Tell Me :  Talk
Talk about your favorite band. 

Previous page Next page First page IORR home

For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.

Goto Page: PreviousFirst...4567891011121314
Current Page: 14 of 14
Re: New ABKCO copyright releases
Posted by: Doxa ()
Date: January 16, 2020 13:40

Quote
DandelionPowderman


I read somewhere (in Variety, perhaps?) that the tracks also were available briefly on the Stones's YouTube-channel. If true, you've got the answer right there...

That would make sense, and yeah, give us the answer.thumbs up

- Doxa

Re: New ABKCO copyright releases
Posted by: Doxa ()
Date: January 16, 2020 15:58

If the suggestion of Stones involvement happens to be accurate, as I believe it is, then one can only wonder what is the outcome of all this (remember the veto right).

An optimist thinks that 'yeah, we will get a proper release some day'. A nay-sayer (realist?) comes and replies: 'why didn't they release it properly now? What are they waiting for - that all of the Stones fans are dead and gone?'

A pessimist thinks that 'Mick and Keith just made sure that none of this stuff is released properly by anyone ever. They don't like it and they wanted it be buried forever'. A critical music historian comes and replies: 'oh no, they can't do that since they do know at least its historical significance. Besides: they have relaesed lesser stuff already'.

Doxa, a speculative observer, thinks along the lines of slewan that something is going on between The Stones and ABKCO relationship. Will that mean The Stones might purchase ABKCO some day, or some third party - like Universal - both, in either case the interest is to keep the 'product' as valuable as possible. For that some quick profit - proper releases - are not so important. Who knows if the theoretical value of that stuff in the case of a deal is bigger than the true commercial value tested in practise (if released properly).

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2020-01-16 16:00 by Doxa.

Re: New ABKCO copyright releases
Posted by: retired_dog ()
Date: January 16, 2020 16:03

Quote
Mathijs
Quote
retired_dog

Unlike Godzi/Gozi, the 1968 version of Ruby Tuesday is just an unreleased version/recording of an already released composition, so the composers Jagger/Richards have already lost their "first publication veto (copy)right",

This is incorrect -the first publishing right starts at the moment it is published. The copyright law does not 'oblige' to release something unreleased under a penalty of losing the publishing rights. So with RT from 1968 they could have kept it in the vault for another 100 years without losing any rights.

That said -if you want to release it on youtube to prolong the copyrights, why don't you then just release it officially? These studio track would have made an excellent bonus disc to Let it Bleed, it would have sold 200K copies, with a turnover of 3 million $. Or as so many bands have done by now: take those 8-track recordings of Rotterdam 1973, Cow Palace 1975 or whatever, master them for $5000 and make them downloadable for $10 per show. The copyrights are protected, the tapes preserved, you get an article in all music press which is nice for the new tour, and you make money over tapes that are now gathering dust.

Mathijs


I'm sorry to have to correct you once again, Mathijs, but you still mix up neighbouring rights (artists, record company) with songwriter's copyright.

"Ruby Tuesday" from 1968 is not an unreleased song/composition, it's just an unreleased recording of a Jagger/Richards song that was first published/released in 1966.

The EU copyright "use it or lose it" - provision deals with neighboring rights, not with songwriter's copyright. It forces the artists and record companies to "use" unreleased recordings within 50 years or otherwise lose their neighboring (copyrights), but IT HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE COPYRIGHT OF THE SONGWRITERS which usually expires 70 years after death.

Consequently, all the "public domain" labels still have to pay royalties to the songwriters...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-01-16 23:41 by retired_dog.

Re: New ABKCO copyright releases
Posted by: retired_dog ()
Date: January 16, 2020 16:08

Quote
Doxa
Quote
DandelionPowderman


I read somewhere (in Variety, perhaps?) that the tracks also were available briefly on the Stones's YouTube-channel. If true, you've got the answer right there...

That would make sense, and yeah, give us the answer.thumbs up

- Doxa

Yeah, but was that actually the case? Zentgraf mentions ABKCO's channel only. Is anybody here to confirm that the stuff was also "released" on the Stones channel too?

Re: New ABKCO copyright releases
Posted by: retired_dog ()
Date: January 16, 2020 16:30

Quote
Doxa
Quote
Mathijs
Quote
retired_dog

Unlike Godzi/Gozi, the 1968 version of Ruby Tuesday is just an unreleased version/recording of an already released composition, so the composers Jagger/Richards have already lost their "first publication veto (copy)right",

This is incorrect -the first publishing right starts at the moment it is published. The copyright law does not 'oblige' to release something unreleased under a penalty of losing the publishing rights. So with RT from 1968 they could have kept it in the vault for another 100 years without losing any rights.

That said -if you want to release it on youtube to prolong the copyrights, why don't you then just release it officially? These studio track would have made an excellent bonus disc to Let it Bleed, it would have sold 200K copies, with a turnover of 3 million $. Or as so many bands have done by now: take those 8-track recordings of Rotterdam 1973, Cow Palace 1975 or whatever, master them for $5000 and make them downloadable for $10 per show. The copyrights are protected, the tapes preserved, you get an article in all music press which is nice for the new tour, and you make money over tapes that are now gathering dust.

Mathijs

No matter how we interpret the first publishing right law, there is still left some open questions in regard these odd relaeses as Mathijs is refering here.

(1) Why ABKCO did not release those as proper releases, such as bonus disc to LET IT BLEED or independent live downloads, etc?

Which is related to another question:

(2) What is the role of the Rolling Stones here?

As far as I know ABKCO is not permitted to release any non-released material without the acceptance of the Stones, since they have that veto right for that (at least as far as their original songs go). This at least has been the interpretation why any of these 50th Anniversary versions have had not any interesting bonus material - Mick and Keith didn't allow that (for whatever reason). Anyway, this should apply to these youtube releases as well! The Stones altogether have had quite a strict policy there: not many 60's hidden gems have been released along the years (stuff like R&R CIRCUS, YA-YAS, ON AIR, LIVE 65 comes to mind).

So should we conclude that ABKCO did get the permission by the band for these youtube releases? If not, ABKCO is really testing waters here, or playing with fire actually...

My best guess is that the Stones are involved here: they also, like ABKCO, have an interest to protect their ABKCO era material. But they didn't allow a 'proper' release, and this is the crazy compromise they made. ABKCO doesn't gain any real profit, but the stuff neither entered Public Domain in EU, and thereby them having lost all of their control over it. And The Stones still have that veto right over it.

However, there is another twist here: if the story of the origin of the studio tapes holds true (made in this thread): ABKCO got the studio material due to CROSSFIRE HURRICANE, since the Stones needed a deal with the ABKCO for that (this also mean that the Stones just not only legally have veto rights over it, they physically own the recordings). What we have here is the stuff they didn't use in the movie. Did ABKCO used this opportunity - the deal for movie - in order to release the stuff? (This same point holds most likely to odd 1968 releases last year.)

Then, if the Stones really would like to protect all of their studio material, and as we know there is much, much more of that, why they didn't let it all released at the same token? Or did they, as they were doing preperations for CROSSFIRE HURRICANE, checked then all the vaults then, and came up with all the material they thought was worthy of release? And they don't care about the rest?

Lots of open questions...

Okay, back to Mathijs's interpretation of the first publishing right. I have no legal expertise here, but if what he believes is true, then there is no way ever to understand not just this odd release by the Stones, but neither many vault releases by acts like, say, Dylan or The Beatles we have seen lately (since 2012). (For example, some Dylan releases are similarly questioned for their 'official release' status). I don't think the answer 'let us get some easy money quick' can explain their publication. I believe the legaslation of EU has a bigger role there.

- Doxa


It's only confusing if you follow Mathijs who continually confuses/mix up neighboring rights with songwriter's copyright. As I wrote in one of my previous posts, you had it right already in one of your previous posts, Doxa!

I quote one of my previous posts again because this is absolutely crucial for understanding the whole rights situation:

"The EU copyright "use it or lose it" - provision deals with neighboring rights, not with songwriter's copyright. It forces the artists and record companies to "use" unreleased recordings within 50 years or otherwise use their neighboring (copyrights), but IT HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE COPYRIGHT OF THE SONGWRITERS which usually expires 70 years after death."

That said, ABKCO can only succeed to get their rights extended when the recordings were actually lawfully released. As ABKCO can't release any unreleased recordings -be them studio, be them live recordings- without the agreement of the artists - The Rolling Stones -, it's easy to see that without any agreement from the Stones, the release of these recordings would not have been lawful under the terms of the EU law.

Consider the consequences:

No lawful release within 50 years - no copyright extension. Recordings would fall into the public domain. But not only ABKCO, also the Stones as performing artists would lose their rights. BUT NOT THE SONGWRITERS (copyright 70 years after death)!



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 2020-01-16 17:29 by retired_dog.

Re: New ABKCO copyright releases
Posted by: jlowe ()
Date: January 16, 2020 18:51

Simple question (in a complex subject):
Does EU Law cover releases in all territories/countries of the world?
Or, for example do I see a business opportunity for Stones product in let's say. Papa New Guinea ?

Re: New ABKCO copyright releases
Posted by: buttons67 ()
Date: January 16, 2020 19:45

pink floyd released 2 mammoth projects, 1 was old stuff, 1 was new and both are selling for hundreds of pounds.

each had updated versions of already existing songs

also outtakes of already existing songs but a different version recorded.

they then done outtakes of songs never released previously,

various live versions of many songs

and various instrumentals of songs already released.

and extended mixes.

its a massive package spanning over 20 discs each in various formats, cd, dvd, blue ray, studio recordings and concerts, audio and visual.

what a mix.

surely the stones can do that, if abkco and stones wernt so stubborn they could get together, not only to protect their own product from being sold off cheaply but to give the fans what they want.

think of what we could have

heres what 1 disc could be


citadel studio version latest update
citadel instrumental
we love you studio version latest format
we love you instrumental
you got the silver studio latest format
yo got the silver studio alternate mix
you got the silver several times live
blood red wine unreleased outtake
gold painted fingernails, unreleased instrumental outtake
jumpin jack flash studio latest format
jumpin jack flash alternate studio several versions
jumpin jack flash live several versions
jumpin jack flash instrumental outtake


thats just a hypothetical account of what were missing, with all the alternate studio versions, unreleased outtakes, various live versions and instrumentals of many songs we could have a massive package that is better if not as huge as what pink floyd done.

Re: New ABKCO copyright releases
Posted by: retired_dog ()
Date: January 16, 2020 23:48

Quote
jlowe
Simple question (in a complex subject):
Does EU Law cover releases in all territories/countries of the world?
Or, for example do I see a business opportunity for Stones product in let's say. Papa New Guinea ?

Absolutely not. It's EU Law, valid only in the EU (and possibly in associated countries who explicitly adopted EU regulations). It's possible that a legal EU public domain release may be illegal in the US or somewhere else.

Re: New ABKCO copyright releases
Posted by: retired_dog ()
Date: January 16, 2020 23:52

Quote
buttons67
pink floyd released 2 mammoth projects, 1 was old stuff, 1 was new and both are selling for hundreds of pounds.

each had updated versions of already existing songs

also outtakes of already existing songs but a different version recorded.

they then done outtakes of songs never released previously,

various live versions of many songs

and various instrumentals of songs already released.

and extended mixes.

its a massive package spanning over 20 discs each in various formats, cd, dvd, blue ray, studio recordings and concerts, audio and visual.

what a mix.

surely the stones can do that, if abkco and stones wernt so stubborn they could get together, not only to protect their own product from being sold off cheaply but to give the fans what they want.

think of what we could have

heres what 1 disc could be


citadel studio version latest update
citadel instrumental
we love you studio version latest format
we love you instrumental
you got the silver studio latest format
yo got the silver studio alternate mix
you got the silver several times live
blood red wine unreleased outtake
gold painted fingernails, unreleased instrumental outtake
jumpin jack flash studio latest format
jumpin jack flash alternate studio several versions
jumpin jack flash live several versions
jumpin jack flash instrumental outtake


thats just a hypothetical account of what were missing, with all the alternate studio versions, unreleased outtakes, various live versions and instrumentals of many songs we could have a massive package that is better if not as huge as what pink floyd done.

The massive Pink Floyd - Early Years box showed what could be done and how it should be done, and was released timely enough to prevent all this wonderful material from falling into the public domain...

Re: New ABKCO copyright releases
Posted by: peoplewitheyes ()
Date: January 17, 2020 00:00

Like Doxa mentioned, in 10 - 20 years there are going to be very, very few people who are interested in these obscurities.

Goto Page: PreviousFirst...4567891011121314
Current Page: 14 of 14


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Online Users

Guests: 437
Record Number of Users: 189 on August 24, 2021 20:10
Record Number of Guests: 4101 on December 24, 2020 10:57

Previous page Next page First page IORR home