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.
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?
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.