Print

Print


Good for you Charlie.  There is no doubt that the big record companies
overstate their ownership rights as often as possible.  They like all the
confusion, but they can't change what the law is (although they are
spending plenty on lawyers in the lawsuits seeking to get a judge to
rewrite pre-1972 federal copyright law--IMHO, that will all fail, but
perhaps at the appellate level).  A lot of what they do is based on sheer
intimidation, not fact or law.

Best,
John Haley



On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 10:33 AM, Charlie Dahan <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> It's a disaster. I get take down notices (via the services screening
> service) from Document and other reissue labels for the Gennett stuff I
> post on Soundcloud and YouTube. 99% of the time my counter notice gets it
> back up. The only one I lost and am still deciding if I want to take it
> further is a claim by Sony over a Champion Gene Autry track.
> Charlie
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Sep 27, 2015, at 10:22 AM, John Haley <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> > I am a little confused by your discussion, Dave.  If Orchard does not own
> > the master tape of that 10" LP, then I don't understand what they think
> > they own.  No sound recording made prior to 1972 is (or ever was)
> > copyrightable under US federal copyright law, and state law copyright is
> a
> > morass of uncertainty and inconsistency that is wildly different from
> state
> > to state.  Putting aside the mechanical copyrights (ownership of the
> songs
> > themselves, which is very different than the sound recording), all
> Orchard
> > can own under at least federal copyright law is a copy of the record
> > itself, just like you and Doug do, assuming they don't physically own the
> > master tape as an asset (which is a valuable thing to own, but that is
> not
> > a copyright issue and does not give you the right to prevent anyone from
> > doing anything).  A takedown notice would have to be very carefully
> worded
> > to be accurate and would not be meaningful in most states.  Since the
> 1951
> > sound recording was not copyrighted under federal law, it also never
> > reaches Public Domain.  Such pre-1972 recordings get the protection of
> > neither copyright nor PD.  In most other places in the world, this
> > recording is way into PD, with no doubts attached.
> > Best,
> > John Haley
> >> On Sep 27, 2015 9:47 AM, "Doug Pomeroy" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi David,
> >>
> >> I have that album, in E condition, but not with that album cover.
> >> It's a wonderful concert, and well recorded.  Also, probably the
> >> only existing recording of tenor saxophonist Gerald Brashear.
> >>
> >> DOUG POMEROY
> >> Audio Restoration & Mastering Services
> >> 193 Baltic St  Brooklyn, NY 11201-6173
> >> (718) 855-2650
> >> [log in to unmask]
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> Date:    Sat, 26 Sep 2015 07:13:50 -0400
> >>> From:    David Lewis <[log in to unmask]>
> >>> Subject: Welcome to the Orchard
> >>>
> >>> One company name that crops up on YouTube frequently in regard to music
> >>> files is Orchard Enterprises, whose copyright may be seen on
> >>> releases from Sony, Documents and other labels -- it's quite
> ubiquitous.
> >> I
> >>> was curious about them, so I looked them up on NASDAQ, which
> >>> reads:
> >>>
> >>> "Digital Music Group, Inc. was incorporated in April 2005 to become a
> >>> leading owner of digital rights to music and other sound recordings and
> >>> distributor of these recordings to online music stores. Concurrently
> with
> >>> the completion of this offering, we have agreed to acquire Digital
> >>> Musicworks..."
> >>>
> >>> That's where it runs out. The company link provided does not work for
> me.
> >>>
> >>> I note their copyright on a recording by Cecil Young. Young's album "A
> >>> Concert of Cool Jazz" was recorded in Seattle in 1951 by Young himself
> >>> and provided to Syd Nathan, who released it on King Records as its
> first
> >>> 10" LP the following year. King discontinued making 10" LPs in 1956,
> >>> and this particular album has never been offered again. Young died
> around
> >>> 1976, and the recordings made by King belong to Gusto, which has
> >>> never revived this particular recording.
> >>>
> >>> Orchard's copy is in poor condition and certainly does not involve any
> >> kind
> >>> of tape. They frequently issue takedown notices to other users, as per
> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Orchard_(company) My concern is that
> >> who
> >>> would issue a takedown notice to them when they are infringing on
> >>> something in the public domain? Which I suspect the Cecil Young
> recording
> >>> would be -- it was issued just that one time, in 1952, and was never
> >>> seen again.
> >>>
> >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDH5EJNialY
> >>>
> >>> best,
> >>>
> >>> David N. Lewis
> >>> Hamilton, OH
> >>
>