<<Pre-1972 sound recording copyright is (pardon my strong language)
insane.  :-)>>  Not insane because it doesn't really exist.  You could not
copyright a sound recording under U.S. federal law before 1972, period.
Lots of people have tried to change that with creative lawsuits, but it has
not been changed.

What a handfull of states have done trying to fill that void (what is
laughingly called "state law copyright law") is what's insane--an
inconsistent hopeless mess (Trust me--I'm a lawyer!).

Fortunately, none of this stuff prevails in non-US, where copyright law is
far clearer.

Best,
John


On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 12:42 PM, Leggett, Stephen C <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> The rather novel  strategy by the CBS legal team involved a deep dive into
> the U.S. Copyright Office's Circular #56  (see bottom page 3 and top page
> 4  here. https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ56.pdf
>
>
> Not sure if this will stand but at least an A- for legal creativity by a
> researcher!
>
> Pre-1972 sound recording copyright is (pardon my strong language)
> insane.  :-)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List [mailto:
> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Wolf, James L
> Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2017 12:32 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Copyright ownership
>
> 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.
>
> James
>
>
>
> All opinions personal, no representation of LC policy, etc.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List [mailto:
> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Louis Hone
> Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2017 11:46 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [ARSCLIST] Copyright ownership
>
> I just finished audio restoration for a client who recorded an LP 60 years
> ago. He owns the original copyright and all the rights (including
> publishing) associated with this LP. I digitized the vinyl, did the
> appropriate cleaning up with RX5, and a bit of mastering to top it off.
> Sounds good, everybody is happy.
>
> However at the end of the project, the client was adamant that I sign him
> a "release" stating that I was not the owner of this new digitized version
> of his LP. He had read somewhere that if a recording that is out of
> copyright, is digitized and cleaned up and rereleased, then the person or
> company doing this restoration is now the owner of the copyright.
>
> I have been doing audio restoration for 20 years now and that is a first
> for me. Yes I did sign the release (otherwise he wasn't paying me).
>
> Anyone else have that situation ?
>
> Thanks
>
> Louis
>