>) However, state and common law still apply. They are only
pre-empted where federal law is defined, i.e., after 15 February 1972.
Beyond that, matters get complicated.
[log in to unmask]