Print

Print


I don't have anything to add except that if you're correct about there
being no contractual agreement to make the recordings, even NBC's
announcers retain rights under their AGFA or AFTRA agreements with the
network.

NBC's agreement with LC and the then-Museum of Broadcasting back in 1977 or
'78 when the donation was made was very, very restrictive. It was crafted
primarily by the MOB and NBC. But it was the norm for the times. The
donation was a wonderful contribution to the country but such terms would
never be agreed to by LC today.

Sam Brylawski


On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 2:37 AM, Michael Biel <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> If you or LC go thru the paperwork you will find that NBC did not have
> the right in the first place to record and keep the recordings.  I seem
> to recall seeing some memos in NBCs files to this effect, not
> specifically to BSO. This was in violation of musicians union contracts
> and rules because the musicians were not paid specifically for the
> recording, only the one-time live broadcast.  If anything, NBC only had
> rights in the recording of their employees -- the announcers.  NBC
> BOOTLEGGED THE RECORDINGS.  They have no rights to the music unless they
> can come up with a contract that includes payment to BSO and the
> musicians for the broadcast AND recording.  Check with the AFM local.
> NBC'S FIXATION OF THE RECORDINGS WAS ILLEGAL AND THEY AND THEIR
> SUCCESSORS -- LC -- SHOULD HAVE NO GAIN FROM THEIR USE UNLESS PAYMENT IS
> MADE TO BSO AND THE MUSICIANS.  BSO OWNS THEM AND SHOULD RECLAIM THEIR
> PROPERTY -- THE PHYSICAL DISCS.  Send them a lawyers letter and see how
> fast they will let you utilize the recordings to get out of this pickle.
>
>
> I expect we'll here from Sam shortly.
>
> Mike Biel  [log in to unmask]
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] backing up a point I made a while back ...
> From: Karl Miller <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Wed, August 28, 2013 10:54 am
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> I agree with Tom. Having argued this point of view for years, I have
> found myself at odds with librarians and preservationists...and I spent
> over 20 years as a curator of a recordings collection.
>
> As I recall, there is some provision which allows libraries to record
> and preserve news broadcasts. Perhaps someone is more informed than I am
> regarding such a provision.
>
> Forgive me, but I see this situation to be just another example of the
> irrational copyright laws. I know...here I go again...I realize that
> what I am about to suggest will go against the grain of many, but I
> believe that it is appropriate that for tax payer dollars to be used to
> preserve a recording, the owner of the copyright must give up ownership
> and make it public domain. One can say that this is outrageous, but
> unless something really outrageous occurs, I don't see the copyrights
> becoming rational and enforceable. It seems to me that there needs to be
> a massive public outcry before we will see positive change. If such a
> scenario, or other possible scenarios force the issues, then it becomes
> a choice of society. It seems to me that the preservation community has
> been at cross purposes with society. Basically, Society would say that
> preservation is important, but yet it is relatively unwilling to pay for
> it, and to support copyright laws which reflect
>  the rights of the public.
>
> I am reminded of a recent scenario...as a member of the Board of the
> Koussevitzky Recording Society, I have been privy to some discussions
> regarding the use of Society funds to redo some Koussevitzky
> performances held in the Library of Congress. The "new" copies would be
> added to the holdings of the Boston Symphony's collection. Some
> questions have been made regarding the ownership of those recordings.
> Clearly the BSO owns their own recordings? Maybe, but then maybe not.
> The "recordings" were "fixed" by NBC. So, it could be that NBC has some
> rights, but yet they did not have rights to the performances. For that
> matter, were these recordings ever copyrighted? The Union agreements at
> the time provided for the broadcast. But did those agreements allow for
> the preservation of those recordings.
>
> While the Society will be paying for transfers, the Society cannot issue
> the recordings.
>
> It is a no win scenario. What do you do? Do you let our recorded history
> disappear, or do you do your best to preserve it when you cannot provide
> reasonable access to the public that paid for the preservation.
>
>
> From my perspective, copyright owners are getting a free ride at tax
> payer expense.
>
> Karl
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>  From: Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 3:49 PM
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] backing up a point I made a while back ...
>
>
> Right, that was my point -- the charity/subsidized work should be
> concentrated on the stuff that's not cash cows for profitable companies
> who guard the copyrights with armies of lawyers. Let those folks pay to
> preserve their cash cows, and then the LOC's staff and time and
> equipment can be better used for the other material. I also said, and I
> stand by this statement, that "first draft of history" material, news
> and the like, should be first priority over cheezy mass-market
> entertainment. Most of those one-off shows didn't survive because they
> weren't any good, and it's questionable if they deserve any
> preservation. One of the dumber arguments I've seen arguing for
> preserving very dubious material is "well it was (pick your now-famous
> actor)'s first TV appearance." So? Obviously, (pick your famous actor)
> went on to do better work, which is now worth preserving by its
> copyright owner.
>
> -- Tom Fine
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "O'Dell, Cary" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 4:38 PM
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] backing up a point I made a while back ...
>
>
> > I'm sure that "I Love Lucy" was just used as an example of our
> collective TV heritage, a way to propel people to care about this entire
> medium and its preservation.
> >
> > But, for every "I Love Lucy" there are hundreds of other series, one-off
> specials, documentaries, newscasts, commercials and other broadcast
> material that is not a "cash cow" for anyone but still needs to be
> preserved by the Library of Congress or any other responsible institution
> as a document of our past.
> >
> > Cary O'Dell
> > National Recording Registry
> > Library of Congress
> > 19053 Mt. Pony Road
> > Culpeper, VA  22701
> > Phone:  202-707-0394
> > FAX:  202-707-0848
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List [mailto:
> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tom Fine
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 4:03 PM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: [ARSCLIST] backing up a point I made a while back ...
> >
> >
> http://articles.latimes.com/2012/sep/20/entertainment/la-et-ct-cbslucy-20120920
> >
> > "Lucy" is still a cash cow for CBS! The LOC has no business spending one
> minute or dime of taxpayer time or money preserving one foot of film for
> CBS's cash-cow unless CBS is sending big checks to fund the efforts. If the
> CBS News report on the LOC's extensive efforts with I Love Lucy episodes is
> correct, they may have unwittingly exposed one of the worst cases of
> corporate welfare ever documented.
> >
> > -- Tom Fine
> >
> >
>