Tell Me :  Talk
Talk about your favorite band. 

Previous page Next page First page IORR home

For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.

Goto Page: PreviousFirst...1011121314151617181920Next
Current Page: 17 of 20
Re: New ABKCO copyright releases
Posted by: micktayloryears ()
Date: January 2, 2023 03:32

i like their compilations are better than the stuff The Stones turn out

Made in the Shade was so lazy while Metamorph. was really creative

Re: New ABKCO copyright releases
Posted by: retired_dog ()
Date: January 2, 2023 03:55

Quote
ds1984
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.

This is not comparable. There's a difference between someone recording a band with the band's permission (Lennon in this case, plus the equipment and microphone being set up in front of the Star Club stage for all the band to see that could constitute an agreement of the band to record them) and someone hidden in the audience recording a band without even their knowledge and, as such, of course without their permission.

The difference is that - unlike the Pink Floyd bootleg tapers - the Star Club tape owners believed that the Beatles' permission to record their performances also gave them the right to commercially exploit the performances by manufacturing albums and distributing/selling them.

This assumption, however, was wrong from the beginning, as performing artists own the right to allow or forbid the recording, but also own the right to allow or forbid the duplication/manufacturing and distributing/selling of their performances = different rights, of course, and independent from each other at that, too. Consequently, the permission to record a band's performance does not "automatically" include the right to any commercial exploitation of said performance. Otherwise, ABKCO, who legally recorded the Stones' studio sessions according to their contract with them would be allowed to issue any unreleased performances or outtakes without the Stones' explicit permission, something they simply cannot do.

In the case of the Beatles Star Club tapes, the court simply confirmed these basic rules. Or, as George Harrison was cited in his testimony at court:

"One drunken person recording another bunch of drunks does not constitute business deals."

Translated: The fact that we allowed someone to record us does not mean that we allowed this person to do business with these tapes.

The term "legal ownership of the tapes" does mean "legal control over the use of the performance embodied on these tapes", nothing more, but also nothing less.

It certainly does not mean that the Beatles themselves could issue the Star Club tapes or excerpts thereof without the permission of their owner, otherwise they would violate his phonogram producer's rights (right to allow or forbid the duplication and the right to allow or forbid the distribution) which exist independently from their own performer's rights. And so far, despite their historical importance, I can't see a single trace of any Beatles' use of these tapes on any of their archive audio and audiovisual releases. IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2023-01-02 04:12 by retired_dog.

Re: New ABKCO copyright releases
Posted by: retired_dog ()
Date: January 4, 2023 17:30

This thread seems to have died a sudden death after my last post, but I'd like to add some maybe interesting facts and additions/corrections:

1.
Just learned that Ted Kingsize Taylor, the man responsible for the Beatles' Star Club tapes, has died a couple of days ago, maybe at the same time when we discussed this topic. What a coincidence!

RIP Ted, and whatever the rights and wrongs about these tapes, I'd like to thank you for giving me the chance to hear the Beatles live in their formative days. Oh, and what would I give for something similar from the Stones - a complete show or whatever glimpse from their early club days - Crawdaddy or whereever, in whatever quality, as historicial artifacts like that don't need to be in "today's brilliant stereo"!

2.
The section of my previous post that starts with "this assumption, however, was wrong from the beginning..." - well, not quite, as it needs to be noted that The Beatles/Apple failed to reach a court injuction to stop the original Lingasong double album shortly before its release in early 1977, when artists had a much weaker legal position in the UK than after the invention of the 1988 UK Copyright Act.

3.
If I count right, the Star Club tapes should be in the public domain since January 1st, 2013 as it is clear now that there was no fully legal release that was agreed by both the artist and the owner of the tape in the 50 years since their recording.

Re: New ABKCO copyright releases
Posted by: treaclefingers ()
Date: January 4, 2023 17:45

Retired Dog, I have a Beatles Star Club cassette tape gifted to me in the early 80s, West German in origin. I'm pretty sure it was a legal release but perhaps to your point not 'agreed to by artist'?

I've no idea though.

Re: New ABKCO copyright releases
Posted by: retired_dog ()
Date: January 4, 2023 19:04

Quote
treaclefingers
Retired Dog, I have a Beatles Star Club cassette tape gifted to me in the early 80s, West German in origin. I'm pretty sure it was a legal release but perhaps to your point not 'agreed to by artist'?

I've no idea though.

If you just own it and don't intend to sell, it does not really matter. It's not forbidden to own illegal recordings! The 1998 court ruling in favour of Apple applies only to the UK, naturally.

Re: New ABKCO copyright releases
Posted by: ds1984 ()
Date: January 4, 2023 21:25

Hum, as the 1977 release was lawfully done, then it should be considered that the tape was relased in 1977 and thus are still under copyright ?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-01-04 21:26 by ds1984.

Re: New ABKCO copyright releases
Posted by: retired_dog ()
Date: January 5, 2023 09:05

Quote
ds1984
Hum, as the 1977 release was lawfully done, then it should be considered that the tape was relased in 1977 and thus are still under copyright ?

I knew you would say that! But, no, the court ruling of 1977 was under the UK law that existed back then, and that was "overruled" by the 1988 UK copyright act and the EU legislation which is pretty clear in this case that only a "fully legal" release within 50 years after the end of the year of the recording/"fixation" could extend copyrights, and "fully legal release" requires agreements between all parties that enjoy protection under the EU directive, in particular performing artists and phonogram producers in this case. The fact that in 1977 obviously only insufficient protection for performers existed in the UK therefore is meaningless.

If Brexit changed anything for the UK I don't know, but for the EU the situation is pretty clear imo.

Re: New ABKCO copyright releases
Posted by: Doxa ()
Date: January 5, 2023 14:33

So is the case then that the Star Club stuff from 1962 entered Public Domain in 2013 (UK, EU), since there never been any 'fully legal' release? (I don't know the latter, but I got the impression here that the Beatles never have done such when they got the rights).

- Doxa

Re: New ABKCO copyright releases
Posted by: retired_dog ()
Date: January 5, 2023 21:44

Quote
Doxa
So is the case then that the Star Club stuff from 1962 entered Public Domain in 2013 (UK, EU), since there never been any 'fully legal' release? (I don't know the latter, but I got the impression here that the Beatles never have done such when they got the rights).

- Doxa

Doxa, yes, as I already stated under point 3 of my longer post from January 4, "the Star Club tapes should be in the public domain since January 1st, 2013 as it is clear now that there was no fully legal release that was agreed by both the artist and the owner of the tapes in the 50 years since their recording".

The UK 1988 Copyright Act clearly states concerning copyrights extension that

"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".

So the fact that The Beatles failed to reach a court injunction against Lingasong in 1977 is meaningless - the release may have been legal, but still unauthorized by the Beatles, so not "fully legal" (as I named it) under the requirements of the 1988 UK Copyright Act.

As the court battle between Lingasong and The Beatles ended in 1998, any "fully legal" release (authorized by both The Beatles as owners of the rights of the performance embodied on these tapes) and Lingasong as owners of the phonogram producers' rights of the actual tapes must have happened between 1998 and December 31, 2012 (copyrights expiry date).

I'm no Beatles expert by any stretch of the imagination, but at least I don't know of any release that could be seen as a joint Beatles/Lingasong effort in this timeframe.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-01-05 21:47 by retired_dog.

Re: New ABKCO copyright releases
Posted by: Doxa ()
Date: January 6, 2023 02:37

Thanks R-Dog, and sorry that I somehow missed your post just above where you stated the very thing I asked.

So could we now conclude that instead of hiding his illegal-assumed recording and being afraid Beatles lawyers with dogs would knock his door any minute, Treaclefingers could now make copies of his old cassette tape, establish his own label 'Treacle Records' and sell the stuff to happy Beatles fans all over the world... grinning smiley

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-01-06 02:42 by Doxa.

Re: New ABKCO copyright releases
Posted by: retired_dog ()
Date: January 6, 2023 04:14

Quote
Doxa
Thanks R-Dog, and sorry that I somehow missed your post just above where you stated the very thing I asked.

So could we now conclude that instead of hiding his illegal-assumed recording and being afraid Beatles lawyers with dogs would knock his door any minute, Treaclefingers could now make copies of his old cassette tape, establish his own label 'Treacle Records' and sell the stuff to happy Beatles fans all over the world... grinning smiley

- Doxa

OK, Doxa, as Treaclefingers in the meantime must have been frightened to death, I think it's high time to let him off the hook... But I don't know if we should really encourage him to test my legal theory in practice!

Better let us a find a Pink Floyd taper who's not a member of our small community here to file a lawsuit against the band for alleged unauthorized use of his tape in order to bring their copyright extension cardhouse down...



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2023-01-06 04:24 by retired_dog.

Re: New ABKCO copyright releases
Posted by: treaclefingers ()
Date: January 6, 2023 06:05

Quote
retired_dog
Quote
Doxa
Thanks R-Dog, and sorry that I somehow missed your post just above where you stated the very thing I asked.

So could we now conclude that instead of hiding his illegal-assumed recording and being afraid Beatles lawyers with dogs would knock his door any minute, Treaclefingers could now make copies of his old cassette tape, establish his own label 'Treacle Records' and sell the stuff to happy Beatles fans all over the world... grinning smiley

- Doxa

OK, Doxa, as Treaclefingers in the meantime must have been frightened to death, I think it's high time to let him off the hook... But I don't know if we should really encourage him to test my legal theory in practice!

Better let us a find a Pink Floyd taper who's not a member of our small community here to file a lawsuit against the band for alleged unauthorized use of his tape in order to bring their copyright extension cardhouse down...

Retired Dog, your reading comprehension...is that why you were retired?

I was only offering that I had a copy of a tape along the lines of what you'd described, as an example maybe of what you were talking about.

IF I could even find it, I'd gladly inform on myself and have some enterprising UK enforcement officers with truncheons arrest me for a copyright infringement.

It would be a great, and inexpensive way to see the UK! I should check to see what the extradition requirements are!

Re: New ABKCO copyright releases
Posted by: retired_dog ()
Date: January 6, 2023 10:26

Quote
treaclefingers
Quote
retired_dog
Quote
Doxa
Thanks R-Dog, and sorry that I somehow missed your post just above where you stated the very thing I asked.

So could we now conclude that instead of hiding his illegal-assumed recording and being afraid Beatles lawyers with dogs would knock his door any minute, Treaclefingers could now make copies of his old cassette tape, establish his own label 'Treacle Records' and sell the stuff to happy Beatles fans all over the world... grinning smiley

- Doxa

OK, Doxa, as Treaclefingers in the meantime must have been frightened to death, I think it's high time to let him off the hook... But I don't know if we should really encourage him to test my legal theory in practice!

Better let us a find a Pink Floyd taper who's not a member of our small community here to file a lawsuit against the band for alleged unauthorized use of his tape in order to bring their copyright extension cardhouse down...

Retired Dog, your reading comprehension...is that why you were retired?

I was only offering that I had a copy of a tape along the lines of what you'd described, as an example maybe of what you were talking about.

IF I could even find it, I'd gladly inform on myself and have some enterprising UK enforcement officers with truncheons arrest me for a copyright infringement.

It would be a great, and inexpensive way to see the UK! I should check to see what the extradition requirements are!

You think you get the Boris Becker treatment? Naaah, when national treasury like The Beatles is concerned, they'll send you someone from the MI6 and let you secretly, quietly and - most important - cost savingly disappear in a nice deep lake close to you, of course with a concrete block around your feet... And after a while, we here at IORR will start wondering "Oh, where's Treacle?".

But, checking my posts above you should have noticed that you've got nothing to fear (talking about reading comprehension!winking smiley).

Re: New ABKCO copyright releases
Posted by: treaclefingers ()
Date: January 6, 2023 16:23

Quote
retired_dog
Quote
treaclefingers
Quote
retired_dog
Quote
Doxa
Thanks R-Dog, and sorry that I somehow missed your post just above where you stated the very thing I asked.

So could we now conclude that instead of hiding his illegal-assumed recording and being afraid Beatles lawyers with dogs would knock his door any minute, Treaclefingers could now make copies of his old cassette tape, establish his own label 'Treacle Records' and sell the stuff to happy Beatles fans all over the world... grinning smiley

- Doxa

OK, Doxa, as Treaclefingers in the meantime must have been frightened to death, I think it's high time to let him off the hook... But I don't know if we should really encourage him to test my legal theory in practice!

Better let us a find a Pink Floyd taper who's not a member of our small community here to file a lawsuit against the band for alleged unauthorized use of his tape in order to bring their copyright extension cardhouse down...

Retired Dog, your reading comprehension...is that why you were retired?

I was only offering that I had a copy of a tape along the lines of what you'd described, as an example maybe of what you were talking about.

IF I could even find it, I'd gladly inform on myself and have some enterprising UK enforcement officers with truncheons arrest me for a copyright infringement.

It would be a great, and inexpensive way to see the UK! I should check to see what the extradition requirements are!

You think you get the Boris Becker treatment? Naaah, when national treasury like The Beatles is concerned, they'll send you someone from the MI6 and let you secretly, quietly and - most important - cost savingly disappear in a nice deep lake close to you, of course with a concrete block around your feet... And after a while, we here at IORR will start wondering "Oh, where's Treacle?".

But, checking my posts above you should have noticed that you've got nothing to fear (talking about reading comprehension!winking smiley).

and that was my point, I never indicated there was anything to fear either you made a leap of illogic!

Re: New ABKCO copyright releases
Posted by: retired_dog ()
Date: January 6, 2023 21:57

Quote
treaclefingers
Quote
retired_dog
Quote
treaclefingers
Quote
retired_dog
Quote
Doxa
Thanks R-Dog, and sorry that I somehow missed your post just above where you stated the very thing I asked.

So could we now conclude that instead of hiding his illegal-assumed recording and being afraid Beatles lawyers with dogs would knock his door any minute, Treaclefingers could now make copies of his old cassette tape, establish his own label 'Treacle Records' and sell the stuff to happy Beatles fans all over the world... grinning smiley

- Doxa

OK, Doxa, as Treaclefingers in the meantime must have been frightened to death, I think it's high time to let him off the hook... But I don't know if we should really encourage him to test my legal theory in practice!

Better let us a find a Pink Floyd taper who's not a member of our small community here to file a lawsuit against the band for alleged unauthorized use of his tape in order to bring their copyright extension cardhouse down...

Retired Dog, your reading comprehension...is that why you were retired?

I was only offering that I had a copy of a tape along the lines of what you'd described, as an example maybe of what you were talking about.

IF I could even find it, I'd gladly inform on myself and have some enterprising UK enforcement officers with truncheons arrest me for a copyright infringement.

It would be a great, and inexpensive way to see the UK! I should check to see what the extradition requirements are!

You think you get the Boris Becker treatment? Naaah, when national treasury like The Beatles is concerned, they'll send you someone from the MI6 and let you secretly, quietly and - most important - cost savingly disappear in a nice deep lake close to you, of course with a concrete block around your feet... And after a while, we here at IORR will start wondering "Oh, where's Treacle?".

But, checking my posts above you should have noticed that you've got nothing to fear (talking about reading comprehension!winking smiley).

and that was my point, I never indicated there was anything to fear either you made a leap of illogic!

No, not a leap of illogic, I just thought that a dose of good old black humour could not hurt in these times... By the way, if you accuse someone for stepping on your toes you should also not let Doxa (who has quietly disappeared from this thread!) off the hook!

Re: New ABKCO copyright releases
Posted by: GasLightStreet ()
Date: January 6, 2023 22:54

Quote
micktayloryears
i like their compilations are better than the stuff The Stones turn out

Made in the Shade was so lazy while Metamorph. was really creative

MADE IN THE SHADE is excellent - and they only had 4 Atlantic Records albums to pull from. 3 from STICKY FIGNERS, 3 from EXILE, 2 from SOUP and 2 from IORR.

Sure, it could be expanded to have a longer running time equivalent to REWIND (53 and 55 minutes), which means they could've dove into EXILE and SOUP a little more with All Down The Line, Rocks Off, Dancing With Mr D, Star Star and maybe one more from IORR with If You Can't Rock Me.

And... it has two ABKCO Music songs on it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-01-06 22:57 by GasLightStreet.

Re: New ABKCO copyright releases
Posted by: MrEcho ()
Date: January 6, 2023 23:43

Quote
retired_dog
Quote
Doxa
So is the case then that the Star Club stuff from 1962 entered Public Domain in 2013 (UK, EU), since there never been any 'fully legal' release? (I don't know the latter, but I got the impression here that the Beatles never have done such when they got the rights).

- Doxa

Doxa, yes, as I already stated under point 3 of my longer post from January 4, "the Star Club tapes should be in the public domain since January 1st, 2013 as it is clear now that there was no fully legal release that was agreed by both the artist and the owner of the tapes in the 50 years since their recording".

The UK 1988 Copyright Act clearly states concerning copyrights extension that

"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".

So the fact that The Beatles failed to reach a court injunction against Lingasong in 1977 is meaningless - the release may have been legal, but still unauthorized by the Beatles, so not "fully legal" (as I named it) under the requirements of the 1988 UK Copyright Act.

As the court battle between Lingasong and The Beatles ended in 1998, any "fully legal" release (authorized by both The Beatles as owners of the rights of the performance embodied on these tapes) and Lingasong as owners of the phonogram producers' rights of the actual tapes must have happened between 1998 and December 31, 2012 (copyrights expiry date).

I'm no Beatles expert by any stretch of the imagination, but at least I don't know of any release that could be seen as a joint Beatles/Lingasong effort in this timeframe.

According to Directive 2011/77/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2011 the situation in regard to phonograms/recordings is as follows:

The new European copyright law from 2011 protects recordings made in 1963 or later for 70 years, but only if the recordings are "lawfully published or lawfully communicated" to the public within 50 years after "fixation" (= recording date), the cut-off date being December 31 of the relevant year.

Recordings made before 1963 are out of copyright in the EU, no matter what. That's why the EU market is overflowing with unauthorized (but legal in the EU) releases of classic Jazz, Blues and Rock & Roll recordings from the 1950s/early 1960s (including for example Bob Dylan's first regular album, which is out of copyright in the EU).

Most/some of the Beatles' Star Club Tapes were recorded in the early morning of January 1, 1963, but if they were ever lawfully published or communicated to the public is debatable. Even the exact recording date is unclear. If all the tapes were recorded in December 1962 they are out of copyright in the EU anyway.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2023-01-06 23:51 by MrEcho.

Re: New ABKCO copyright releases
Posted by: Irix ()
Date: January 7, 2023 00:00

Quote
MrEcho

The new European copyright law from 2011 protects recordings made in 1963 or later for 70 years

But there's no explicit mention of 1963 in the EU copyright: [EUR-Lex.Europa.eu] .

Re: New ABKCO copyright releases
Posted by: MrEcho ()
Date: January 7, 2023 13:09

Quote
Irix
Quote
MrEcho

The new European copyright law from 2011 protects recordings made in 1963 or later for 70 years

But there's no explicit mention of 1963 in the EU copyright: [EUR-Lex.Europa.eu] .

The date of 1963 was not defined via Directive 2011/77/EU, but via national legislature long before 2011. Directive 2011/77/EU only extended the protection from 50 to 70 years (amending directives from 2006 and 1993). The directive was implemented into the national legislature of all EU member states by 2013, because the first recordings that could benefit from it were recordings made in 1963, which needed to be released/protected by the end of 2013.
In 2012 Bob Dylan's people released a 1962 Copyright Protection set, because they were unsure of the legal situation in the EU, since the law had not been implemented into the legislature of all EU member states at that point. Since the new law was implemented into the national legislature of all EU member states unchanged, Dylan's 1962 Copyright Protection set turned out to be superfluous, legally, in the end.
Btw the UK will not change their copyright laws after leaving the EU, because they were the main driver behind Directive 2011/77/EU.

Re: New ABKCO copyright releases
Posted by: Irix ()
Date: January 7, 2023 13:55

Quote
MrEcho

The date of 1963 was not defined via Directive 2011/77/EU, but via national legislature long before 2011.

Interesting, but you wrote above:

Quote
MrEcho

According to Directive 2011/77/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2011 the situation in regard to phonograms/recordings is as follows:

Re: New ABKCO copyright releases
Posted by: MrEcho ()
Date: January 7, 2023 14:34

Quote
Irix
Quote
MrEcho

The date of 1963 was not defined via Directive 2011/77/EU, but via national legislature long before 2011.

Interesting, but you wrote above:

Quote
MrEcho

According to Directive 2011/77/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2011 the situation in regard to phonograms/recordings is as follows:

Yes, but copyright laws in the EU are a combination of EU and national laws. The protection is guaranteed by EU law, but the date before which there is no protection is defined by national laws. But as far as I know all EU member states (following the lead of the countries with the most important markets for "phonograms", Germany and the UK) have agreed upon 1963 as the cut-off date.

Re: New ABKCO copyright releases
Posted by: Irix ()
Date: January 7, 2023 15:15

Quote
MrEcho

But as far as I know all EU member states (following the lead of the countries with the most important markets for "phonograms", Germany and the UK) have agreed upon 1963 as the cut-off date.

It's not explicitly 1963, but 1st November 2013, when the 50-years rule was changed to 70 years with the implementation of EU-Directive 2011/77 into national law. In the German copyright law you can find this date and the appropriate rules in § 137m - [www.Gesetze-im-Internet.de] - (Laws on the Internet).

Re: New ABKCO copyright releases
Posted by: MrEcho ()
Date: January 7, 2023 16:15

Quote
Irix
Quote
MrEcho

But as far as I know all EU member states (following the lead of the countries with the most important markets for "phonograms", Germany and the UK) have agreed upon 1963 as the cut-off date.

It's not explicitly 1963, but 1st November 2013, when the 50-years rule was changed to 70 years with the implementation of EU-Directive 2011/77 into national law. In the German copyright law you can find this date and the appropriate rules in § 137m - [www.Gesetze-im-Internet.de] - (Laws on the Internet).

The extension of the protection from 50 to 70 years does not have anything to do with date of fixation (= recording) that defines recordings that are protected. Two different laws. In the EU everything recorded prior to 1963 is out of copyright. Anything that was out of copyright in the EU on 1st November 2013 (recordings made before 1963) remains out of copyright.
[swanturton.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-01-07 16:17 by MrEcho.

Re: New ABKCO copyright releases
Posted by: Irix ()
Date: January 7, 2023 16:36

Quote
MrEcho

The extension of the protection from 50 to 70 years does not have anything to do with date of fixation (= recording) that defines recordings that are protected.

That's not what I wrote about. I wrote about your stated 1963 date and the in the (German) copyright law written 1st November 2013.

Re: New ABKCO copyright releases
Posted by: MrEcho ()
Date: January 8, 2023 16:09

Quote
Irix
Quote
MrEcho

The extension of the protection from 50 to 70 years does not have anything to do with date of fixation (= recording) that defines recordings that are protected.

That's not what I wrote about. I wrote about your stated 1963 date and the in the (German) copyright law written 1st November 2013.

I think we both talk about the same thing. 1st November 2013 is the date the 2011 EU directive (70 year protection for recordings released in the 50 year window after fixation) was implemented in Germany.
But only recordings made in 1963 or later benefit from this protection, based on an earlier law.

Re: New ABKCO copyright releases
Posted by: retired_dog ()
Date: January 9, 2023 02:08

Quote
MrEcho
Quote
Irix
Quote
MrEcho

The extension of the protection from 50 to 70 years does not have anything to do with date of fixation (= recording) that defines recordings that are protected.

That's not what I wrote about. I wrote about your stated 1963 date and the in the (German) copyright law written 1st November 2013.

I think we both talk about the same thing. 1st November 2013 is the date the 2011 EU directive (70 year protection for recordings released in the 50 year window after fixation) was implemented in Germany.
But only recordings made in 1963 or later benefit from this protection, based on an earlier law.

According to Article 3(2) of the 2011 EU directive:

"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."

It basically says that recordings that have fallen into the public domain under the earlier directive don't benefit from the new directive.

Re: New ABKCO copyright releases
Posted by: Ricky ()
Date: December 23, 2023 23:42

Bob Dylan has done it again:

EARLIER THIS MONTH, a handful of lucky Bob Dylan fans in Europe stumbled upon a new release entitled 50th Anniversary Collection 1973 in record stores scattered across the continent. The 28-track collection consists of nothing but studio outtakes from the 1973 Pat Garrett and Billy The Kid soundtrack sessions, but it’s sent the Dylan collecting community into a frenzy. Bids are surging past the $500 mark for the few copies available on Ebay — and fans are combing the shelves of European stores in the hopes of finding one.

Fiftieth-anniversary collections like this are a December annual tradition in the rock world due to a “use it or lose it” provision in European copyrights that sends all sound recordings into the public domain if they aren’t released 50 years after their creation. Over the past decade, this has caused acts like Pink Floyd, the Rolling Stones, and Dylan to clean large caches of live recordings and studio outtakes out of their vaults to secure their copyrights. Some acts choose to dump them onto streaming services, while others opt for limited physical releases.

[www.rollingstone.com]

Why not the Stones?

Re: New ABKCO copyright releases
Posted by: Irix ()
Date: December 24, 2023 00:00

Quote
Ricky

Why not the Stones?

Do you mean the copyright preservation releases? Maybe it's already protected by the above described new EU directive / national copyright law for 70 years.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2024-01-17 17:05 by Irix.

Re: New ABKCO copyright releases
Posted by: Ricky ()
Date: December 24, 2023 00:19

Quote
Irix
Quote
Ricky

Why not the Stones?

Do you mean the copyright preservation releases? Because it's already protected by the above described new EU directive / national copyright law (70 years after the death of the last surviving author).

It seems I don't understand it: then, why does Dylan continue publishing material every Christmas?

Dylan needs to protect his 50-year-old official unreleased songs and the Stones don't...?

Re: New ABKCO copyright releases
Posted by: Irix ()
Date: December 24, 2023 00:30

Quote
Ricky

It seems I don't understand it: then, why does Dylan continue publishing material every Christmas?

Some other countries in the world have different copyright terms - [en.Wikipedia.org] . Then there's also a 50-years rule for Radio/TV broadcasts. This may explain the activities by Bob Dylan or Pink Floyd.

Goto Page: PreviousFirst...1011121314151617181920Next
Current Page: 17 of 20


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Online Users

Guests: 1771
Record Number of Users: 206 on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests: 9627 on January 2, 2024 23:10

Previous page Next page First page IORR home