From: Patent Tactics, George Brock-Nannestad
thanks for reminding us of the actual goings-on.
Now, the non-US person who has gone most deeply into the various matter from
the sound archive point of view is Pekka Gronow, and what I am about to write
may not be as accurate as it should be.
There is a difference between being an author or composer and a performer and
a recording. The author has full rights to his work (both commercial and
ideal [the right to have the work represented properly]) for his lifetime and
his heirs until 70 years after his or her death. Obviously the work has to
have a material form.
A performer can only give a work a material form by recording, and for this
there used to be a limit of 50 years after the creation of the recording, and
it is this thas been extended to 70 years in Europe. Apparently there are
some lame provisions of the rights of performers hidden in the new directive
that covers sound recordings.
One thing that has not been considered as far as I know is that you may
reissue a recording if you can obtain agreement from all performers. That was
not very practical but not impossible when going back 50 years. Going back 70
years means that you now have to deal with a multitude of heirs, rather than
with elderly but possibly positive ex-performers.
So, I am not quite sure whether we can bunch the original creation together
with recordings and call them "formats".
> The Sonny Bono Act was Copyright Extension Act passed at night, by
> voice vote. No public hearings preceded it. Clinton had been weakened
> by personal scandal and was in the pocket of entertainment interests
> so just signed it. The whole thing was a disgraceful perversion of
> democracy, and a portent of later actions. However, I *believe* that
> the term in Europe, for all formats except sound recordings, was
> already life plus 70 with Bono was passed.
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 12:00 PM, George Brock-Nannestad
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > From: Patent Tactics, George Brock-Nannestad
> >> http://euroalert.net/en/news.aspx?idn=13408
> >> Cary Ginell
> > Well, why did you permit the term to be 95 years in the US? Apparently
> > "only" wants to put us on "a more equal footing". To prolong protection
> > without making it contingent on contiued availability is folly, and our
> > politicians were not the first to succumb to lobbyism. Charity begins at
> > home.
> > Kind regards,
> > George