Tell Me :
Talk
That would make sense, and yeah, give us the answer.
- Doxa
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.
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?
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.
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.
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...
Because ABKCO doesn't have much material from 1972...
but Universal ????
The Stones have since 1970 their own record label. Companies like Universal Music (or Virgin, CBS, EMI, WEA, etc) are 'only' manufacturers/distributors - the music is owned by the Stones and then licensed for manufacturing.
Because by 1972 the contract with ABKCO was over.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-12-28 01:06 by ds1984.
ok but (and forgive me if this is a stupid question) would't the band still have to release something to preserve there copyrights on the material they own?
Another (simple) question would be: is there something in their vaults, worth to preserve the copyrights on the material they own? What's left from 1972?
I would ask the question the other was around. If they don't release Philadelphia Special 1972 by the end of the year everyone is allowed to release the Bootleg officially. And Mick and Keith would even get songwriting Credits d
from the sales.
If the Stones would release a newly mixed Philadelphia Special in 2025 would we still buy it? Of course we would! Doesn't matter If the bootleg is officially released before or not.
The only people that can really make good money with it are people who own records not known to a wide public.some recordings from inner trading circles for example.
it just means that they still have the copyright (if they don't release/use the stuff commercially they'll lose the copyright within four days…)
Which copyright is actually applicable? It's a performance in the United States, the Stones are still a band from UK, but their company has its base in the Netherlands. What counts now?
For YouTube the IP adress from the viewer counts. YouTube blocking is always for a specific country.
your example is not about copyright. It's about access to certain stores in foreign countries (and about the pricing policy of those stores). Copyright rules are EU wide.
Ok, it's then 'licensing restrictions' as [www.e-onkyo.com] calls it.
In the EU there are different rules for printed works and music.
Written works become public domain 70 years after the death of the author.
For music things are different: For released stuff it's 70 years after the recording (not after the death of the musicians!). But for unreleased music it's just 50 years after the recording. If the recordings are released within these 50 years the copyright is extended for another 20 years (therefore some record companies release stuff shortly before the end of the 50 years period).
There's another exception: Everything that was recorded before 1962 is public domain in the EU (= every recording made more than 50 years before the new EU copyright law was made in 2012). Therefore you can buy (early) Elvis and Chuck Berry recordings everywhere…
Yep, you're right, there're differences. The appropriate EU copyright law for performances/phonograms/broadcasts can be found here: [EUR-Lex.Europa.eu] - especially in Article 3 for the 50 years rules.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
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.
- 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.
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
MathijsQuote
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
DoxaQuote
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.
- 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
DoxaQuote
MathijsQuote
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 ?
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.
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.
Re: New ABKCO copyright releases
Posted by:
Ricky
()
Date: December 26, 2022 20:59
Why no more unreleased songs released this way by the end of the year?
Re: New ABKCO copyright releases
Posted by:
hockenheim95
()
Date: December 26, 2022 21:12
Quote
Ricky
Why no more unreleased songs released this way by the end of the year?
Because ABKCO doesn't have much material from 1972...
Re: New ABKCO copyright releases
Posted by:
Ricky
()
Date: December 26, 2022 21:15
Quote
hockenheim95Quote
Ricky
Why no more unreleased songs released this way by the end of the year?
Because ABKCO doesn't have much material from 1972...
but Universal ????
Re: New ABKCO copyright releases
Posted by:
S.T.P
()
Date: December 26, 2022 22:32
This isn't s a Universal issue. It's in the bands interest to waait for the right moment....
Re: New ABKCO copyright releases
Posted by:
Irix
()
Date: December 26, 2022 23:15
Quote
Ricky
but Universal ????
The Stones have since 1970 their own record label. Companies like Universal Music (or Virgin, CBS, EMI, WEA, etc) are 'only' manufacturers/distributors - the music is owned by the Stones and then licensed for manufacturing.
Re: New ABKCO copyright releases
Posted by:
ds1984
()
Date: December 28, 2022 01:05
Quote
Ricky
Why no more unreleased songs released this way by the end of the year?
Because by 1972 the contract with ABKCO was over.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-12-28 01:06 by ds1984.
Re: New ABKCO copyright releases
Posted by:
ProfessorWolf
()
Date: December 28, 2022 04:14
Quote
ds1984Quote
Ricky
Why no more unreleased songs released this way by the end of the year?
Because by 1972 the contract with ABKCO was over.
ok but (and forgive me if this is a stupid question) would't the band still have to release something to preserve there copyrights on the material they own?
Re: New ABKCO copyright releases
Posted by:
Irix
()
Date: December 28, 2022 11:15
Quote
ProfessorWolf
ok but (and forgive me if this is a stupid question) would't the band still have to release something to preserve there copyrights on the material they own?
Another (simple) question would be: is there something in their vaults, worth to preserve the copyrights on the material they own? What's left from 1972?
Re: New ABKCO copyright releases
Posted by:
hockenheim95
()
Date: December 28, 2022 11:22
Quote
IrixQuote
ProfessorWolf
ok but (and forgive me if this is a stupid question) would't the band still have to release something to preserve there copyrights on the material they own?
Another (simple) question would be: is there something in their vaults, worth to preserve the copyrights on the material they own?
I would ask the question the other was around. If they don't release Philadelphia Special 1972 by the end of the year everyone is allowed to release the Bootleg officially. And Mick and Keith would even get songwriting Credits d
from the sales.
If the Stones would release a newly mixed Philadelphia Special in 2025 would we still buy it? Of course we would! Doesn't matter If the bootleg is officially released before or not.
The only people that can really make good money with it are people who own records not known to a wide public.some recordings from inner trading circles for example.
Re: New ABKCO copyright releases
Posted by:
Irix
()
Date: December 28, 2022 11:46
This Philadelphia Special 1972 already seems to have copyright by UMG (because it's blocked) - [www.YouTube.com] .
It's linked at [www.Discogs.com] but there're still other videos of this special available on YouTube.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-12-28 12:05 by Irix.
It's linked at [www.Discogs.com] but there're still other videos of this special available on YouTube.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-12-28 12:05 by Irix.
Re: New ABKCO copyright releases
Posted by:
slewan
()
Date: December 28, 2022 12:01
Quote
Irix
This Philadelphia Special 1972 already seems to have copyright by UMG - [www.YouTube.com] .
it just means that they still have the copyright (if they don't release/use the stuff commercially they'll lose the copyright within four days…)
Re: New ABKCO copyright releases
Posted by:
Irix
()
Date: December 28, 2022 12:15
Quote
slewan
it just means that they still have the copyright
Which copyright is actually applicable? It's a performance in the United States, the Stones are still a band from UK, but their company has its base in the Netherlands. What counts now?
Re: New ABKCO copyright releases
Posted by:
hockenheim95
()
Date: December 28, 2022 12:20
Quote
IrixQuote
slewan
it just means that they still have the copyright
Which copyright is actually applicable? It's a performance in the United States, the Stones are still a band from UK, but their company has its base in the Netherlands. What counts now?
For YouTube the IP adress from the viewer counts. YouTube blocking is always for a specific country.
Re: New ABKCO copyright releases
Posted by:
Irix
()
Date: December 28, 2022 12:45
Yes, copyright licensing is mostly country-specific - it's the same with the audio material in the download/streaming stores. Even within the EU you cannot e.g. buy a song only available on French Qobuz if you just have a German Qobuz account.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-12-28 13:35 by Irix.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-12-28 13:35 by Irix.
Re: New ABKCO copyright releases
Posted by:
Irix
()
Date: December 28, 2022 12:50
But asked in general: which copyright applies to the Stones for their worldwide performances when they wanna release it commercially?
Re: New ABKCO copyright releases
Posted by:
slewan
()
Date: December 28, 2022 13:03
Quote
Irix
Yes, copyright is mostly country-specific - it's the same with the audio material in the download/streaming stores. Even within the EU you cannot e.g. buy a song only available on French Qobuz if you just have a German Qobuz account.
your example is not about copyright. It's about access to certain stores in foreign countries (and about the pricing policy of those stores). Copyright rules are EU wide.
Re: New ABKCO copyright releases
Posted by:
Irix
()
Date: December 28, 2022 13:15
Quote
slewan
your example is not about copyright. It's about access to certain stores in foreign countries
Ok, it's then 'licensing restrictions' as [www.e-onkyo.com] calls it.
Re: New ABKCO copyright releases
Posted by:
Irix
()
Date: December 28, 2022 13:35
Copyright in the EU: 70 years after the author's death and "European countries follow the principle that copyright protection is granted automatically upon creation of the work." - Wikipedia.
Some countries in the world have also copyright rules like: "50 years from publication; 50 years from creation if unpublished".
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-12-28 13:50 by Irix.
Some countries in the world have also copyright rules like: "50 years from publication; 50 years from creation if unpublished".
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-12-28 13:50 by Irix.
Re: New ABKCO copyright releases
Posted by:
slewan
()
Date: December 28, 2022 14:15
Quote
Irix
Copyright in the EU: 70 years after the author's death and "European countries follow the principle that copyright protection is granted automatically upon creation of the work." - Wikipedia.
Some countries in the world have also copyright rules like: "50 years from publication; 50 years from creation if unpublished".
In the EU there are different rules for printed works and music.
Written works become public domain 70 years after the death of the author.
For music things are different: For released stuff it's 70 years after the recording (not after the death of the musicians!). But for unreleased music it's just 50 years after the recording. If the recordings are released within these 50 years the copyright is extended for another 20 years (therefore some record companies release stuff shortly before the end of the 50 years period).
There's another exception: Everything that was recorded before 1962 is public domain in the EU (= every recording made more than 50 years before the new EU copyright law was made in 2012). Therefore you can buy (early) Elvis and Chuck Berry recordings everywhere…
Re: New ABKCO copyright releases
Posted by:
Irix
()
Date: December 28, 2022 16:00
Quote
slewan
In the EU there are different rules for printed works and music.
Yep, you're right, there're differences. The appropriate EU copyright law for performances/phonograms/broadcasts can be found here: [EUR-Lex.Europa.eu] - especially in Article 3 for the 50 years rules.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
adamw3405 , alfstone , Big Al , bitusa2012 , Christiaan , CHRISTIANF , crawdaddy , dimrstone , dishevelmentblues , Djuro , Doxa , esqcjh , Fuman2 , gotdablouse , Handova , henrik87 , hot stuff , Jalfstra , LiveAtHidepark , Manofwealthandtaste , marclaff , Meteor , mike567 , riccardo99 , S.T.P , sandandglue , tinnitus , TW2019 , werner67976
Guests:
1665
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10