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  September 2011

ARSCLIST September 2011

Subject:

Re: Copyright law. Europe

From:

John Schwab <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Sat, 17 Sep 2011 15:07:17 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (78 lines)

Doug--

What can you tell me about Document? Are they the other German company to which you referred? 

I'm working on a guitar instruction project that will include a CD with  performances originally released in the '20s and '30s by defunct labels. I may provide truncated versions rather than full length. Do you have any advice regarding potential copyright liability?

Thanks! I really appreciate your analysis of Bear Family vs. JSP. 

—John



On Sep 17, 2011, at 11:04 AM, Doug Pomeroy <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Don, here's your answer:
> 
> The "Bear Family" court decision – acknowledgement of IPR protection for restoration work
> 
> Readers of the "Indicare" Newsletter will no doubt remember the "Jib Jab" incident in the recent US presidential election (cf. Böhle 2004). In this, the current copyright owners of Woody Guthrie’s "This Land is Your Land" took action against the owners of the JibJab website for unauthorised use of the work in a parody on the US election. One of the ironies of the case was that the melody of the Guthrie song was itself not an original composition but the reuse of a song of undetermined origin which had been copyrighted by A.P. Carter of the Carter Family recording artists in the early 1930s. Many references were made in the discussion of JibJab to currently available recordings by the Carter Family, most frequently to a box set produced by a company called JSP located in London.
> 
> Precisely this box set and second box of recordings by the Carter Family were the subject of a court ruling by the Hamburg district court (Landgericht Hamburg, 3 February 2004, cf. Byworth 2004). This was the result of action taken by the German specialist label, Bear Family, against the unauthorised use, by the London-based company, of recordings originating from a 12 CD box set "In the Shadow of Clinch Mountain", which contains the complete works by the Carter Family with audio restoration work commissioned and paid for by Bear Family. Such work is protected as intellectual property even if the recordings themselves have passed into the public domain and can theoretically be reissued by anyone. Such intellectual property rights on restoration work are indicated by the (p) sign, which can also apply to a compilation.
> 
> The court decision was taken in the absence of the defendant, the owner of JSP, who had previously been ordered to refrain from the manufacturing of the box sets containing copied recordings. The conviction was for improper business practices and the court instructed the British company to provide Bear Family with all information relating to production and sales of the box sets and to provide compensation for damages resulting from production and sales.
> 
> The decision was based on testimony by an expert witness, but the decisive factor was the inclusion in both sets of a unique recording which had been tracked down by Bear Family.While both companies’ countries are members of the European Union, the Hamburg court decision had to be registered at a British court to take effect, which again required the services of a lawyer, another cost which most producers would not be willing to take on even temporarily. Even so, the court decision, which Bear Family’s lawyer, Ulrich Poser, describes as "path breaking for the branch" (cf. Anon 2004) has actually resulted in the payment of substantial damages and has encouraged at least two more producers to take action against another German company which is notorious for its piracy practices.
> 
> A collector, who also writes for a web-based publication on film music (Schlegel 2004), describes how this German company pirated copies of film soundtracks. Among other things, he attempted to invoke assistance by the German collecting society, GEMA, which was initially very reluctant to take any action. When it finally did, it emerged that a license for intellectual property on the soundtracks had been registered in the Czech Republic, preventing action from any lawful owners.
> 
> As readers who have come this far will have guessed, piracy of audio restoration work is far from exceptional. Bear Family has thus taken the consequence of adding a water mark to its own productions. According to Bear Family director Hermann Knuelle, such watermarks are tamper resistant, while allowing "legal" copying, for example for use on devices such as MP3 players belonging to the owner of a copy of the recording. The watermark remains perceptible even after extreme compression, independent of recording technology for copying (microphones, radio, connecting CDs to sound cards) and presumably following further audio processing by any third party. It can be "individualised" to the extent that a copy is traceable to a particular copy of a series. Of course it is inaudible (cf. Fraunhofer IPSI).
> 
> 
> 
>> Date:    Fri, 16 Sep 2011 21:53:21 +0000
>> From:    Don Cox <[log in to unmask]>
>> Subject: Re: Copyright law. Europe
>> 
>> On 15/09/2011, Michael Biel wrote:
>> 
>>> On 9/14/2011 8:55 PM, Steven Smolian wrote:
>>>> This was in response to the passing of the European copyright
>>>> extnsion for sound recordings.
>>>> 
>>>> Steve Smolian
>>> 
>>> I figured that, but what would make LP sources or pre-recorded tape
>>> any different from any other sources of the sound as long as the
>>> recording pre-dates the cut-off date? Using an LP or issued tape of
>>> perhaps a 1956 recording would be no different than using a 78 or 45
>>> of it. Now if you mean a restoration re-issue of it, we have always
>>> had a disagreement with the pirating of somebody else's restoration,
>>> and that is often a problem with CDs, especially the cut-rate box
>>> sets.
>>> 
>> A restoration is a new recording and should be in copyright.
>> 
>> The problem is how to prove that one digital audio file is derived from
>> another. A simple level change will alter all the numbers.
>> 
>> And has anyone ever taken a "restoration thief" to court?
>> 
>> Regards
>> -- 
>> Don Cox
>> [log in to unmask]
> 
> 
> 
> Doug Pomeroy
> POMEROY AUDIO
> Audio Restoration & Mastering Services
> Transfers of metal parts, lacquers,
> shellac and vinyl discs & tapes.
> 193 Baltic St
> Brooklyn, NY 11201-6173
> (718) 855-2650
> [log in to unmask]
> 

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

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