LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST  October 2005

ARSCLIST October 2005

Subject:

Re: Copyright of treasures

From:

Aaron Levinson <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sat, 8 Oct 2005 12:48:44 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (82 lines)

Mike- Is right but I would go one further and say that the likelihood 
that you will be able to locate anyone in Business Affairs, at what is 
now Sony/BMG, who has even the vaguest idea what you are talking about 
is bordering on zero. I have found during my days
as a DJ, that many of the majors do not even know the about CD's by 
artists currently under contract to them (and are
out on the circuit touring behind these albums no less)!  I too am not 
a lawyer, but I think you should go ahead and do
exactly what you intend to do. Particularly since you could earmark all 
income from the sale  of the reissue to go
towards the scholarship fund, those involved could not even be 
construed as "profiting" from the sale.

Aaron Levinson
Libertad Records

On Oct 8, 2005, at 2:35 AM, Mike Richter wrote:

> Rod Stephens wrote:
>> Hello Karl,
>> I've watched the back and forth discussion re: copyrights with much 
>> interest for a personal reason.  During my personal time, I've been 
>> remastering to CD recordings from 1/4" master tapes that were made 
>> from 1951 to 1955 at small western college that I attended.  In fact, 
>> I was a member of the choral ensemble that was the subject of the 
>> recordings, so I guess that would make me one of the artists.  Also, 
>> the tapes were recorded by a local engineer/dairyman (his hobby), and 
>> then, used to make two commercial releases by Columbia Masterworks.  
>> There are about three more LPs that were released on Columbia's minor 
>> labels (Harmony, Epic, etc.).  However, the masters have remained in 
>> the possession of the succeeding conductors of the choir, and only 
>> recently were given to me for remastering.  I have sold a small 
>> number of the CDs to choir alumni (also, the "artists") who requested 
>> them, the cost of which, used to cover my minor costs, and the 
>> balance sent to the current college choir fund (a charitable 
>> donation).  The main thrust of this remastering is to be part of an 
>> archive at the college which we alums are trying to set up, so that 
>> there will be a history for the ongoing ensemble carrying on the 
>> tradition, and others that can take pride in the achievements that 
>> have been carried on at the school.
>> So far, the current director of the ensemble, one of the school of 
>> music professors, says that my remasterings are much better than the 
>> Columbia LPs, but I credit that to the digital tools that I use today 
>> that weren't available to the Columbia engineers.  Anyway, I feel 
>> that these are substantially improved recordings and changed in the 
>> process.
>> I guess I'm asking what the potential sale of these new renditions to 
>> the public could trigger?  Or, is just the private sale to alums 
>> legal?  We wish to generate revenue to help set up the archive.  
>> Again, remember, the masters were produced by our own engineer and 
>> returned I would guess after submastering to LP (the director who 
>> conducted and took the masters has passed on, so I don't have any 
>> direct knowledge of the process).  I'm pretty sure that these are the 
>> original masters due to the writing and EQ settings on the tape 
>> boxes, and the manual splices and manual editing.
>> I'd appreciate any input on what I feel is a unique situation.
>
> As always, it is necessary to note that I am not an attorney. The 
> following is from my reading and a few discussions with attorneys.
>
> It is essential to find out what agreement was signed with Columbia 
> for the commercial releases. In all likelihood, it is limited to the 
> titles they published, but it could have an exclusivity clause which 
> goes farther.
>
> Someone in the school's legal office should contact someone at CBS 
> after reviewing the agreement. Under the circumstances, it is likely 
> that CBS would waive any rights the agreement might have given them. 
> It is even possible, though quite unlikely, that they would like to 
> publish one or more of your transfers.
>
> The essential point is that the college presumably had all rights 
> initially unless there was a soloist under contract, in which case 
> that agreement would also have to be checked. Some rights were granted 
> to Columbia for publication; they are what probably need to be waived.
>
> Mike
> -- 
> [log in to unmask]
> http://www.mrichter.com/
>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager