Quote
ReelStone
Stereo version: [iorr.org]

WOW! Thanks! Awesome!

Quote
Witness
Much interesting, but I can understand why not released during the years when were still in the process of defining themselves.

( Somewhat post-R&B, come a soul approach. In my opinion, can't compare in quality and intensity, for instance, with their cover of "Cry to Me").

Exactly my sentiments. Damn interesting to hear like anything from those days, but yeah, I can easily understand why it didn't made, say, OUT OF OUR HEADS album that has a lot of similar type of soul covers. Jagger sounds a bit insucure hear how to interpret James Brown by his own means (oh man, not the easiest task!). I think he did a much better work in pieces like "Cry To Me" and "That's How Strong My Love Is". In those pieces he let his boyish and thinner, but still charming British voice work for him by creating his own kind of expression full of youthful aggression, passion and attitude.

But yeah, for historical reasons, to get the better understanding of the context, dammit, this is incredible stuff to hear! I hope we will hear more of these kind of hidden gems soon.

Which leads me to notice that if I have not totally misundertood in EU, UK and I guess Canada this (a non-officially relaesed recording) is now absolutely legal stuff to release by anyone (just take sure of people getting their royalties), since belonging to Public Domain now. Sorry The Stones & ABKCO this is out of your hands now... Although I am not quite sure about it; I started to reflect this in upcoming BEGGARS BANQUET thread, and since then tried to figure it out, but there seems to be different interpretations of the legal situation now. Probably I will make an own thread of it soon.

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2018-10-07 14:09 by Doxa.

Quote
Witness
Much interesting, but I can understand why not released during the years when were still in the process of defining themselves.

( Somewhat post-R&B, come a soul approach. In my opinion, can't compare in quality and intensity, for instance, with their cover of "Cry to Me").

First of all, great that Deltics put the song alive! Thanks! As an oldtimer I always enjoy "New discoveries" when it comes to the early Stones. But in all honesty, this take is not up to the level of THE Rolling Stones. They give Mick a chance to try and find out if he could approach or maybe even improve what James Brown did, but hmmm. With songs like "Cry to me", "That's how strong my love is", "Honest I do", etc. they did hit the bull's eye. "Try me" is a mere miss, but another great add to the eternal collection!
Greetings from Japan

Unreleased recordings from 1968 will fall out of copyright in the EU on December 31, 2018.


"As we say in England, it can get a bit trainspottery"

Quote
Deltics
Unreleased recordings from 1968 will fall out of copyright in the EU on December 31, 2018.

Yeah, that's exactly as I have understood the copyright issue to be in principle. But this seems to be a bit tricky question. I was about t ocomment it further in BEGGARS thread, but I place it instead here, because it is as relevant here. The discussion started by Dandie's damn good question:

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
DandelionPowderman
A reasonable question today would be: Who owns the rights to the outtakes?

ABKCO because they fall in their contractual timeframe. That does not help them much in terms of releasing this material because the Stones still have artistic veto rights when it comes to unreleased material.

These so-called "neighboring (copy)rights" are tricky because there are neighboring rights of the record company and neighboring rights of the performing artists. Consequently, for unreleased material, both parties have to agree releasing such material. Of course, this means that also the Stones themselves cannot release this material on their own even if they have the original tapes in their hands because they are legally bound to their exclusive ABKCO deal.

Plus, if they're really working on getting their catalog back from ABKCO like Joyce Smith seems to indicate, allowing ABKCO to release unreleased material would not be the tactic I would pursue!

Thanks for me also! This was also that kind of scenario I had in my mind, but you clarified and confirmed it.

What puzzles me is the Public Domain issue in regards to unreleased stuff. In EU, UK and I think Canada the amount of time to have the rights is 50 years (in USA it is much longer). For released stuff it was changed from 50 to 70 years in 2013 - just after "Love Me Do" made it... (This would also mean that by the the beginning of in 2139 BEGGARS BANQUET will be Public Domain - which mean anyone/any label can make a copy of it, just paying the publishing royalties to the artist).

I google a bit and found some intersting comments in regards to this issue.

The first is about a non-official STones 6-CD Box ANOTHER TIME, ANOTHER PLACE, covering non-officially relaesed stuff from 1963-65, such as out-takes, '64 Chicago sessions, Paris '65 gig, etc. (Nicely done, by the way):

Jagger & Richards had only two options with the unreleased (but already bootlegged) 1963-1965 Rolling Stones recordings: Let them fall into Uk/Europe "Public Domain" (and become legally bootleggable)....or let ABKCO release them. We all know what Jagger & Richards decided. But, in the end, ABKCO(owner of the 1963-69 Rolling Stones recordings and song publishing) has the last laugh. Labels releasing these recordings as "Public Domain" material must pay song publishing royalties, so ABKCO does make money from the Jagger/Richards songs in this 6-disc set.(and, of course, the one Bill Wyman composition "Goodbye Girl")
At the end of 2016, the 1966 Stones outtakes will also enter public domain. Even if Jagger & Richards have a change of heart, it is too late to change the public domain status of these recordings. But, undoubtedly, ABKCO could produce a slightly better sounding set.....if Jagger & Richards will permit it. I know that The Rolling Stones have legitimate reasons to be embittered towards ABKCO, but the fans aren't to blame.

Another one is about the issue why The Beatles hasn't officially relaesed since 2013 followers to BEATLES BOOTLEG RECORDINGS 1963, unlike, say, Dylan and The Beach Boys:

I can't confirm this, but from what I hear, there's a new interpretation of the European copyright law that Apple has embraced. After 50 years, material not released doesn't go into public domain but reverts to the artist instead of the label. The releases by Dylan, the Beach Boys and last year's Beatles release weren't to maintain copyright, but to guarantee the label's rights. Apparently, Apple has made a deal with Universal covering unreleased material that might be issued in the future, thereby making one of those year-end collections unnecessary. That's the story I've heard, at least.

Both are just comments in discussion, but still interesting ones to consider further, since they sound at least from an outset a bit contradictory.

THe first one claims that the 'losers', for example, not relaesing unreleesed stuff in this new BEGGARS BANQUET releaese, are The Stones and us, the fans (doomed to buy alraedy circulated bootleg stuff). ABKCO wins, since having "publishing royalty" for any release by any label soon legally releasing whatever stuff is circulating from BEGGARS BANQUET sessions.

The second one claims that the Stones are winners here, since as "artists" the material soon belongs to them, and not to the label. The losers are ABKCO and, once again, us fans...

There are some obstacles here. The relation between The Stones & ABKCO vs. Universal and THe Beatles & Apple vs. Universal is different I suppose.

My interpreation is that ABKCO is not exactly a record label but a publishing company, that is, they belong more to the "artist" category by owning the publishing rights - so if the second quote holds true, the rights for non-released BEGGARS BANQUET would still belong totally to ABKCO, not to the Stones (beside only having that veto right).

So back to "Try Me" - if I understood right, if someone now makes a non-official, but legal release of The Stones version of "Try Me" that means that they are ought to pay publishing rights to ABKCO of which part goes to the writer of the song, who is James Brown. The Stones will not gain anything. But this is my conclusion based on very vague information. I hope someone will have a more clear and distinct account of the matter!

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-10-07 16:17 by Doxa.

Quote
1963luca0
Could one believe it’s the same session when they first played ‘Satisfaction’?
Nevertheless, it’s fantastic...

Yeah. Satisfaction with the Blues harmonica is the missing link between the Chess Sessions and the released Satisfaction and everything that came afterwards. I've been trying to hunt down Satisfaction with the harmonica that was shown on Shindig for years but the sound always sucks. I know someone who was a perfect version of the Shindig video with perfect sound but he won't share it. Let's hope to get that Bluest Satisfaction one day soon.

Beautiful song! Thanks again

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Deltics
Unreleased recordings from 1968 will fall out of copyright in the EU on December 31, 2018.

Yeah, that's exactly as I have understood the copyright issue to be in principle. But this seems to be a bit tricky question. I was about t ocomment it further in BEGGARS thread, but I place it instead here, because it is as relevant here. The discussion started by Dandie's damn good question:

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
DandelionPowderman
A reasonable question today would be: Who owns the rights to the outtakes?

ABKCO because they fall in their contractual timeframe. That does not help them much in terms of releasing this material because the Stones still have artistic veto rights when it comes to unreleased material.

These so-called "neighboring (copy)rights" are tricky because there are neighboring rights of the record company and neighboring rights of the performing artists. Consequently, for unreleased material, both parties have to agree releasing such material. Of course, this means that also the Stones themselves cannot release this material on their own even if they have the original tapes in their hands because they are legally bound to their exclusive ABKCO deal.

Plus, if they're really working on getting their catalog back from ABKCO like Joyce Smith seems to indicate, allowing ABKCO to release unreleased material would not be the tactic I would pursue!

Thanks for me also! This was also that kind of scenario I had in my mind, but you clarified and confirmed it.

What puzzles me is the Public Domain issue in regards to unreleased stuff. In EU, UK and I think Canada the amount of time to have the rights is 50 years (in USA it is much longer). For released stuff it was changed from 50 to 70 years in 2013 - just after "Love Me Do" made it... (This would also mean that by the the beginning of in 2139 BEGGARS BANQUET will be Public Domain - which mean anyone/any label can make a copy of it, just paying the publishing royalties to the artist).

I google a bit and found some intersting comments in regards to this issue.

The first is about a non-official STones 6-CD Box ANOTHER TIME, ANOTHER PLACE, covering non-officially relaesed stuff from 1963-65, such as out-takes, '64 Chicago sessions, Paris '65 gig, etc. (Nicely done, by the way):

Jagger & Richards had only two options with the unreleased (but already bootlegged) 1963-1965 Rolling Stones recordings: Let them fall into Uk/Europe "Public Domain" (and become legally bootleggable)....or let ABKCO release them. We all know what Jagger & Richards decided. But, in the end, ABKCO(owner of the 1963-69 Rolling Stones recordings and song publishing) has the last laugh. Labels releasing these recordings as "Public Domain" material must pay song publishing royalties, so ABKCO does make money from the Jagger/Richards songs in this 6-disc set.(and, of course, the one Bill Wyman composition "Goodbye Girl")
At the end of 2016, the 1966 Stones outtakes will also enter public domain. Even if Jagger & Richards have a change of heart, it is too late to change the public domain status of these recordings. But, undoubtedly, ABKCO could produce a slightly better sounding set.....if Jagger & Richards will permit it. I know that The Rolling Stones have legitimate reasons to be embittered towards ABKCO, but the fans aren't to blame.

Another one is about the issue why The Beatles hasn't officially relaesed since 2013 followers to BEATLES BOOTLEG RECORDINGS 1963, unlike, say, Dylan and The Beach Boys:

I can't confirm this, but from what I hear, there's a new interpretation of the European copyright law that Apple has embraced. After 50 years, material not released doesn't go into public domain but reverts to the artist instead of the label. The releases by Dylan, the Beach Boys and last year's Beatles release weren't to maintain copyright, but to guarantee the label's rights. Apparently, Apple has made a deal with Universal covering unreleased material that might be issued in the future, thereby making one of those year-end collections unnecessary. That's the story I've heard, at least.

Both are just comments in discussion, but still interesting ones to consider further, since they sound at least from an outset a bit contradictory.

THe first one claims that the 'losers', for example, not relaesing unreleesed stuff in this new BEGGARS BANQUET releaese, are The Stones and us, the fans (doomed to buy alraedy circulated bootleg stuff). ABKCO wins, since having "publishing royalty" for any release by any label soon legally releasing whatever stuff is circulating from BEGGARS BANQUET sessions.

The second one claims that the Stones are winners here, since as "artists" the material soon belongs to them, and not to the label. The losers are ABKCO and, once again, us fans...

There are some obstacles here. The relation between The Stones & ABKCO vs. Universal and THe Beatles & Apple vs. Universal is different I suppose.

My interpreation is that ABKCO is not exactly a record label but a publishing company, that is, they belong more to the "artist" category by owning the publishing rights - so if the second quote holds true, the rights for non-released BEGGARS BANQUET would still belong totally to ABKCO, not to the Stones (beside only having that veto right).

So back to "Try Me" - if I understood right, if someone now makes a non-official, but legal release of The Stones version of "Try Me" that means that they are ought to pay publishing rights to ABKCO of which part goes to the writer of the song, who is James Brown. The Stones will not gain anything. But this is my conclusion based on very vague information. I hope someone will have a more clear and distinct account of the matter!

- Doxa

Once the neighboring (copy)rights of record company and artist are out of the way due to the public domain-clause, the only party who receives any royalties is the songwriter, usually through his publishing company. As ABKCO does not have anything to do with James Brown songwriting rights, they gain nothing from a non-official, but legal "public domain" release of "Try Me".

This and the stereo version sound really good. Good enough to have been released on an album. There is clearly only one guitar. Keith. The piano sounds like Stu but legend has it he refused to play on any songs with minor chords and this song has minor chords in it. Organ? Brian? That's How Strong My Love Is was around this time. Brian picking up an instrument playing it on a couple of tunes and then discarding it as he moves on to the next one? This tune would have made a great B side. Would be nice if they would release an official Chess album. I have a bootleg but without this song. I wonder what else they recorded there in 64-65.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-10-07 22:35 by ovalvox.

Quote
ovalvox
This and the stereo version sound really good. Good enough to have been released on an album. There is clearly only one guitar. Keith. The piano sounds like Stu but legend has it he refused to play on any songs with minor chords and this song has minor chords in it. Organ? Brian? That's How Strong My Love Is was around this time. Brian picking up an instrument playing it on a couple of tunes and then discarding it as he moves on to the next one? This tune would have made a great B side. Would be nice if they would release an official Chess album. I have a bootleg but without this song. I wonder what else they recorded there in 64-65.

It should be pointed out that the "stereo" version is ReelStone's creation.


"As we say in England, it can get a bit trainspottery"

Quote
retired_dog



Once the neighboring (copy)rights of record company and artist are out of the way due to the public domain-clause, the only party who receives any royalties is the songwriter, usually through his publishing company. As ABKCO does not have anything to do with James Brown songwriting rights, they gain nothing from a non-official, but legal "public domain" release of "Try Me".

Thanks! That makes sense. It means that performers themselves in the recording are totally out of any kind of rights to the product. Sorry ABKCO, sorry Stones...

More generally I guess the good old bootleg labels and companies like that are in an interesting situation at the moment: will to relase a product as in good old way bootleg-fashion, being illegal, and not needing to pay anything for anyone. Or to release the product as legal release but obliged to pay the publishing royalties to the writers (but probably being able to sell the product more freely). Which is a better option in terms of $$$... In a theory, wouldn't we be in a situation now that, say, Universal or Sony could release a big profile album (or series of them) of non-released Stones material from 1963 to 1967 (as we know, there is a lot of stuff circulatingin a bootleg market) any day if they want to and neither ABKCO or The Stones wouldn't able to do anything to prevent it... Good old Decca surely would have done it!

Another thing that since The Stones & ABKCO don't seem being willing to release anything officially from the vaults, what kind of effect will that have for future: will the vaults be locked even more strongly than before (for good?) or will there be more some leaking...BEGGARS BANQUET already seemed being a kind of missed opportunity... Yet another thing is that when 2021 comes, and all the rights will be in their hands, will the Stones act differently since they don't need co-operate any longer with ABKCO... Will there be more official releases (out-takes and live) in order to keep the copyrights in their hands...

We live interesting times...


- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-10-07 23:22 by Doxa.

Quote
ovalvox
This and the stereo version sound really good. Good enough to have been released on an album. There is clearly only one guitar. Keith. The piano sounds like Stu but legend has it he refused to play on any songs with minor chords and this song has minor chords in it. Organ? Brian? That's How Strong My Love Is was around this time. Brian picking up an instrument playing it on a couple of tunes and then discarding it as he moves on to the next one? This tune would have made a great B side. Would be nice if they would release an official Chess album. I have a bootleg but without this song. I wonder what else they recorded there in 64-65.

Stu has played on plenty of songs with minor chords

Nico has Stu on both piano and organ here, I was told.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
retired_dog



Once the neighboring (copy)rights of record company and artist are out of the way due to the public domain-clause, the only party who receives any royalties is the songwriter, usually through his publishing company. As ABKCO does not have anything to do with James Brown songwriting rights, they gain nothing from a non-official, but legal "public domain" release of "Try Me".

Thanks! That makes sense. It means that performers themselves in the recording are totally out of any kind of rights to the product. Sorry ABKCO, sorry Stones...

More generally I guess the good old bootleg labels and companies like that are in an interesting situation at the moment: will to relase a product as in good old way bootleg-fashion, being illegal, and not needing to pay anything for anyone. Or to release the product as legal release but obliged to pay the publishing royalties to the writers (but probably being able to sell the product more freely). Which is a better option in terms of $$$... In a theory, wouldn't we be in a situation now that, say, Universal or Sony could release a big profile album (or series of them) of non-released Stones material from 1963 to 1967 (as we know, there is a lot of stuff circulatingin a bootleg market) any day if they want to and neither ABKCO or The Stones wouldn't able to do anything to prevent it... Good old Decca surely would have done it!

Another thing that since The Stones & ABKCO don't seem being willing to release anything officially from the vaults, what kind of effect will that have for future: will the vaults be locked even more strongly than before (for good?) or will there be more some leaking...BEGGARS BANQUET already seemed being a kind of missed opportunity... Yet another thing is that when 2021 comes, and all the rights will be in their hands, will the Stones act differently since they don't need co-operate any longer with ABKCO... Will there be more official releases (out-takes and live) in order to keep the copyrights in their hands...

We live interesting times...


- Doxa

Of course, but to quote Jethro Tull: "Nothing Is Easy" - as least not as easy at it seems at first look...

Keep in mind that even in a "public domain"-situation there's still the copyrights of songwriters which usually end 70 years after their death. As a songwriter, you have the right to allow or prevent the publication or "release" of a previously unreleased composition.

Think of Bill Wyman's "Goodbye Girl" from the Chess sessions: The actual recording is in the public domain, neither ABKCO as exclusive record company nor the Stones as performing artists can do anything about it. But there's still Bill Wyman, the composer. His songwriting copyrights for this song will expire (usually - it may differ from country to country) 70 years after his death. So he still has a veto right, not for released compositions like In Another Land, but for unreleased compositions like Goodbye Girl. Think further: CS Blues, Travellin' Man, I Don't Know The Reason Why, Fiji Gin/Jim, I Need You, stuff like that, not only unreleased recordings, but also unreleased compositions and you get the picture...

And there are other obstacles like the question if the Stones can "escape" their exclusive ABKCO contract with a "public domain" claim - does "public domain" overrule a legally binding, unlimited exclusive contract?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-10-07 23:47 by retired_dog.

Another song I've always wondered about is Jaguar and the Thunderbird. I don't think they ever recorded it in studio but it was part of their early setlist. Has this ever shown up on any bootlegs?

A rare reel-to-reel tape recording of the Rolling Stones at the Crawdaddy Club, Richmond, Summer, 1963, approximate running time 90 minutes
To be sold without copyright
Estimate: £20,000-30,000

1. Route 66 [complete]
2. Come On
3. Talkin' Bout You
4. Love Potion No.9
5. Roll Over Beethoven
6. Money
7. Pretty Thing [complete]
8. Jaguar & Thunderbird
9. Don't Lie To Me
10.Our Little Rendezvous [complete, Chuck Berry's rewrite of Good Morning Little Schoolgirl - this Berry song is unknown in any other version by the Stones]
11.You Got Me Running
12.Brown Eyed Handsome Man
13.Diddley Diddley Daddy [complete]
14.Money [complete


Its rumoured that Mick Jagger purchased the above tape



ROCKMAN

--------- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [www.nzentgraf.de]



ROCKMAN

This was done in that time period where Jagger was trying songs he wasn't quite mature enough to handle vocally. My Girl, Under The Boardwalk, That's How Strong My Love is. Now he can perform these songs admirably, as he did That's How Strong My Love Is a few years back on tour.

Quote
24FPS
This was done in that time period where Jagger was trying songs he wasn't quite mature enough to handle vocally. My Girl, Under The Boardwalk, That's How Strong My Love is. Now he can perform these songs admirably, as he did That's How Strong My Love Is a few years back on tour.

I agree with you on songs as My Girl, Under The Boardwalk, but That's How Strong My Love is he is great back in the day's.

__________________________

Quote
retired_dog


Of course, but to quote Jethro Tull: "Nothing Is Easy" - as least not as easy at it seems at first look...

Keep in mind that even in a "public domain"-situation there's still the copyrights of songwriters which usually end 70 years after their death. As a songwriter, you have the right to allow or prevent the publication or "release" of a previously unreleased composition.

Think of Bill Wyman's "Goodbye Girl" from the Chess sessions: The actual recording is in the public domain, neither ABKCO as exclusive record company nor the Stones as performing artists can do anything about it. But there's still Bill Wyman, the composer. His songwriting copyrights for this song will expire (usually - it may differ from country to country) 70 years after his death. So he still has a veto right, not for released compositions like In Another Land, but for unreleased compositions like Goodbye Girl. Think further: CS Blues, Travellin' Man, I Don't Know The Reason Why, Fiji Gin/Jim, I Need You, stuff like that, not only unreleased recordings, but also unreleased compositions and you get the picture...

And there are other obstacles like the question if the Stones can "escape" their exclusive ABKCO contract with a "public domain" claim - does "public domain" overrule a legally binding, unlimited exclusive contract?

Alright, the issue is getting clearer for me inch by inch... I didn't know that veto right by the writer for unreleased compositions. So that leaves only (of the officially unreleased material) the covers 'unprotected', as different out-takes (?) and live recodings of already released songs - which all thereby are legal to release by anyone due to their 'public domain' status.

So would that mean that if The Stones would now officially release, say, "Goodbye Girl", will they (& ABKCO) have its copyrights for upcoming 70 years (in EU & UK) despite it being recorded over 50 years ago and thereby already in the public domain? Can that public domain status to be withdrawn in that case? If this is the case, they really don't need to worry at all about the copyrights of all of their recorded but non-released original compositions. They would be better 'protected' than alraedy released compositions...

Or is the case that The Stones & ABKCO don't have any other rights than anyone else, just needing Wyman's permission, and after having released the song, any record label can make their own relaese of it without asking permission from anyone? Further, could Wyman by his own now give that permission to any record label for its first release (saying fvck you to THe Stones & ABKCO)? And in the latter case, would Wyman after that have any other rights for it than his royalties as a composer?

Sorry to bother you with all my questions... I just try to make some sense of this whole mess...

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2018-10-08 02:00 by Doxa.

Quote
ReelStone
Improved stereo version (much better): [iorr.org]

Very nice work, ReelStone. Much appreciated.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
retired_dog


Of course, but to quote Jethro Tull: "Nothing Is Easy" - as least not as easy at it seems at first look...

Keep in mind that even in a "public domain"-situation there's still the copyrights of songwriters which usually end 70 years after their death. As a songwriter, you have the right to allow or prevent the publication or "release" of a previously unreleased composition.

Think of Bill Wyman's "Goodbye Girl" from the Chess sessions: The actual recording is in the public domain, neither ABKCO as exclusive record company nor the Stones as performing artists can do anything about it. But there's still Bill Wyman, the composer. His songwriting copyrights for this song will expire (usually - it may differ from country to country) 70 years after his death. So he still has a veto right, not for released compositions like In Another Land, but for unreleased compositions like Goodbye Girl. Think further: CS Blues, Travellin' Man, I Don't Know The Reason Why, Fiji Gin/Jim, I Need You, stuff like that, not only unreleased recordings, but also unreleased compositions and you get the picture...

And there are other obstacles like the question if the Stones can "escape" their exclusive ABKCO contract with a "public domain" claim - does "public domain" overrule a legally binding, unlimited exclusive contract?

Alright, the issue is getting clearer for me inch by inch... I didn't know that veto right by the writer for unreleased compositions. So that leaves only (of the officially unreleased material) the covers 'unprotected', as different out-takes (?) and live recodings of already released songs - which all thereby are legal to release by anyone due to their 'public domain' status.

So would that mean that if The Stones would now officially release, say, "Goodbye Girl", will they (& ABKCO) have its copyrights for upcoming 70 years (in EU & UK) despite it being recorded over 50 years ago and thereby already in the public domain? Can that public domain status to be withdrawn in that case? If this is the case, they really don't need to worry at all about the copyrights of all of their recorded but non-released original compositions. They would be better 'protected' than alraedy released compositions...

Or is the case that The Stones & ABKCO don't have any other rights than anyone else, just needing Wyman's permission, and after having released the song, any record label can make their own relaese of it without asking permission from anyone? Further, could Wyman by his own now give that permission to any record label for its first release (saying fvck you to THe Stones & ABKCO)? And in the latter case, would Wyman after that have any other rights for it than his royalties as a composer?

Sorry to bother you with all my questions... I just try to make some sense of this whole mess...

- Doxa

Yeah, I know, copyright is a tricky and often confusing topic, but once you get into it and understand the basics and structures, the picture becomes clearer as it's pretty logically built really.

One of the basic rules is that neighboring rights (record companies and performing artists) and copyright (composer) are separate rights that don't relate to each other. This is this - and that is that.

Another one is that what is once in the public domain, stays in the public domain.

Back to "Goodbye Girl". It's a) an unreleased recording, performed by the Stones: No more neighboring rights for the artist and record company anymore because they are extended = public domain.

But it's also b) an unreleased composition, written by Bill Wyman. He's not only entitled to receive royalties, he still has the veto right to decide if the composition is "good enough" for the public to hear. His copyright extends 70 years after his death. Thankfully, he's still alive, so that's still a long time to come!

In fact, if the Stones (and/or ABKCO) want to release their Chess recording of Goodbye Girl, they need Wyman's agreement because he still owns the veto rights for his composition.

Once he agrees, the Stones (and/or ABKCO) can go ahead and release the Chess recording. Wyman's agreement however would not change anything concerning the legal status of their neighboring rights = they are in the public domain, and stay there.

However, Wyman's agreement to release his composition cannot be limited to the Stones and/or ABKCO: Once the holder of a songwriting copyright decides to release his composition, he loses his veto right once and for all. Consequently, other companies could release the Chess recording too. All they have to do is pay songwriting royalties to Wyman, of course (which are collected by GEMA in Germany or MCPS in the UK for example).

I know that Goodbye Girl is in fact on some of these public domain releases already. I'm not exactly sure that Wyman once agreed (to whomever) to release his composition - looks more like a case of certain labels not knowing their legal stuff good enough. It remains to be seen if they can get away with this - or are bound for trouble...

So anybody who wants to start a public domain label better knows about this (and a lot more), otherwise it's more than likely you tap into a minefield and face financial desaster...

Oh, and by the way: A songwriting copyright holder retains a lot of rights even after agreeing a release of his composition - for example the rights to agree or veto the use of his composition in commercials, any change of lyrics and musical structure in recordings, sampling etc. etc. etc.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2018-10-08 04:25 by retired_dog.

Just to add some more fun to the proceedings, I believe "Get Back to the One You Love" is registered as a Jagger/Richards composition in the court documents from the dissolution of the ABKCO Agreement in 1970. Bill claims it is his song and it may very well be, but legally it is Jagger/Richards.

As for "Try Me" - ABKCO does not control publishing rights to James Brown's catalog of songs. They would only benefit if the copyright in the May 1965 recording by the Stones can still be enforced.

Also, ABKCO copyrights their remasters - not just the packaging of their releases. A 1986, 1987, 1989, 2002, 2012, or 2018 remaster of the Stones back catalog cannot be released freely if tracks actually pass into the public domain - only the original 1960s master could be used.

Quote
NICOS

Quote
24FPS
This was done in that time period where Jagger was trying songs he wasn't quite mature enough to handle vocally. My Girl, Under The Boardwalk, That's How Strong My Love is. Now he can perform these songs admirably, as he did That's How Strong My Love Is a few years back on tour.

I agree with you on songs as My Girl, Under The Boardwalk, but That's How Strong My Love is he is great back in the day's.

Yes agree with all that, and the live versions of THSMLI during the Licks Tour were among the many highlights - Mick let it rip!
Their studio versions of My Girl and Under the Boardwalk were lame, and not just because of Mick's singing.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-10-08 05:28 by Hairball.

I always liked their take on Under The Boardwalk. My Girl, however, is not quite up to par..

Quote
crawdaddy
For one thing, James Brown original version is the best.............and at best for The Rolling Stones would be 'Try Me' on an album track.


Nothing special ,in my opinion , but a great find for anyone interested in early, or discovered Stones stuff..................good or not so good.

My thoughts too. It sounds like it might have been recorded at the same session as If You Need Me.

Quote
retired_dog


Yeah, I know, copyright is a tricky and often confusing topic, but once you get into it and understand the basics and structures, the picture becomes clearer as it's pretty logically built really.

One of the basic rules is that neighboring rights (record companies and performing artists) and copyright (composer) are separate rights that don't relate to each other. This is this - and that is that.

Another one is that what is once in the public domain, stays in the public domain.

Back to "Goodbye Girl". It's a) an unreleased recording, performed by the Stones: No more neighboring rights for the artist and record company anymore because they are extended = public domain.

But it's also b) an unreleased composition, written by Bill Wyman. He's not only entitled to receive royalties, he still has the veto right to decide if the composition is "good enough" for the public to hear. His copyright extends 70 years after his death. Thankfully, he's still alive, so that's still a long time to come!

In fact, if the Stones (and/or ABKCO) want to release their Chess recording of Goodbye Girl, they need Wyman's agreement because he still owns the veto rights for his composition.

Once he agrees, the Stones (and/or ABKCO) can go ahead and release the Chess recording. Wyman's agreement however would not change anything concerning the legal status of their neighboring rights = they are in the public domain, and stay there.

However, Wyman's agreement to release his composition cannot be limited to the Stones and/or ABKCO: Once the holder of a songwriting copyright decides to release his composition, he loses his veto right once and for all. Consequently, other companies could release the Chess recording too. All they have to do is pay songwriting royalties to Wyman, of course (which are collected by GEMA in Germany or MCPS in the UK for example).

I know that Goodbye Girl is in fact on some of these public domain releases already. I'm not exactly sure that Wyman once agreed (to whomever) to release his composition - looks more like a case of certain labels not knowing their legal stuff good enough. It remains to be seen if they can get away with this - or are bound for trouble...

So anybody who wants to start a public domain label better knows about this (and a lot more), otherwise it's more than likely you tap into a minefield and face financial desaster...

Oh, and by the way: A songwriting copyright holder retains a lot of rights even after agreeing a release of his composition - for example the rights to agree or veto the use of his composition in commercials, any change of lyrics and musical structure in recordings, sampling etc. etc. etc.

Thank you once again for exploring all this! And I agree, it is logical.

I wouldn't be even surprised if Bill Wyman would have okayed if some instance might have asked the permission to release "Goodbye Girl" from him. He most likely would not make any fortune out of it, but I guess it would have been nice to have his song out.

More and more it looks like that in regards to these 50th Anniversary releases, Mick and Keith are doing their last middle finger gesture towards ABKCO. Because they can. No bonus, non-released tracks that people in its thread are (rightly) mad about. I'm pretty sure that ABKCO would have willingly released something else or more than a Mick Jagger interview if they only would have had the power... The cost of this procedure is anyone losing 'neighboring rights', and some extra copies not sold, but Mick and Keith will still keep the songwriter rights for non-released stuff in their hands. Is it pure business or the simple pleasure for not giving anything else ('new' tracks) to the hands of ABKCO, I don't know... We need also to note that it is not just ABKCO losing here - it is Charlie Watts, Bill Wyman and the estate of Brian Jones not gaining anything in future from not yet released Jagger/Richards Stones recordings.

Of course, this is pure speculation - it could be that ABKCO people and The Stones are in a total agreement here and for pure artistic and aesthetic reasons they think that none of that non-released material is good enough to be released, so no bonus material...

In the end, it doesn't look too promising for the Decca/London era non-released material to see the daylight soon, since ABKCO will own the copyrights for that material in the big American market for some decades to come. For example, The Stones could by their own release all this material in 2021 in UK and EU (and Canada?), but not in the US, unless they make some sort of deal with ABKCO. And since the actual money involved in these releases is nothing to write home about, pretty hard to think there is much will to do that (just to target some limited market for a marginal release). In a theory, in January 1st, 2019 The Stones by their own could release in EU and UK (and any public domain market) some sort of A BONUS ALBUM TO BEGGARS BANQUET CONTAINING NON-RELEASED MATERIAL or ABKCO by their own a new single "Still A Fool" to promote the sales of BEGGARS BANQUET but that doesn't look likely. "No money innit, Chuck"...

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-10-08 13:20 by Doxa.

<Of course, this is pure speculation - it could be that ABKCO people and The Stones are in a total agreement here and for pure artistic and aesthetic reasons they think that none of that non-released material is good enough to be released, so no bonus material...>

I'd say that is highly unlikely, considering what they found good enough for the Exile Deluxe-release.

Quote
Rocky Dijon
Just to add some more fun to the proceedings, I believe "Get Back to the One You Love" is registered as a Jagger/Richards composition in the court documents from the dissolution of the ABKCO Agreement in 1970. Bill claims it is his song and it may very well be, but legally it is Jagger/Richards.

As for "Try Me" - ABKCO does not control publishing rights to James Brown's catalog of songs. They would only benefit if the copyright in the May 1965 recording by the Stones can still be enforced.

Also, ABKCO copyrights their remasters - not just the packaging of their releases. A 1986, 1987, 1989, 2002, 2012, or 2018 remaster of the Stones back catalog cannot be released freely if tracks actually pass into the public domain - only the original 1960s master could be used.

Cheers, Rocky! Cool additional info. What do you mean by that if the copyright of recording of "Try Me" could be "enforced". Is that something to do with such gestures as ABKCO have done in regards to remasters - that they still, seeing a hole in a public domain business, can copyright that unique mastering of the song in the form they might have release it? The others could only use/release those already circulating versions?

Anyway, funny to hear about that clever idea of copyrighting the remasters - thereby gaining some 70 years more of ownership (in UK & EU). Anyway, I predict when, say, 2036 comes and "Satisfaction" enters public domain, there will be some specific releases based on the original master release, which, for example, the radio stations will use from then on - not needing pay anything of the publishing royalties, just the song-writer ones. The people who would like to use the tune in commercials would have two options then: go to Jagger/Richards (or their estate) and ask the permission to use the original master or go to ABKCO to use the remastered version, which would cost them more... I am rather certain which option they use... Of course, the premise in this prediction is that there still is a market and interest for this kind of stuff...

I guess all of this is rather boring stuff for most of the people here, but I am rather into it, since I have never really thought or understood anything about these kind of matters earlier. You live and learn...

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-10-08 14:35 by Doxa.

Quote
DandelionPowderman


I'd say that is highly unlikely, considering what they found good enough for the Exile Deluxe-release.

Exactly my opinion as well. I just mentioned because it is a theoretical possibility, and we really don't know what actually is going on behind the curtains - another, related but unlikely possibility is that Jagger & Richards (no matter what ABKCO thinks about it) have now decided that 'enough is enough' - the vaults are now locked up for good at least as far as Decca/London era non-released material goes. Live with bootlegs and METAMORPHOSIS...

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-10-08 14:37 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman


I'd say that is highly unlikely, considering what they found good enough for the Exile Deluxe-release.

Exactly my opinion as well. I just mentioned because it is a theoretical possibility, and we really don't know what actually is going on behind the curtains - another, related but unlikely possibility is that Jagger & Richards (no matter what ABKCO thinks about it) have now decided that 'enough is enough' - the vaults are now locked up for good at least as far as Decca/London era non-released material goes. Live with bootlegs and METAMORPHOSIS...

- Doxa

Yeah, I can't help thinking of the beautiful Charlie Is My Darling-release, where they managed to create a wonderful joint product.

Did it sell that bad?

At least I don't want to believe that is it the Stones who are hindering these anniversary sets from happening.

Maybe it's just wishful thinking... Joyce did say something about wanting to get control over the ABKCO-catalogue..