For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
ds1984Quote
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.
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
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.
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 ?
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
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...
- Doxa
Quote
retired_dogQuote
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...
- 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...
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
retired_dogQuote
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...
- 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!
Quote
retired_dogQuote
treaclefingersQuote
retired_dogQuote
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...
- 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!).
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
retired_dogQuote
treaclefingersQuote
retired_dogQuote
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...
- 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!).
and that was my point, I never indicated there was anything to fear either you made a leap of illogic!
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
Quote
retired_dogQuote
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.
Quote
MrEcho
The new European copyright law from 2011 protects recordings made in 1963 or later for 70 years
Quote
IrixQuote
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] .
Quote
MrEcho
The date of 1963 was not defined via Directive 2011/77/EU, but via national legislature long before 2011.
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:
Quote
IrixQuote
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:
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.
Quote
IrixQuote
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).
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.
Quote
IrixQuote
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.
Quote
MrEchoQuote
IrixQuote
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.
Quote
Ricky
Why not the Stones?
Quote
IrixQuote
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).
Quote
Ricky
It seems I don't understand it: then, why does Dylan continue publishing material every Christmas?