Quote
Irix

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?

Copyrights and neighboring rights (rights to recordings, performers rights, broadcasting rights etc.) are always territorial = valid only in the country of the respective legislation, no matter from where songwriters, performers, record companies actually come from or where a performance actually took place.

For example: That the Stones are a band from the UK does not mean that they enjoy UK copyright protection everywhere in the world. Therefore distribution of a Stones album in South Africa for example falls under the respective South African law.

On the other hand it also means that a legal public domain album from the EU may not be legal in every other country of the world - it always depends on the local copyright situation of the country where you actually distribute such an album.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-12-28 21:06 by retired_dog.

Thanks for the clarification about the international copyright.

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
Irix

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?

Copyrights and neighboring rights (rights to recordings, performers rights, broadcasting rights etc.) are always territorial = valid only in the country of the respective legislation, no matter from where songwriters, performers, record companies actually come from or where a performance actually took place.

For example: That the Stones are a band from the UK does not mean that they enjoy UK copyright protection everywhere in the world. Therefore distribution of a Stones album in South Africa for example falls under the respective South African law.

On the other hand it also means that a legal public domain album from the EU may not be legal in every other country of the world - it always depends on the local copyright situation of the country where you actually distribute such an album.

right. But in fact the EU copyright laws force record companies to release unrealised stuff after 50 years to protect their copyright. Thus a lot of unreleased and sometimes even unknown stuff from the archieves finally turns up

how do these laws apply to film the band owns from this year as well?

The reason why ABCKO had to use the copyright extension and why the Rolling Stones just do not need to do so :

If a sound recording, after the fiftieth anniversary of its first publication, is not being made available in sufficient quantity, both in physical format and online (i.e. to meet the demand from consumers) then, under the legislation, any musician who has transferred their reproduction, distribution and making available rights or their performer’s property rights in the recording to the producer may notify them in writing that they wish to reclaim their performers’ rights in the recording.

The producer then has one year from the date of the notification to rectify the issue by making the recording available to meet consumer demand. If they do not, their copyright in the sound recording will expire.

Once the producer’s copyright has expired, any other party (including the musician) is free to exploit the recording for the remainder of the extended copyright term, provided they have gained permission from all the other musicians on the recording (or their estates) and the owners of the music and lyrics.

Source : [musiciansunion.org.uk]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-12-29 00:07 by ds1984.

besides the philadelphia special there's also

the burbank tour rehearsals at warner brothers studios

the texas rehearsals for l&g

the four shows that where filmed and recorded in texas for l&g

all the shows recorded directly off the soundboard

the unreleased live album they mixed and recorded overdubs for at olympic studios in october

and whatever leftovers from studio sessions at

sunset sound studios, in la on march 28th

and from the extensive studio sessions in kingston in nov-dec

which looking at nico's site shows a lot of potential leftover as yet unreleased uncirculated outtakes

and i seem to recall reading on here years ago that there's a uncirculated soundboard from one of the california shows that's in some private collection

Quote
slewan

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
Irix

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?

Copyrights and neighboring rights (rights to recordings, performers rights, broadcasting rights etc.) are always territorial = valid only in the country of the respective legislation, no matter from where songwriters, performers, record companies actually come from or where a performance actually took place.

For example: That the Stones are a band from the UK does not mean that they enjoy UK copyright protection everywhere in the world. Therefore distribution of a Stones album in South Africa for example falls under the respective South African law.

On the other hand it also means that a legal public domain album from the EU may not be legal in every other country of the world - it always depends on the local copyright situation of the country where you actually distribute such an album.

right. But in fact the EU copyright laws force record companies to release unrealised stuff after 50 years to protect their copyright. Thus a lot of unreleased and sometimes even unknown stuff from the archieves finally turns up

Also right. But this does not contradict what I said above in any way.

Quote
ds1984
The reason why ABCKO had to use the copyright extension and why the Rolling Stones just do not need to do so :

If a sound recording, after the fiftieth anniversary of its first publication, is not being made available in sufficient quantity, both in physical format and online (i.e. to meet the demand from consumers) then, under the legislation, any musician who has transferred their reproduction, distribution and making available rights or their performer’s property rights in the recording to the producer may notify them in writing that they wish to reclaim their performers’ rights in the recording.

The producer then has one year from the date of the notification to rectify the issue by making the recording available to meet consumer demand. If they do not, their copyright in the sound recording will expire.

Once the producer’s copyright has expired, any other party (including the musician) is free to exploit the recording for the remainder of the extended copyright term, provided they have gained permission from all the other musicians on the recording (or their estates) and the owners of the music and lyrics.

Source : [musiciansunion.org.uk]

Right. But this deals with released recordings, not unreleased material:

"...after the fiftieth anniversary of its first publication..."

Basically, it deals with the possibility of artists claiming back their rights from record companies if record companies are not interested in marketing certain releases anymore so artists don't gain any further royality income from said recordings. In this case, artists can claim their rights back from record companies and either market these recordings themselves or license them to other record companies.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-12-29 02:56 by retired_dog.

Quote
Irix

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.

Publishing. Songs on EXILE were ABKCO Music.

Quote
Irix

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.

Oh and all but one (?) song on STICKY FINGERS is ABKCO Music.

Quote
Irix

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?

The Stones don't own the copyrights. That's it. It's that simple.

Quote
Irix

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?

The owner of the copyright: ABKCO Music.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Irix

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?

The Stones don't own the copyrights. That's it. It's that simple.

from our/the fans' point of view it doesn't matter who holds the copyright. What matters is that whoever owns the copyright has to release what they have in the vaults within 50 years after the recordings. Otherwise they'll lose the copyright. (of course if they are sure that nobody has access to the stuff they don't have to release it. In that case they lose the copyright but can kept the recordings in their archieves or destroy them or whatever…

Quote
slewan

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Irix

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?

The Stones don't own the copyrights. That's it. It's that simple.

from our/the fans' point of view it doesn't matter who holds the copyright. What matters is that whoever owns the copyright has to release what they have in the vaults within 50 years after the recordings. Otherwise they'll lose the copyright. (of course if they are sure that nobody has access to the stuff they don't have to release it. In that case they lose the copyright but can kept the recordings in their archieves or destroy them or whatever…

or destroy them?!!!

Quote
GasLightStreet

Publishing. Songs on EXILE were ABKCO Music.

In music business there're always two copyrights - one for the composition/lyrics and also one for the sound recording/performance.

EXILE is (P) 1972 Musidor N.V. [~ Rolling Stones Records] - probably for the sound recording. For the songs there're beside ABKCO also a lot of other publishers stated on the record labels - [www.Discogs.com] .

Four songs on EXILE have the rights by ABKCO: 'Sweet Virginia', 'Loving Cup', 'All Down the Line', 'Shine a Light' because - as stated in Fred Goodman's 2015 book 'Allen Klein: The Man Who Bailed Out the Beatles, Made the Stones, and Transformed Rock & Roll.' - "After the release of Exile on Main St., Allen Klein sued the Rolling Stones for breach of settlement because 'Sweet Virginia' and three other songs on the album were composed while Jagger and Richards were under contract with his company, ABKCO Records. ABKCO acquired publishing rights to the songs, giving it a share of the royalties from Exile on Main St., and was able to publish another album of previously released Rolling Stones songs, More Hot Rocks (Big Hits & Fazed Cookies)."

Quote
GasLightStreet

Oh and all but one (?) song on STICKY FINGERS is ABKCO Music.

When I look on the record labels or booklets of Sticky Fingers then they state (P) 1971 Promotone N.V. For the songs are Mirage Music Ltd. respectively Westminster Music Ltd. stated for all tracks except 'You Gotta Move'. But there's nothing stated about ABKCO Music & Records, Inc. 'Brown Sugar' and 'Wild Horses' are the only two Stones compositions on Sticky Fingers over which ABKCO co-owns the rights along with the Stones. But the Sticky Fingers album as such was never published under the ABKCO label.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2022-12-31 00:40 by Irix.

Quote
GasLightStreet

The Stones don't own the copyrights. That's it. It's that simple.

And what are then Rolling Stones Records, Musidor and the whole Promogroup (with many subsidiaries) for?

Don’t worry...Rolling Stones and all their lawyers know very well the problem...they do the best concerning their interest...trust them,,,,,!

Quote
ProfessorWolf
besides the philadelphia special there's also

the burbank tour rehearsals at warner brothers studios

the texas rehearsals for l&g

the four shows that where filmed and recorded in texas for l&g

It would have been nice if we got more of the filmed songs from '72 as bonus tracks on L&G. I'd love to see all versions of Brown Sugar and there are many great takes on the other songs as well.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-12-29 12:17 by S.T.P.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Irix

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?

The Stones don't own the copyrights. That's it. It's that simple.

Simple, until 1970 the Rolling Stones were under contract with DECCA/London. In a clever way, Allen Klein (ABKCO) managed to get hold of all sound recording rights. Thanks to the film Gimmie Shelter, ABKCO, together with Musidor, Promotone, Rolling Stones Records, also has the sound recording rights of Brown Sugar and Wild Horses. Reasons, fragments of those songs were to see and hear in the 1970 movie Gimmie Shelter, 1970 the year of which Allen Klein also owns the rights. Brown Sugar and Wild Horses are the only songs you can find on a London Label from the album Hot Rocks. Sway and Bitch can be found later in the CD box The Rolling Stones Singles 1968-1971 released in 2005 which can be seen as a collaboration indicate.

A sound recording has a separate copyright that is distinct from that of the underlying work (usually a musical work, expressible in musical notation and written lyrics), if any. The sound recording copyright notice extends to a copyright for just the sound itself and will not apply to any other rendition or version, even if performed by the same artist(s)
[en.wikipedia.org]



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2022-12-29 16:10 by UrbanSteel.

Quote
Irix

Quote
GasLightStreet

The Stones don't own the copyrights. That's it. It's that simple.

And what are then Rolling Stones Records, Musidor and the whole Promogroup (with many subsidiaries) for?

Irix, don't worry, because as far as I can remember, threads dealing with copyrights usually end like this - once one thinks that everything's cleared and explained, a weird post pops up and one feels tempted to start from scratch again... It's a bit frustrating. I think I'd better refrain from threads like these in future.

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
ds1984
The reason why ABCKO had to use the copyright extension and why the Rolling Stones just do not need to do so :

If a sound recording, after the fiftieth anniversary of its first publication, is not being made available in sufficient quantity, both in physical format and online (i.e. to meet the demand from consumers) then, under the legislation, any musician who has transferred their reproduction, distribution and making available rights or their performer’s property rights in the recording to the producer may notify them in writing that they wish to reclaim their performers’ rights in the recording.

The producer then has one year from the date of the notification to rectify the issue by making the recording available to meet consumer demand. If they do not, their copyright in the sound recording will expire.

Once the producer’s copyright has expired, any other party (including the musician) is free to exploit the recording for the remainder of the extended copyright term, provided they have gained permission from all the other musicians on the recording (or their estates) and the owners of the music and lyrics.

Source : [musiciansunion.org.uk]

Right. But this deals with released recordings, not unreleased material:

"...after the fiftieth anniversary of its first publication..."

Basically, it deals with the possibility of artists claiming back their rights from record companies if record companies are not interested in marketing certain releases anymore so artists don't gain any further royality income from said recordings. In this case, artists can claim their rights back from record companies and either market these recordings themselves or license them to other record companies.

Well spotted, I did not use the accurate source - my bad


So I checked the official text from the UK government, commonly know as the 1988 copyright act.

The 1988 UK copyright act

13A Duration of copyright in sound recordings.

13 A - Duration of copyright in sound recordings.

(1)The following provisions have effect with respect to the duration of copyright in a sound recording.


(2)Subject to subsections (4) and (5) and section 191HA(4), copyright expires—

---(a) at the end of the period of 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which the recording is made, or

---(b) if during that period the recording is published, 70 years from the end of the calendar year in which it is first published, or

---(c) if during that period the recording is not published but is made available to the public by being played in public or communicated to the public, 70 years from the end of the calendar year in which it is first so made available,

but in determining whether a sound recording has been published, played in public or communicated to the public, no account shall be taken of any unauthorised act.


(3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(4) Where the author of a sound recording is not a national of the United Kingdom, the duration of copyright is that to which the sound recording is entitled in the country of which the author is a national, provided that does not exceed the period which would apply under subsection (2)


(5) If or to the extent that the application of subsection (4) would be at variance with an international obligation to which the United Kingdom became subject prior to 29th October 1993, the duration of copyright shall be as specified in subsection (2),

I think the text make it clear that unpublished sound recording enters the public domain after 50 years UNLESS it is legally published.

From that perspective I guess that any unpublished recording made in 1972 will enter the public domain in 2023.
The Rolling Stones still have a few days left to do so, or it is already done but we are not aware of it.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2022-12-29 17:34 by ds1984.

Quote
ds1984

From that perspective I guess that any unpublished recording made in 1972 will enter the public domain in 2023.

Maybe when you apply the UK copyright. But the EU has their own copyright - [EUR-Lex.Europa.eu] - with own 70 & 50 years rules. Copyright lengths in other countries of the world: Wikipedia.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-12-29 17:55 by Irix.

Quote
Irix

Quote
ds1984

From that perspective I guess that any unpublished recording made in 1972 will enter the public domain in 2023.

Maybe when you apply the UK copyright. But the EU has their own copyright - [EUR-Lex.Europa.eu] - with own 70 & 50 years rules. Copyright lengths in other countries of the world: Wikipedia.

But as an EU member state, the UK had to implement the EU copyright into their national copyright. If Brexit led to any changes needs to be further investigated. I simply lack the time to do that, sorry.

Quote
Irix

Quote
ds1984

From that perspective I guess that any unpublished recording made in 1972 will enter the public domain in 2023.

Maybe when you apply the UK copyright. But the EU has their own copyright - [EUR-Lex.Europa.eu] - with own 70 & 50 years rules. Copyright lengths in other countries of the world: Wikipedia.

It would be better to give precise text not just link.



Wikipedia article

What the article Copyright Duration Directive says ?

This excertps is specifically about the right on unpublished phonogram as this is the question discussed, I omitted the part on published phonogram :

"The rights of phonogram producers last for 50 years [...] after its creation if it had never been communicated to the public"


The European Directive

DIRECTIVE 2006/116/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL - AS AMENDED BY DIRECTIVE 2011/77/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 27 September 2011

"2.  The rights of producers of phonograms shall expire 50 years after the fixation is made. However, if the phonogram has been lawfully published within this period, the said rights shall expire 70 years from the date of the first lawful publication. If no lawful publication has taken place within the period mentioned in the first sentence, and if the phonogram has been lawfully communicated to the public within this period, the said rights shall expire 70 years from the date of the first lawful communication to the public.

However, this paragraph shall not have the effect of protecting anew the rights of producers of phonograms where, through the expiry of the term of protection granted them pursuant to Article 3(2) of Directive 93/98/EEC in its version before amendment by Directive 2001/29/EEC, they were no longer protected on 22 December 2002."

2a.  If, 50 years after the phonogram was lawfully published or, failing such publication, 50 years after it was lawfully communicated to the public, the phonogram producer does not offer copies of the phonogram for sale in sufficient quantity or does not make it available to the public, by wire or wireless means, in such a way that members of the public may access it from a place and at a time individually chosen by them, the performer may terminate the contract by which the performer has transferred or assigned his rights in the fixation of his performance to a phonogram producer (hereinafter a ‘contract on transfer or assignment’). The right to terminate the contract on transfer or assignment may be exercised if the producer, within a year from the notification by the performer of his intention to terminate the contract on transfer or assignment pursuant to the previous sentence, fails to carry out both of the acts of exploitation referred to in that sentence. This right to terminate may not be waived by the performer. Where a phonogram contains the fixation of the performances of a plurality of performers, they may terminate their contracts on transfer or assignment in accordance with applicable national law. If the contract on transfer or assignment is terminated pursuant to this paragraph, the rights of the phonogram producer in the phonogram shall expire.

2b.  Where a contract on transfer or assignment gives the performer a right to claim a non-recurring remuneration, the performer shall have the right to obtain an annual supplementary remuneration from the phonogram producer for each full year immediately following the 50th year after the phonogram was lawfully published or, failing such publication, the 50th year after it was lawfully communicated to the public. The right to obtain such annual supplementary remuneration may not be waived by the performer.

2c.  The overall amount to be set aside by a phonogram producer for payment of the annual supplementary remuneration referred to in paragraph 2b shall correspond to 20 % of the revenue which the phonogram producer has derived, during the year preceding that for which the said remuneration is paid, from the reproduction, distribution and making available of the phonogram in question, following the 50th year after it was lawfully published or, failing such publication, the 50th year after it was lawfully communicated to the public.

Member States shall ensure that phonogram producers are required on request to provide to performers who are entitled to the annual supplementary remuneration referred to in paragraph 2b any information which may be necessary in order to secure payment of that remuneration.

2d.  Member States shall ensure that the right to obtain an annual supplementary remuneration as referred to in paragraph 2b is administered by collecting societies.

2e.  Where a performer is entitled to recurring payments, neither advance payments nor any contractually defined deductions shall be deducted from the payments made to the performer following the 50th year after the phonogram was lawfully published or, failing such publication, the 50th year after it was lawfully communicated to the public.





Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2022-12-30 03:04 by ds1984.

Quote
ds1984

"The rights of phonogram producers last for 50 years [...] after its creation if it had never been communicated to the public"

It's the rights of the phonogram producers - but in copyright there're also the rights of authors (composition/lyrics) and performers (sound recording). Different terms & conditions, hence just my link to the EU law.

In New Zealand it's already 31-Dec-2022 and when checking Qobuz & Apple Music from there, nothing new from 1972 has been surfaced there so far. Also currently no inactive official videos to be found on YouTube.

Quote
Irix

Quote
ds1984

"The rights of phonogram producers last for 50 years [...] after its creation if it had never been communicated to the public"

It's the rights of the phonogram producers - but in copyright there're also the rights of authors (composition/lyrics) and performers (sound recording). Different terms & conditions, hence just my link to the EU law.

I try to stay focused on what these ABCKO copyright extension means.
And make it understandable by everyone.

Is it about the rights of authors ?
NO

Is it about the right of performers ?
YES
BUT only if the tape had been made legally available during the 50 years following its fixation.


Is it about the right of producer ?
YES in any case he is the the main loser if he doesn't exploit the tape within the 50 years following its fixation

Quote
ds1984

I try to stay focused on what these ABCKO copyright extension means.

Why ABCKO in regard of 1972 (and not Musidor & the Promo-Group) ?

Quote
Irix

Quote
ds1984

I try to stay focused on what these ABCKO copyright extension means.

Why ABCKO in regard of 1972 (and not Musidor & the Promo-Group) ?

Yeah, it's not ABKCO's concern anymore. Reading those UK and EU copyright rules, probably their next big concern is that of their rights for already published Stones material starting to expire in 2033 (70 years from their first publication). After that they will get some money from holding Jagger/Richards song copyrights, but will lose the rights for the recordings (in practise the latter would not only mean controlling the releases of the 'ABKCO era' recordings, but also that ABKCO cannot any longer control, and make deals with, for the use of Stones recordings in movies, tv ads, etc.)

From then on it will be interesting to see what happens to reissue policy, etc. Do those who physically own the master recordings have an upper hand? Another thing is how this rule can be avoided. Has the already released reissues - many of them along the years - somehow managed to extend the copyright? Or are there some other means in their pocket in regard to copyrights over the recordings?

If I recall right this 70 years rule was initially 50 years (in UK?), but was changed due the old material turning out to be more valuable than initially thought (for that the change was nick-named as 'Beatles Act' or something).

- Doxa



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2022-12-30 16:51 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa

If I recall right this 70 years rule was initially 50 years (in UK?)

It was also only 50 years in the EU. It's still visible in the 2006 revision - [EUR-Lex.Europa.eu] - but the revision from 2011 says now 70 years - [EUR-Lex.Europa.eu] - (especially in Article 3).

Quote
Doxa

From then on it will be interesting to see what happens to reissue policy, etc.

Maybe more competition in regard of the releases - there'll be not only releases by ABKCO or Universal but maybe also releases by smaller companies which could then provide better sound quality due to better remastering and so on. Losing the copyright might be bad for the record companies but on the other hand it could be good for consumers due to better quality, more choice and more competition. Imagine what it would mean if patents in technology would be valid until 70 years after the death of the inventor ....



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-12-30 17:30 by Irix.