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  April 2017

ARSCLIST April 2017

Subject:

Re: Copyright ownership

From:

Michael Shoshani <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Tue, 25 Apr 2017 12:49:44 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (131 lines)

John,

I'll say this with all the confidence of the uninformed lay person: I'm of
the opinion that the NY Court of Appeals misruled in Capitol vs Naxos, for
one simple yet very glaring reason.

The case involved Naxos' CD issues of certain 1930s recordings that Capitol
was also issuing, and the court ruled (if I understand this correctly) that
even if a recording made in the UK had had its own country's copyright
expire, the state copyright in NY covered it. and thus EMI still owned a
copyright here and could license Capitol, who could then sell the material
in the States.

All of which is moot now, since EMI no longer exists, and the classical
catalog belongs to Warner Music now. But I digress.

Here's the thing, though. At least one of these recordings, the Menuhin
performance of Elgar's Violin Concerto in B Minor, Op 61, was released in
the United States by Victor as a 6 record 78 RPM album (Victor Musical
Masterpiece M174), under license from HMV/EMI. I would think that,
logically, if state copyright lasting until 2047 were to be in effect in
the state of New York, then for this recording it would rest with Sony,
whose forebears issued this material originally within New York State.

I would imagine that many, if not most (indeed, if not all) of the other
recordings involved in this debacle would have also been issued by Victor
in the US at some point, considering the popularity of the artists
involved. This should have given copyright precedence to these, under the
logic of the NY Court of Appeals, unless I'm misunderstanding things very
badly.

(Personally, I like the idea of 50 year expiration. So much of our cultural
heritage is hamstrung by our inane system...)

Michael Shoshani
Chicago



On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 11:53 AM, John Haley <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> <<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
> >
>

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

November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
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