For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
IrixQuote
ds1984
I try to stay focused on what these ABKCO copyright extension means.
Why ABCKO in regard of 1972 (and not Musidor & the Promo-Group) ?
Quote
retired_dog
So where are we now with our excursions into the wide land of copyrights, often labelled as "minefield" because not seldom even high-profile lawyers come to different interpretations of certain rulings?
As we're all experts now after studying the law texts I'd like to come back to the question(s) that started this and the according Pink Floyd thread:
Why did Pink Floyd release a whole load of 1972 shows and even some outtakes and the Stones so far not (still some hours to go, but hopes are dwindling quickly!)?
Apart from pure marketing aspects - could it be that Floyd and Stones lawyers have different interpretations of copyright extension rules?
Opinions, please!
I have mine (as indicated in the Pink Floyd thread in my reply to Doxa that "there's a lot more to say about all this", but will hold it back for a while to let others speak out first!
Quote
jp.M
Don’t worry...Rolling Stones and all their lawyers know very well the problem...they do the best concerning their interest...trust them,,,,,!
Quote
ds1984Quote
retired_dog
So where are we now with our excursions into the wide land of copyrights, often labelled as "minefield" because not seldom even high-profile lawyers come to different interpretations of certain rulings?
As we're all experts now after studying the law texts I'd like to come back to the question(s) that started this and the according Pink Floyd thread:
Why did Pink Floyd release a whole load of 1972 shows and even some outtakes and the Stones so far not (still some hours to go, but hopes are dwindling quickly!)?
Apart from pure marketing aspects - could it be that Floyd and Stones lawyers have different interpretations of copyright extension rules?
Opinions, please!
I have mine (as indicated in the Pink Floyd thread in my reply to Doxa that "there's a lot more to say about all this", but will hold it back for a while to let others speak out first!
To enter the public domain 50 years after it was fixed, is there any difference between a performance being lawfully fixed or not ?
For Promotone we are talking about legally fixed audio, whereas for Pink Floyd 95% of the 1972 recordings issued this december have not been subject of band and management approval.
I wonder what legal trick the Rolling Stones will use to prevent small label to publish these tapes?
Quote
retired_dog
Now think about this: Whatever Pink Floyd have "released" so far in their copyright extension efforts of the past two years, are (at least almost) entirely amateur recordings of their shows, made by people from the audience, taken from circulating bootlegs.
Do you think Pink Floyd contacted the people who did the original recordings to reach release agreements with them - keeping in mind that only fully "lawful" releases within the 50 year-period could extend copyrights? … …
Quote
slewanQuote
retired_dog
Now think about this: Whatever Pink Floyd have "released" so far in their copyright extension efforts of the past two years, are (at least almost) entirely amateur recordings of their shows, made by people from the audience, taken from circulating bootlegs.
Do you think Pink Floyd contacted the people who did the original recordings to reach release agreements with them - keeping in mind that only fully "lawful" releases within the 50 year-period could extend copyrights? … …
why should they? those audience recordings were illegal recordings. If they wanted they could have sued anybody who sold them…
Quote
retired_dogQuote
ds1984Quote
retired_dog
So where are we now with our excursions into the wide land of copyrights, often labelled as "minefield" because not seldom even high-profile lawyers come to different interpretations of certain rulings?
As we're all experts now after studying the law texts I'd like to come back to the question(s) that started this and the according Pink Floyd thread:
Why did Pink Floyd release a whole load of 1972 shows and even some outtakes and the Stones so far not (still some hours to go, but hopes are dwindling quickly!)?
Apart from pure marketing aspects - could it be that Floyd and Stones lawyers have different interpretations of copyright extension rules?
Opinions, please!
I have mine (as indicated in the Pink Floyd thread in my reply to Doxa that "there's a lot more to say about all this", but will hold it back for a while to let others speak out first!
To enter the public domain 50 years after it was fixed, is there any difference between a performance being lawfully fixed or not ?
For Promotone we are talking about legally fixed audio, whereas for Pink Floyd 95% of the 1972 recordings issued this december have not been subject of band and management approval.
I wonder what legal trick the Rolling Stones will use to prevent small label to publish these tapes?
You're pretty close, but not quite there yet!
Let's start with your question: No, there is no difference between a performance being lawfully fixed or not. Furthermore, one would think that the so-called neighboring right of the "phonogram producer" is granted only to record companies to protect their significant initial financial investment. This is, however, not the case. If you go out with your cheap tape recorder and record nothing else than birds' voices, or the sound of a thunderstorm, or whatever other sounds of nature, your resulting amateur tape, no matter how primitive and cheap or bad-sounding it may be, is your achievement and protected in the same way as the hugely expensive album recording by any professional record company.
Now think about this: Whatever Pink Floyd have "released" so far in their copyright extension efforts of the past two years, are (at least almost) entirely amateur recordings of their shows, made by people from the audience, taken from circulating bootlegs.
Do you think Pink Floyd contacted the people who did the original recordings to reach release agreements with them - keeping in mind that only fully "lawful" releases within the 50 year-period could extend copyrights? Fact is that Pink Floyd only own the rights of the performers, but they don't own the rights to the fixation (or "phonogram producer's rights") - unless the original recording was actually done or initiated by them, of course.
In the end and in my very humble opinion, I think that Floyd's releases are nothing more than a nice try, but ultimately fail to reach the desired copyright extension.
And I think that the Stones' lawyers possibly share my opinion and advised their clients to stay away from copyright extension adventures with tapes they don't own like audience recordings from 1972.
Quote
Irix
A question would be: are these really recordings by the audience or had Pink Floyd commissioned someone else with the recordings which were then illegally copied?
Quote
Doxa
It would be ironical if a dude recording a Pink Floyd show illegally 50 years ago would now sue the band for using illegally his recording...
Makes me wonder what actually is the legal status of an illegal recording. I suppose the crime in question is not something that, say, Pink Floyd could sue someone for committing. Especially after 50 years. They can say it was not allowed to record a show, and did their best to prevent that happen, but after the event I guess they cannot do much about it if someone still had managed to do that. The recording and its legal rights belong to the person who made it. They can sue anyone trying to make commercial benefit of it (bootlegs) for 50 years, but that is altogether a different issue.
- Doxa
Quote
retired_dogQuote
ds1984Quote
retired_dog
So where are we now with our excursions into the wide land of copyrights, often labelled as "minefield" because not seldom even high-profile lawyers come to different interpretations of certain rulings?
As we're all experts now after studying the law texts I'd like to come back to the question(s) that started this and the according Pink Floyd thread:
Why did Pink Floyd release a whole load of 1972 shows and even some outtakes and the Stones so far not (still some hours to go, but hopes are dwindling quickly!)?
Apart from pure marketing aspects - could it be that Floyd and Stones lawyers have different interpretations of copyright extension rules?
Opinions, please!
I have mine (as indicated in the Pink Floyd thread in my reply to Doxa that "there's a lot more to say about all this", but will hold it back for a while to let others speak out first!
To enter the public domain 50 years after it was fixed, is there any difference between a performance being lawfully fixed or not ?
For Promotone we are talking about legally fixed audio, whereas for Pink Floyd 95% of the 1972 recordings issued this december have not been subject of band and management approval.
I wonder what legal trick the Rolling Stones will use to prevent small label to publish these tapes?
You're pretty close, but not quite there yet!
Let's start with your question: No, there is no difference between a performance being lawfully fixed or not. Furthermore, one would think that the so-called neighboring right of the "phonogram producer" is granted only to record companies to protect their significant initial financial investment. This is, however, not the case. If you go out with your cheap tape recorder and record nothing else than birds' voices, or the sound of a thunderstorm, or whatever other sounds of nature, your resulting amateur tape, no matter how primitive and cheap or bad-sounding it may be, is your achievement and protected in the same way as the hugely expensive album recording by any professional record company.
Now think about this: Whatever Pink Floyd have "released" so far in their copyright extension efforts of the past two years, are (at least almost) entirely amateur recordings of their shows, made by people from the audience, taken from circulating bootlegs.
Do you think Pink Floyd contacted the people who did the original recordings to reach release agreements with them - keeping in mind that only fully "lawful" releases within the 50 year-period could extend copyrights? Fact is that Pink Floyd only own the rights of the performers, but they don't own the rights to the fixation (or "phonogram producer's rights") - unless the original recording was actually done or initiated by them, of course.
In the end and in my very humble opinion, I think that Floyd's releases are nothing more than a nice try, but ultimately fail to reach the desired copyright extension.
And I think that the Stones' lawyers possibly share my opinion and advised their clients to stay away from copyright extension adventures with tapes they don't own like audience recordings from 1972.
Quote
ds1984Quote
IrixQuote
ds1984
I try to stay focused on what these ABKCO copyright extension means.
Why ABCKO in regard of 1972 (and not Musidor & the Promo-Group) ?
I used the "ABKCO copyright extension" term refering to the name of the thread.
So in 1972 ABKCO is no more the producer company of new recordings by the Rolling Stones.
Promotone BV is the entity that owns the producer rights on new recordings issued from 1971 onward.
Quote
IrixQuote
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.
Quote
ds1984
I did not intend that a taper could sue Pink Floyd for using his tape.
That was not in my scope.
In short the performer owns the ***ownership*** rights on illegal recording.
My question was does an illegal recording enters the public domain after 50 years of its fixation?
I mean if I kept uncirculated for 50 years an illegal tape recording I made can I squeeze the band's ownership rights and publish it under the public domain or not?
My opinion regarding ***ownership*** of illegal recording rely on the case of the Beatles Live! at the Star-Club in Hamburg release.
First issued by german label Lingasong/Bellaphon in 1977, without the Beatles approval, the Beatles started a long legal battle that ended in 1998 in favour of The Beatles, who were granted ownership of the tapes and exclusive rights to their use (source Wikipedia - Live! at the Star-Club in Hamburg, Germany; 1962)
I think Pink Floyd did it right, now they are the legal owners of these recordings for 70 years.
Quote
DoxaQuote
ds1984
I did not intend that a taper could sue Pink Floyd for using his tape.
That was not in my scope.
In short the performer owns the ***ownership*** rights on illegal recording.
My question was does an illegal recording enters the public domain after 50 years of its fixation?
I mean if I kept uncirculated for 50 years an illegal tape recording I made can I squeeze the band's ownership rights and publish it under the public domain or not?
My opinion regarding ***ownership*** of illegal recording rely on the case of the Beatles Live! at the Star-Club in Hamburg release.
First issued by german label Lingasong/Bellaphon in 1977, without the Beatles approval, the Beatles started a long legal battle that ended in 1998 in favour of The Beatles, who were granted ownership of the tapes and exclusive rights to their use (source Wikipedia - Live! at the Star-Club in Hamburg, Germany; 1962)
I think Pink Floyd did it right, now they are the legal owners of these recordings for 70 years.
For your question, I think the very procedure by Pink Floyd answers to it: the illegal recordings would enter the public domain 50 years after their fixation. They wouldn't have needed to release them without that. Dylan people have done this for years, for example, releasing about any existing tape of 1966 concerts.
But the exemple of the Beatles is an interesting one. Technically it wasn't even illegal recording (and the band had not yet a record contract, right?), but the band got its ownership and rights. That seems to imply that the performers have very pretty strong rights for recordings of their live performances made by anyone (of course, good lawyers are needed too).
- Doxa
Quote
GasLightStreetQuote
ds1984Quote
IrixQuote
ds1984
I try to stay focused on what these ABKCO copyright extension means.
Why ABCKO in regard of 1972 (and not Musidor & the Promo-Group) ?
I used the "ABKCO copyright extension" term refering to the name of the thread.
So in 1972 ABKCO is no more the producer company of new recordings by the Rolling Stones.
Promotone BV is the entity that owns the producer rights on new recordings issued from 1971 onward.
Promotone has nothing to do with "producer rights".
Promotone "owns and administers the rights to the band's master recordings and the neighboring rights."
Promotone NV wasn't formed until after STICKY FINGERS was released.
Promotone BV was "formed" in 1973 before GOATS HEAD SOUP was released.
All but one song on STICKY FINGERS and Sweet Virginia, Loving Cup, All Down The Line, Stop Breaking Down and Shine A Light on EXILE, are ABKCO Music. Promotone has release control with agreement of ABKCO but only ABKCO Music controls the publishing.
Quote
Doxa
Ok, ds1984, thanks for correction (my Beatlelogist credidentials are pretty limited). I wonder if already having a contract had a role. Probably yes.
- Doxa
Quote
ds1984Quote
GasLightStreetQuote
ds1984Quote
IrixQuote
ds1984
I try to stay focused on what these ABKCO copyright extension means.
Why ABCKO in regard of 1972 (and not Musidor & the Promo-Group) ?
I used the "ABKCO copyright extension" term refering to the name of the thread.
So in 1972 ABKCO is no more the producer company of new recordings by the Rolling Stones.
Promotone BV is the entity that owns the producer rights on new recordings issued from 1971 onward.
Promotone has nothing to do with "producer rights".
Promotone "owns and administers the rights to the band's master recordings and the neighboring rights."
Promotone NV wasn't formed until after STICKY FINGERS was released.
Promotone BV was "formed" in 1973 before GOATS HEAD SOUP was released.
All but one song on STICKY FINGERS and Sweet Virginia, Loving Cup, All Down The Line, Stop Breaking Down and Shine A Light on EXILE, are ABKCO Music. Promotone has release control with agreement of ABKCO but only ABKCO Music controls the publishing.
You are right about creation date but the fact that it did not exist in 1971 does not matter.
In 2023 Promotone BV is the legal entity who owns and administers the rights to the band's master recordings and the neighboring rights.
Quote
GasLightStreet
All but one on STICKY FINGERS is ABKCO Music. Read the Virgin or UME deluxe reissue liner notes - it says all songs published by ABKCO Music.
Quote
IrixQuote
GasLightStreet
All but one on STICKY FINGERS is ABKCO Music. Read the Virgin or UME deluxe reissue liner notes - it says all songs published by ABKCO Music.
Yes, it's stated as such in the 2015 Deluxe-Edition of Sticky Fingers on the booklet's last pages (above the Design & Picture Credits, the T&L and Polydor logos) - [www.Discogs.com] .
But in the 1994 Virgin Europe (and the 2011 Japanese SACD) it's still Westminster Music Ltd while the 1994 Virgin US-release indeed says ABKCO Music (BMI) - [www.Discogs.com] , [www.Discogs.com] .
Quote
ds1984
These are the publishing rights - that is different matter than master tape recording ownership and right to exploiting the master tape under phonogram format.