Quote
Irix

Quote
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.

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
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?



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2022-12-31 20:41 by ds1984.

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,,,,,!

There we go..

How do these labels get these unreleased tracks?

so anybody spot anying being released yet?

Quote
ProfessorWolf

so anybody spot anying being released yet?

No - [iorr.org] .

Quote
ds1984

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!

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
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
slewan

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? … …

why should they? those audience recordings were illegal recordings. If they wanted they could have sued anybody who sold them…

What they could have done does not contradict what I have said above.

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
retired_dog

Quote
ds1984

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!

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.

This is an interesting angle to the issue!

Now to think the status of these illegal recordings that have entered the public domain. Is anything really changed? Yes and no. Yeah, they could be sold legally now by anyone, but that would mean that they would need to pay the mechanical royalties for the song-writers - something the bootleggers have not done. Is that good business? Or would it be better to continue just like before - be illegal all the way, and collect all the little money one could get?

But if they really decide to release these recordings legally that would mean that The Stones, or at least Mick and Keith as song-writers, will get their share of the cake, something they did not before. So the 'new order' is not that bad financially for the artists...

But back to the 'phonogram producer' dilemma. If the Stones had released all the soundboard recordings of their 1972 concerts (if those exist), yeah they would have copyrighted them, but not the several, alternative audience recordings of the shows. So they could not prevent the latter material entering public domain.


- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-01-01 13:37 by Doxa.

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?

Of course. I don't have a complete overview, but over there at Yeeshkul! they often have quite detailed information about which taper recorded what, and it doesn't look like a lot of these tapes were actually done by people working for the Floyd and then "leaked somehow", like most soundboards. Think of the well-known story of the Stones Garden State '78 soundboard tape for example, which was reportedly recorded by the guy at the mixing desk on behalf of the band, but got sneaked (=stolen!) from the tape recorder shortly before the end of the show by a member of the audience.

In any way, in case of a lawsuit a band who would claim that a tape was recorded by them or their people and subsequently got stolen would have to prove this, what could be difficult after all these years!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-01-01 13:53 by retired_dog.

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
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

Well, we don't speak about murder here, and the limitation period for prosecuting a crime like illegally recording a performamce may depend from country to country, but I doubt it's much longer than 10 years usually, so 50 years later - no chance in hell. Plus the act of illicit recording does not necessarily mean that the person in question followed any commercial benefits. As a taper you can always say, well, I recorded the show for my personal enjoyment only, I gave one or two copies of my tape out in trade for other tapes and from there on it went out of my control, whatever, I have nothing to do with the bootlegs appearing much later... There you go!

And, yeah, the sheer possibility of a dude recording a Pink Floyd show illegally 50 years ago could now sue the band for illegally using his recording may sound ironical, but in reality it's similar to the situation with the Stones and ABKCO concerning unreleased material: The Stones own the rights to the recorded performance, but ABKCO owns the rights to the actual tape - so the Stones can't release unreleased ABKCO-era material themselves without ABKCO's consent, but at the same time ABKCO can't release the same material without the Stones' consent: IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO!

Ah, and speaking of ABKCO - didn't they try the same trick as Pink Floyd now with their 1969 copyright extension YouTube campaign in December 2019 that also included lots of bootleg recordings from 1969 US tour shows (amongst their own MSG soundboards and a handful of studio material)?

Quote
retired_dog

Quote
ds1984

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!

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.

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.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2023-01-01 17:28 by ds1984.

On a lot of tickets sold by The Rolling Stones (and probably Pink Floyd and lots of other bands) it is/was written in words : No Recording, no filming no photographing and so on. Maybe not these days anymore. But in some way, by going to a concert and recording is/was illegal. By going to a concert and using the the ticket, you’ve said you agree to these rules, otherwise you shouldn’t use the ticket. So there are some rights for the bands on these recordings someone made illegal But me? No expert in these legal issues
Did I never toke photos or never filmed? Well I did, like lots of us. But filming only in the iPhone digital period. You can see lots of it on my YouTube account
[youtube.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-01-02 15:53 by Christiaan.

Quote
ds1984

Quote
Irix

Quote
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
Irix

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.

ABKCO Music is publishing, not a label. 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
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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-01-01 19:16 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa

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.

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

By december 1962 The Beatles were already under exclusive contract with Parlophone.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
ds1984

Quote
Irix

Quote
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.

Ok, ds1984, thanks for correction (my Beatlelogist credidentials are pretty limited). I wonder if already having a contract had a role for the courtroom outcome. Probably yes.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-01-01 19:41 by Doxa.

The Beatles signed in June of 1962 and their first release was Love Me Do. Parlophone's last release was SGT PEPPERS.

Parlophone was owned by EMI, whose subsidiary was Capitol Records, who distributed Apple Records releases (UK releases had Parlophone numbers), who eventually got gobbled up by UMG, who then sold it to Warners.

Kinda like driving a car, right? Key, gear, pedal. The complicated stuff is not thought of.

To this day we can listen to The Beatles online without thinking about what all they went through. Look at the covers and liner notes of the reissues or box sets, not think about who bought who for how much.


Or that The Beatles had to pay ABKCO over $4 million.

Decca Records turned down The Beatles but said yes to The Rolling Stones. The Stones signed their publishing away to ABKCO. Which, for some horrendous reason, The Beatles did the same in 1970.

You know how you turn your head for just a second while driving and then look back and you've gotta slam on the brakes?

That's ABKCO.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-01-01 19:52 by GasLightStreet.

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

Unless exception yes.

When you sign a recording contract with a record producer you own him the "exclusivity" for recording and release records.

Among the exception to the exclusivity is recording for broadcast.
That a record produc can't prevent an artist to perform live or make new recording for radio or tv airplay - there are specific law for that matter.
There is also a different law regarding performance on moving pictures.


The Rolling Stones when leaving Decca had a clause of "no re recording/publish material already published by Decca until 1975".

This is why the Stones did not issue at the time any live album on their own Rolling Stones label.

So this was quite a surprise when Brussels Affair got an official release, obviously a deal was found between the Roling Stones and ABKCO\Decca


But they were still allowed to radio airplay, ie the famous KBFH or the theatrical "Ladies and Gentleman".

Another example I have in mind is Jimmy Page & The Black Crowes - Live At The Greek

The Black Crowes at the time of these shows had just left their record company and were not allowed to publish rerecording of their own song performed at these shows.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-01-01 20:28 by ds1984.

Quote
ds1984

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
ds1984

Quote
Irix

Quote
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.

Yeah, and the point is that some Rolling Stones entity needs to have the 'producer rights', since labels like Atlantic, EMI, CBS, Virgin and UMG are just distributing the stuff for a licenced time period. I guess Rolling Stones Records was the entity that technically 'produced' the records back in the day, but it hasn't existed for a long time.

- Doxa

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.

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] .



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-01-01 20:45 by Irix.

Quote
Irix

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.

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] .

These are the publishing rights - that is different matter than master tape recording ownership and right to exploiting the master tape under phonogram format.

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.

That's what I've said above: in music business there're always two copyrights - one for the composition/lyrics and also one for the sound recording/performance - [iorr.org] .

As of 2023, to sum up the quite complex situation of The Rolling Stones "rights"


What I call the Producers' rights regarding recording made or issued with such mention on the records P XXXX Original sound recordings made by :

[*] up to 1970 : ABKCO
[*] 1971 onward : Promotone.BV

With the exception of two songs that are shared by ABKCO and Promotone.BV : Brown Sugar and Wild Horses.

For publishing rights that is too complex to make 100% accurate sum up.

Basically :

[*] ABKCO owns the full publishings right on the Decca aera (ie up to 1970) and somes on the RSR aera - 1971-1972.
[*] EMI publisjhing for work publihed between 1971 and 1983
[*] BMG from 1983 onward. BMG also represent the Rolling Stones interests for neighboring rights service and also administer Jagger and Richards’s interests as well back to 1963.

Source : [iorr.org]