For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
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...
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
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
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
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 ?
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.
Quote
Ricky
Why no more unreleased songs released this way by the end of the year?
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...
Quote
Ricky
but Universal ????
Quote
Ricky
Why no more unreleased songs released this way by the end of the year?
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.
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?
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?
Quote
Irix
This Philadelphia Special 1972 already seems to have copyright by UMG - [www.YouTube.com] .
Quote
slewan
it just means that they still have the copyright
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?
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.
Quote
slewan
your example is not about copyright. It's about access to certain stores in foreign countries
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".
Quote
slewan
In the EU there are different rules for printed works and music.