For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
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
retired_dogQuote
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?
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.
Quote
slewanQuote
retired_dogQuote
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?
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
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]
Quote
IrixQuote
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.
Quote
IrixQuote
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.
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? What's left from 1972?
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
GasLightStreetQuote
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? What's left from 1972?
The Stones don't own the copyrights. That's it. It's that simple.
Quote
slewanQuote
GasLightStreetQuote
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? 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
GasLightStreet
Publishing. Songs on EXILE were ABKCO Music.
Quote
GasLightStreet
Oh and all but one (?) song on STICKY FINGERS is ABKCO Music.
Quote
GasLightStreet
The Stones don't own the copyrights. That's it. It's that simple.
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
Quote
GasLightStreetQuote
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? What's left from 1972?
The Stones don't own the copyrights. That's it. It's that simple.
Quote
IrixQuote
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?
Quote
retired_dogQuote
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.
Quote
ds1984
From that perspective I guess that any unpublished recording made in 1972 will enter the public domain in 2023.
Quote
IrixQuote
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.
Quote
IrixQuote
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.
Quote
ds1984
"The rights of phonogram producers last for 50 years [...] after its creation if it had never been communicated to the public"
Quote
IrixQuote
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.
Quote
ds1984
I try to stay focused on what these ABCKO copyright extension means.
Quote
IrixQuote
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
Doxa
If I recall right this 70 years rule was initially 50 years (in UK?)
Quote
Doxa
From then on it will be interesting to see what happens to reissue policy, etc.