John,
Can't argue with you about the insane tangle of pre-1972 pseudo-copyright state laws. It's a mess by any standard.
From what I've seen, there is some hope that the fallout from last year's US Circuit decision will result in such an outcry from the industry that Congress will finally address the pre-72 morass and create a clear, standard rule of copyright protection. I'll be surprised if that happens, but it's certainly possible.
James
-----Original Message-----
From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Haley
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2017 12:54 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Copyright ownership
<<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
>
|