Thanks, Dave and Jonathan.   The real kicker there, Dave, is what you just
said, "partially owned by Sony."  That explains a lot.  And what you are
saying, Jonathan, shows that Orchard is just a scammer.

As long as the source is the 10" record and not some new restoration of it,
a new restoration from that old source is wide open.  And that would
undoubtedly be the best source as well (if I were going to restore this
recording, I would want to start with the LP as the source, assuming the
original master tape is unavailable).  And remember that for Orchard or
anyone else to assert a real claim under some state law somewhere (there is
no US federal claim), they have to demonstrate actual ownership with real
proof, not a bunch of generalization and speculation.  That doesn't stop
scammers like Orchard from making big, unsupportable statements in things
like takedown notices.  That's all about attempted intimidation, not fact
and law.

John Haley

On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 11:21 AM, David Lewis <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> I brought this up, as this may be an area where our community might be of
> assistance in a "white hat" sense. John Haley I misspoke earlier; what I
> should've said is that the Cecil Young LP appears to be an orphan work. I
> have studied King pretty deeply the past few weeks, and one constant is the
> reuse of previously released material. Syd Nathan would buy a label, and
> put everything that was on that label out again on King or one of its
> subsidiaries. In this case, "A Concert of Cool Jazz" appeared only once in
> a doomed format, the 10" LP. Syd received the master tape from the artist
> and probably returned it to him; it was likely no longer in the vault when
> TRP moved it to Nashville. It is well worth preserving, not only owing to
> the appearance of Brashear, as Doug kindly mentioned, but also as it argues
> for the existence of "Cool" farther up the left coast at a very early date.
> Orchard's cover image, incidentally, was never used on the original album.
> Although orphan works legislation is still pending, if things were in the
> right place, Orchard could only claim copyright on their (inferior)
> transfer and not the album itself. I doubt that if Doug made a transfer of
> his copy that he would be posting it to YouTube, but rightfully he should
> be able to and to reap the same advertising revenue -- mere pennies -- that
> Orchard gets via their version. On the other hand, there's nothing to
> protect Doug from Orchard using his hypothetical version to upgrade their
> own, and no provision for any of us to reach out to Orchard and say,
> "Modify your copyright notice." And I get the feeling that they only want
> to deal with the public in one direction, and don't want to be contacted.
> They are partly owned by Sony, incidentally, but have some measure of
> autonomy.
> best,
> David N. Lewis
> Hamilton, OH
> On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 3:14 PM, Jonathan Ward <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
> > "The Orchard" is treacherous. They've exploited a Youtube loophole and
> > take the contents of legitimate reissue CDs of historic recordings,
> upload
> > them (when they are most certainly NOT the company that released them),
> > then claim copyright on the historic recordings.
> >
> > Further, other "companies" in the EU (namely, Greece) with dubious names
> > have repackaged in-print CDs of historic recordings, uploaded them to
> > YouTube (and iTunes, Spotify, etc) under different compilation titles,
> and
> > claimed copyright on those, too. Those are ALSO often "distributed" by
> The
> > Orchard.
> >
> > If you need further information, feel free to contact me privately. This
> > has happened to myself, and many others who have in-print CDs of historic
> > recordings on the market.
> >